On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Bob Blakely wrote: > More idiocy!
bah. > > > > > > Nor does it make her responsible. > > > > It does when the same colonial rule continues in the same way during her > > time as well. > > You do not understand responsibility. To be responsible for anything, you have to >have > control or authority over it. The Queen Mum had no control or authority over >anything of > the like. She had the privileges. By remaining silent on it, she (and all british folks of that time) implicitly take responsibility for it because they all enjoyed the benefits of it. She gets to represent the responsibility becuase she was the queen (the king does too but we arent talking about that here). Did she ever express so much as a belief that colonialism's impact might be harmful? An ordinary person's opinion might not have mattered. Hers would have. She is morally responsible. Legally, maybe not. > > > > Now whos doing what here ? I didnt attack anyone on the list personally. > > I say the queen is responsible and i say it again. Defend that if you > > must. Dont bunk the strawman. > > Again, you cannot demonstrate that the Queen Mum had any control or authority to >change > British policity. > Did any member of royal family ever say (even unofficially) that colonialism was harming the native population in places where it obviously was ? Present british folks I have met admit wrongs were done and that is enough for me. I know the british govt helped in ways it could after India became independent. But was there an admission of wrong-doing? no. What does that mean ? > > tact-schmact. If you have problems with HOW i said things, that is fine. > > I can change my "tact" if someone has a problem but address WHAT i said > > as well. > > I have a problem with your lack of understanding of responsibility. It is paticularly > obnoxous to me that you attempt to make the Queen Mum responsible for something over >which > she had no control or authority. > > She may have been Queen, but she had NO AUTHORITY. She was titled Queen because her > husband George VI was King. Rail against him if you must. The authority actually >rested > squarely with the British Parliament. You, being Indian, should know this. > England took great amounts of wealth from india (at the cost of welfare of the people there) over a long time. You say the british parliament is responsible ? Who elected them ? Whose bidding were they doing ? The people of england. The queen is part of the people of england. They all share in some of the responsibility. Why was her stand particularly important ? She was the queen. No authority or control you say ? Thats a lame excuse. She had the capacity to do something about it. She didnt. Did she ever say she should have ? No. > > > > India. People there have done wrong too (and sadly they do it more > > to each other everyday). I still hold some of them dear but I wont deny > > that they are responsible for their actions (or failure to take action). > > So there we are. You are nothing but piss and hate. Its so convenient to use insults when you dont have anything better to say. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
