Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Charles in Charge" (NYT).
१० सप्टेंबर, २०२२
"I was raised in an Irish family baked in bitterness about British oppression. The monarchy seems like an expensive relic to me...."
"I always thought of Queen Elizabeth as an avatar of nepotism and colonialism. But as time went on, and victimhood became the fashion, I began to have a creeping admiration for her stoicism.
Then, in 2011, I covered her fraught trip to Ireland, the first by a British monarch in a century. Suddenly I understood how one small movement of her head could soothe over 800 years of bloodshed and hatred.
The Irish were skeptical at first, not wanting to be treated as subjects. Gerry Adams complained the visit was too soon. (Maybe wait another century.).... How could Queen Elizabeth move past the 1979 murder by the I.R.A. of her cousin Lord Mountbatten and his 14-year-old grandson?.... And how could the Irish move past the 1972 Bloody Sunday horror, when British forces gunned down 14 innocent civilians?
The queen spoke a phrase in perfect Gaelic and offered regret about how Britain had made Ireland suffer. She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'"
Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Charles in Charge" (NYT).
Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Charles in Charge" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Charles in Charge" (NYT)
She's waited a long time to use that pun, hasn't she?
"The queen spoke a phrase in perfect Gaelic and offered regret about how Britain had made Ireland suffer."
Which is great, but does NOT mean Britain didn't make them suffer.
In my family , once a year, we would gather to sing the old songs--
Wir fahren, wir fahren,
Wir fahren gegen Eng-eh-land!
She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'"
This is the type of wisdom that motivates most.
It is why leftists and progs hated her.
This post is directly related to the post below about another vile Democrat race hoax.
“ She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'"
Tell that to today’s Dems.
She wasn't "raised in an Irish family" She is an American. The British empire has done vastly more good than harm, and its colonies were lucky to be colonized by the Brits. I say this as a proud citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
"Bow to the past but not be bound by it. Brilliant. Truly brilliant.
Queen Elizabeth had more wisdom than 100% of the politicians beneath her, both there and here. The victimhood culture of today's world should spend a year contemplating the wisdom of that single line.
She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'"
Would that we could all do that. Every one of us. It seems like many of us prefer to strap ourselves up with anger from past deeds and ill-actions. Many seem to thrive on that anger and go nowhere without it. There are entire industries built around keeping that flame of anger alive, not only bowing to the past, but anchoring oneself to it and spreading it as many people as possible.
I can't do that. We live here- now. In the present. Every one of us can make our world what we want based on what we do today, each one of us. We can choose to be angry about the past, events that occurred by other people in other times. Or we can learn from it and move on, remembering it, but not living as if it's still going on.
BTW- the Queen's comment is what we used to refer to as 'grace'. Yes, it can seem easier to be full of grace when you live like a Queen. But it still takes a certain character to pull it off.
Compare and contrast to Biden's dark Nazi-esque hate speech where he threw half of his own nation into a basket of deplorables.
She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'
BLM - take note.
Stopped clock.
#HateLovesAbortion
Until I read Helen Andrews' book on the boomers, it hadn't really occurred to me how completely the Irish troubles were just gone. Poof. Maybe because Ulster is so poor now, they are desperate to be subsidized by whoever will take them, UK or Eire makes little difference. Not strutting around quite so much any more. But still: this was the classic Hatfield and McCoy situation for centuries. I was reading about Chaucer in 1300 something. A member of the Royal Family was sent over to do something about Ireland, and he came back boasting about his brutality, stripping the Irish of rights, etc. Long before any real Catholic vs. Protestant thing. Thatcher deserves some credit: giving Eire some kind of say in legislation passed by the Ulster parliament. And yes, by all means give the Queen credit. The non-partisanship of the Crown is supposed to be something in the bank, that can be used at difficult times. She was very good at this.
If we find that no one likes us very much, the reason may be that we are really not all that likeable.
God, you women are all just complete suckers for this Royalty schtick. Queens! Kings! Princes! It's so Duh-REEEMY! Best of all,
Princesses!
Funny that most cities that were run by Irish in the past are now being accused of institutinal racism in that past.
Maureen, how could you?
;)
Funny that most cities that were run by Irish in the past are now being accused of institutinal racism in that past.
Maureen, how could you?
;)
She said both sides needed to be 'able to bow to the past but not be bound by it.'
Still telling people what to do with the grief she caused.
"I was raised in an Irish family baked in bitterness about British oppression."
And you never suffered from oppression by their hand.
"The monarchy seems like an expensive relic to me...."
That you never paid one red cent for.
Shut up, Maureen! There is no way you can make any of this about you.
