The Royal Family "occupying" Scotland and Northern Ireland is a hell of a take, and all the more notable for Colin ignoring Wales. Why does he think the Welsh should continue to be oppressed by their English overlords?
Some seemingly very valid points from Colin. You know who still won't even apologize for the harms of their colonialism is Spain. The president of Mexico was going to invite them to come celebrate the 500 year anniversary of the fall of Tenochtitlan (modern Mexico City) and asked them to apologize for the death of the indigenous population and they were offended at even being asked. One of their politicians said that Mexico should be grateful that they came and stopped the Aztecs from committing human sacrifices (ironically by murdering them and destroying their cultural artifacts). One of the major artifacts missing from Mexico is the headdress of Montezuma, a priceless artifact made entirely of green queztal feathers. It was stolen and trafficked to the Weltmuseum Wien museum in Austria, a facility with stolen artifacts from a multitude of countries. Here in Mexico City, in place of the real headdress sits a replica. There are 8 million people in Austria who might visit the museum. There are 22 million people in Mexico City who could have the right to view a cultural treasure but look at a fake instead. The museum refuses to return it because they assert (without providing expert anaylsis) that it couldn't survive the journey back to Mexico. In my 5 years of living in Mexico, I've found it to be a wonderful place with kind people who are happy to welcome you into their country and share their incredibly beautiful culture with you just like you're one of them. They deserve to have the headdress returned. Spain not apologizing is just kind of funny because they have more to benefit from relations with Mexico than al contrario. Oh, and it was Independence Day here yesterday, so I'll close with an emphatic Viva México, cabrones!!
It would be great to speak with historian Andrew Roberts as he's really be able to provide chapter and verse. Occupying Scotland?? The royal family is descended from the Stuarts of Scotland; James VI of Scotland became King of both Scotland and England (James I) after the union of the countries in 1603. So, if anything, the Scots "occupy" the English throne. Northern Ireland is Ulster the arrangement agreed by the Irish Government (Irish government led by nazi-sympathizing DeValera incidentally if we're going to be truthful) which then through political machinations claiming betrayal by Michael Collins started the Irish civil war that no one likes to discuss. Northern Ireland is nine counties where mostly Scottish protestants settled centuries ago, the descendants of whom still wish to be under British rule...and, the minute they don't, I'm sure Britain will breathe a sigh of relief. Incidentally the tories also started as a Scottish movement so, again, occupation?? Of course some would say in the US we are occupiers but, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say: "It's settled history" Move on.
Would politely disagree about the royals occupying Scotland--the wrong way round, James VI/I and all? Conduct of the Scottish parliament until Union is hardly anti-royal (e.g. King Charles of Scotland *1649*-1651). Likewise, the whole Jacobitism thing muddies waters about idea they're a put-upon colony. Scotland absolutely central to all the empire stuff--Glasgow the second city--and hardly the victim, despite excellent PR in recent decades. Scotland's 'anti-colonialist' SNP seem pretty happy to chummy up to the royals & I don't think is republicanism is a major part of the independence movement, though republicanism on the rise amongst electorate.
I liked Matt’s interview with Chris Stirewalt. Chris is an interesting person. He is a man of the right who has been open about criticizing Republican B.S. about elections and voting and provides explanation for his positions.
Giuliani: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."
Very close to "We want you, illegal immigrants, to come here", no?
(The reason I want this to be true is that I'm at my folks', and last night they had some friends over, one of whom mentioned the people sent to Martha's Vineyard and laughing at the fact that they were, apparently, eventually bussed somewhere else, and mocking the idea of sanctuary cities.)
ETA: although, the fact that it wasn't just "liberals" who supported the concept is still useful knowledge.
The Royal Family "occupying" Scotland and Northern Ireland is a hell of a take, and all the more notable for Colin ignoring Wales. Why does he think the Welsh should continue to be oppressed by their English overlords?