The English had a dilemma for centuries. If Ireland were freed from their rule, it would instantly become a colony of France or Spain. That would block England's trade with the world. Ireland was a victim of geography, just like Poland was.
Why didn’t “modo” comment on this episode sooner? Like maybe while the Queen was alive? Guess she kept this article in storage for use only upon Elizabeth’s death. So much easier to just pull it out of the files when needed. Dowd is a has been!
Reasonable commentary by Dowd. I share her sympathetic views about Elizabeth.....The Irish are an inventive race. They are quite capable of creating their own oppressive measures. The Magadalene laundries, those Irish Christian Brother scandals et al. had nothing to do with England. Still it must be noted that England screwed over Ireland for eight hundred years....Cromwell didn't get the ball rolling, but he inflicted the greatest harm on Ireland and did it in such a way as to keep the harm an ongoing and profitable enterprise. I don't think you can blame Cromwell on the British monarchy. I think Cromwell and his New Model Army were more like Mao and his Red Guards than like the usual colonial conquest. This is more fanciful, but perhaps they were also a bit like Wilson and his Progressives. The oppressions of the righteous are generally worse than those of the greedy. There are lots of things people won't do for money, but will enthusiastically do to serve some higher moral purpose.
Funny how these worms come out of the wood now she can’t fight back.
Compare and contrast the words of Queen Elizabeth and those who condemn…everything.
She wore a crown made from stolen riches and thought "regret" was enough.
Like Americans dealing with Bill Clinton's three rapes (Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones) waiting for people to die is the acceptable answer to some.
And you're still not allowed to mention it when they do.
The period when the British were not a monarchy didn't work out very well for the Irish either.
"its colonies were lucky to be colonized by the Brits" are you insane as well?
"its colonies were lucky to be colonized by the Brits" are you insane as well?
"its colonies were lucky to be colonized by the Brits" are you insane as well?
"its colonies were lucky to be colonized by the Brits" are you insane as well?
I found the yoking the murder of Lord Montbatten by IRA terrorists with the Sunday shooting in Northern Ireland rather odd. THe cowardly cold-blooded bombing not only killed Montbatten, it kiled an innocent Irish boy, Montbatten's aged Mother-in-law, and his grandson (age 15).
The Sunday massacre occured when the BRitish Army troops told a crowd of protesters to disperse, the Soldiers thought they'd been fired on and opened up. It was similar to the Kent State shooting in 1970.
Just another example of American Liberal/Leftists and their bizzaro sense of what's justified or criminal and what's not.
PS - People forget that the IRA tried to murder thatcher by bombing a Conservative party meeting in 1984. Five innocent people were killed and 2 left crippled for life. The bomber is still alive. Why some one didn't hunt him down and kill him is beyond me. He served 14 years on Prison. What Cucks the English are!
The Irish hatred of the Brits borders on Mental illness. They've been independent for over 100 years. Even when the Brits ruled Ireland in the 19th century, Irish MP's were seated in Parliment.
I suppose its partly because the Ireland sits on the west edge of "Europe" - they have nobody to hate except the English. All those European countries are full of ancient hatreds against their neighors. Most have two or three. The Irish only have the Fish in the Atlantic and Anglos.
OTOH, its hard to feel sympathy for the English. Their national security required control of Ireland until the mid 19th century. You couldn't have a hostile Ireland working with the Spainish/French back in the day of sail. However, once steamships came along with the industrial revolution, there was nothing to fear from a bunch of Irish Peasants. The Irish should've been cut loose in the 1850s. But globalists always have to hang on to every bit of land, even when its counter-productive.
Enough with the Queen was a hero nonsense. This person never suffered for anything her entire life. Privilege writ large. Now the UK will saddled with the nonsense known as Chuckie the Third.
Whew!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11199259/Royal-beekeeper-informed-Queens-bees-HM-died-King-Charles-new-boss.html
Irish hatred of the British is really more of an Irish-American thing these days. Most Irish have better ways to occupy their minds. Unless there is a football match on, then all teams are cheered on against the Brits.
gsspencer: The telling of the bees is important, and not just about major events like a new monarch. Bees' unwavering curiosity requires telling them the news. Or you get bees buzzing about the place, trying to find out for themselves.
Look at how the Brits are portrayed in the Bollywood action movie "RRR" (on Netflix) and tell me the empire is beloved.
For all the evil of the British Empire it was never as evil as the peoples they colonized. That is why for the most part they managed to hang on to the Empire for as long as they did.
Also why is it the people who are forever ranting about colonialism never leave and go back to where their ancestors come from? As the commenter Birkel once said " there are 3.1 million square miles in the US and 3.1 million American Indians. Everyone is squatting on some Indian's square mile". If the anti-British really mean what they say, they should leave. Today would be a good day for that.