Some seemingly very valid points from Colin. You know who still won't even apologize for the harms of their colonialism is Spain. The president of Mexico was going to invite them to come celebrate the 500 year anniversary of the fall of Tenochtitlan (modern Mexico City) and asked them to apologize for the death of the indigenous population and they were offended at even being asked. One of their politicians said that Mexico should be grateful that they came and stopped the Aztecs from committing human sacrifices (ironically by murdering them and destroying their cultural artifacts). One of the major artifacts missing from Mexico is the headdress of Montezuma, a priceless artifact made entirely of green queztal feathers. It was stolen and trafficked to the Weltmuseum Wien museum in Austria, a facility with stolen artifacts from a multitude of countries. Here in Mexico City, in place of the real headdress sits a replica. There are 8 million people in Austria who might visit the museum. There are 22 million people in Mexico City who could have the right to view a cultural treasure but look at a fake instead. The museum refuses to return it because they assert (without providing expert anaylsis) that it couldn't survive the journey back to Mexico. In my 5 years of living in Mexico, I've found it to be a wonderful place with kind people who are happy to welcome you into their country and share their incredibly beautiful culture with you just like you're one of them. They deserve to have the headdress returned. Spain not apologizing is just kind of funny because they have more to benefit from relations with Mexico than al contrario. Oh, and it was Independence Day here yesterday, so I'll close with an emphatic Viva México, cabrones!!
It would be great to speak with historian Andrew Roberts as he's really be able to provide chapter and verse. Occupying Scotland?? The royal family is descended from the Stuarts of Scotland; James VI of Scotland became King of both Scotland and England (James I) after the union of the countries in 1603. So, if anything, the Scots "occupy" the English throne. Northern Ireland is Ulster the arrangement agreed by the Irish Government (Irish government led by nazi-sympathizing DeValera incidentally if we're going to be truthful) which then through political machinations claiming betrayal by Michael Collins started the Irish civil war that no one likes to discuss. Northern Ireland is nine counties where mostly Scottish protestants settled centuries ago, the descendants of whom still wish to be under British rule...and, the minute they don't, I'm sure Britain will breathe a sigh of relief. Incidentally the tories also started as a Scottish movement so, again, occupation?? Of course some would say in the US we are occupiers but, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say: "It's settled history" Move on.
I feel like The Smiths' Barbarism Begins at Home should be on the playlist, same as Los Lonely Boys' Heaven.
Thank you for waking my simple mind up from its depths of false consciousness Colin, however will I repay you?
Would politely disagree about the royals occupying Scotland--the wrong way round, James VI/I and all? Conduct of the Scottish parliament until Union is hardly anti-royal (e.g. King Charles of Scotland *1649*-1651). Likewise, the whole Jacobitism thing muddies waters about idea they're a put-upon colony. Scotland absolutely central to all the empire stuff--Glasgow the second city--and hardly the victim, despite excellent PR in recent decades. Scotland's 'anti-colonialist' SNP seem pretty happy to chummy up to the royals & I don't think is republicanism is a major part of the independence movement, though republicanism on the rise amongst electorate.
I just learned one of the queen’s corgis is named Muick (pronounced Mick) and I thought that was an interesting choice
No playlist of songs about the Queen is complete without this groundbreaking classic: https://youtu.be/DJU5x67Sz1o
I liked Matt’s interview with Chris Stirewalt. Chris is an interesting person. He is a man of the right who has been open about criticizing Republican B.S. about elections and voting and provides explanation for his positions.
In fairness, when independence came to a vote, the Scottish said “yeah... never mind”
Thank you Colin!
I really wanted what Welch said about Giuliani and sanctuary cities to be true (and maybe it is, and I'm misreading this), but:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3459498&page=1
Giuliani: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."
Very close to "We want you, illegal immigrants, to come here", no?
(The reason I want this to be true is that I'm at my folks', and last night they had some friends over, one of whom mentioned the people sent to Martha's Vineyard and laughing at the fact that they were, apparently, eventually bussed somewhere else, and mocking the idea of sanctuary cities.)
ETA: although, the fact that it wasn't just "liberals" who supported the concept is still useful knowledge.