For all the evil of the British Empire it was never as evil as the peoples they colonized. That is why for the most part they managed to hang on to the Empire for as long as they did.
Also why is it the people who are forever ranting about colonialism never leave and go back to where their ancestors come from? As the commenter Birkel once said " there are 3.1 million square miles in the US and 3.1 million American Indians. Everyone is squatting on some Indian's square mile". If the anti-British really mean what they say, they should leave. Today would be a good day for that.
This is nothing. Vietnam is our Ally versus China now after we slaughtered and poisoned millions of their civilians and combatants.
"The Sunday massacre occured when the BRitish Army troops told a crowd of protesters to disperse, the Soldiers thought they'd been fired on and opened up. It was similar to the Kent State shooting in 1970."
Claiming they "...thought they'd been fired on..." is always the go-to excuse for armed persons in uniforms to "open up," even up to today.
9/11 made all those professional Irishmen who funded the terrorist factions of the IRA from New York and Boston face up to what terrorism does. The funding from North America dried up.
"People forget that the IRA tried to murder thatcher by bombing a Conservative party meeting in 1984. Five innocent people were killed and 2 left crippled for life. The bomber is still alive.
People also forget that the Weather Underground bombed people in the United States. Then got one of theirs elected President of the United States ... leader of the Free World.
Has it dawned on you yet who won?
Hint: It wasn't ya'll.
The winning method worldwide has always been to bomb first and - if required - beg forgiveness later.
"People forget that the IRA tried to murder thatcher by bombing a Conservative party meeting in 1984. Five innocent people were killed and 2 left crippled for life. The bomber is still alive.
People also forget that the Weather Underground bombed people in the United States. Then got one of theirs elected President of the United States ... leader of the Free World.
Has it dawned on you yet who won?
Hint: It wasn't ya'll.
The winning method worldwide has always been to bomb first and - if required - beg forgiveness later.
The MSM are aflutter that Harry and Meghan showed up.
And we'll be seeing a lot more of King Charles and his favorite spaniel.
Blogger Howard said...
This is nothing. Vietnam is our Ally versus China now after we slaughtered and poisoned millions of their civilians and combatants.
Fortunately, no Americans were hurt or killed. Were you there, Howard?
My wife and I try hard not to discuss politics, even at the level of the British Monarchy. The wife is a big fan of the royal pageant; me not so much. That being said, the passage of Queen Elizabeth is not something that can be ignored, and I commented over our morning coffee that she was a remarkable woman who will be sadly missed.
We both agreed that Charles isn't likely to come close to filling her shoes. My comment was "Sure, it's mainly ceremonial, but you can still screw it up." No dispute on that.
That the Monarchy is still in place, and that it hasn't been eliminated by the political class, is largely due to Elizabeth's personal grace and class, in my humble opinion.
I have nothing at all against the Queen, may she rest in peace. But was she really important? Or was she just one more celebrity, whose "importance" comes from the fact that they appear in the news a lot?
MikeR said...
"I have nothing at all against the Queen, may she rest in peace. But was she really important?"
To the British she was. Like a tree in your yard that you grew up with. You played under it, around it. In it. And one day after you have grown you come home and find the tree has been cut down. You find that something you thought was permanent is gone. It was part of the landscape of your life and now that it is gone there is a sad sense of loss.
“Claiming they "...thought they'd been fired on..." is always the go-to excuse for armed persons in uniforms to "open up," even up to today.”
And likewise, firing on armed persons in uniform is the go to way to create the spectacle desired by those doing the covert firing. All you know is that someone is lying.
England had a bigger empire than Russia and had it longer and, like Russia, lost it fairly recently. But England is trying to peacefully reconcile with those it oppressed unlike Putin who's trying to get the Russian empire back while talking about how great it all was - for Russia, anyhow. Truth about Ireland is it was really much worse than anyone but the Irish know. For example, Spencer, the English poet, in 1596 called for a famine for the whole of Ireland like a partial famine he had seen.
"Out of every corner of the wood and glens they came creeping forth upon their hands, for their legs could not bear them; they looked Anatomies [of] death, they spake like ghosts, crying out of their graves; they did eat of the carrions, happy where they could find them, yea, and one another soon after, in so much as the very carcasses they spared not to scrape out of their graves; and if they found a plot of water-cresses or shamrocks, there they flocked as to a feast… in a short space there were none almost left, and a most populous and plentiful country suddenly left void of man or beast: yet sure in all that war, there perished not many by the sword, but all by the extremity of famine ..."
That's what he saw and he wanted more like that.
But you can't get the people of the past for what they did and if those in the present want to reconcile, I say do it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा