Colonialism

Unfortunately, not entirely so. Check out Philippe Sands' recently published 'The Last Colony' which relates how at the end of the 1960s the whole population of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, some 1,500 people, were forcibly deported from their homes by British colonial authorities and sent off to live elsewhere. Their homes and many of their possessions were abandoned, their pets rounded up and killed. The reason for this was that Diego Garcia, the one of the largest of the Chagos, was demanded by the USA for a military airbase.

Ever since then the islanders and their descendants have been fighting to return to their home. In 2019 the International Court of Justice ruled that Britain's detachment of the islands from Mauritius, of which they formerly formed part, was illegal, as were the deportations. The UK Government continues to ignore this ruling.

Nothing to do with the late Queen, of course - but it shows that arrogant British colonialism is, regrettably, not yet entirely dead.

The Mauritius Islands were taken by the British in 1810. The Chagos Islands were part of the Mauritius colony until it was split off to a different political entity in the 1960s. The Chagos Islands were part of the British Empire before and after the split. Splitting the islands did not put another square inch of territory under British control.

Queen Elizabeth II was not on the throne in 1810 when the British took over. those islands The British government made decisions in the 1960s, not the monarch.

So no, Queen Elizabeth II did not colonize any country. Nor did her government colonize any country during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

It's not a question of 'more territory'. It's a matter of what the British did to those islands and the people who lived there, who were forcibly booted out in the worst colonial tradition - purely as a favour to the US. Also, the separation of the islands was strongly opposed by the newly-independent Mauritian government, but the British ignored their views.

Well well, so Elizabeth II wasn't on the throne in 1810? Really? Who knew?

@PhilK

"Who knew?"

I dunno - she'd been on that throne a long time, further back than even an old codger like me can remember .

Okay, I missed this from your initial post, and I see that we agree that the late queen had nothing to do with what happened there.

As for colonialism not being entirely dead, this happened roughly 60 years ago and was not the worst thing that happened in the 21st century. Can you cite something that happened in the 21st century? Otherwise, I'd say that this was less terrible than Project Condor (i.e. the US overthrowing South America governments to keep the Commies out) and many other things that happened in the 1960s, 70s, and into the 80s.

You mean 20th century, right? And of course I'd agree that far worse things have happened in the past 100 years; but one shouldn't excuse bad things by pointing to worse ones. As for citing "something that happened in the 21st century" - as I said, the UK Government ignored the ICJ's 2019 ruling that their treatment of the Chagos Islanders was wholly illegal - and they continue to do so right up to the present day.

International law is law, until it isn't. The moment one country says "I'm not accepting that" and makes it sticks is the moment that international law doesn't apply to that nation.

As for what happened, it was legal in the UK at the time, the same as hanging was. Saying that later laws should apply is close to saying that Germany should be given Prussia, or that Prussian property should be returned to its former German owners.

Personal I see the Black Hills (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_land_claim ) as being in the same league with the Chagos Islands, with the difference being that the US's highest court has agreed to the claim and the US Government has accepted that ruling.

I am so glad that this subject has been separated from its previous home. Thank you to whoever was responsible.
I have my own thoughts on this subject which I am not going to post here as I do not want to associate LSF with politics (except to the extent necessary for certain stories and aspects directly related to our shared interests).

Sorry, but it wasn't. The ICJ has made it clear that what Britain did was illegal at the time. But there's really little point in continuing this discussion since it seems you're arguing from a lack of awareness of the facts. I'd recommend that you get hold of a copy of Philip Sands' 'The Last Colony' (apart from anything else, it's very well written) and find out what really happened.

I'm not moved by appeals to legality (or illegality for that matter) all that much when it comes to geopolitics. International law has always been the will of the conqueror with a little bit of window dressing on it. Judge a country's actions by their effect on the world, not by what the UN thinks about it.

Now, that said? I think it's kind of silly how much English nationalists are losing their minds over the queen's death, but it's their culture so they can practice it however they want. I'm much *more* baffled by how much the online left seems to care about this. The British monarchy has been a rubber stamp on the democratic government for over a century at this point. Elizabeth the second was no more complicit in atrocities committed under her "reign" than most British politicians, and honestly much less than the PM's and cabinet members at the times. The worst thing you can really say about her is that she didn't use her soft power to push back against imperialism all that much (and even there she had her moments, like opposing Thatcher's support of South African apartheid). But even then, she was just an old, conservative English lady with old, conservative English lady opinions, and most of her soft power was over people who mostly agreed with her anyway.

I think a lot of people are directing their grievances with the UK as a whole at the person of Elizabeth II. On one hand, the queen is supposed to be a national figurehead (there's a reason for the royal "we" after all) so that might be appropriate. On the other hand, she was also a person, and in that light it all feels really meanspirited and petty.

I guess the only way to avoid that would be to stop treating people as living totems, but that would mean abolishing the monarchy, so we're sort of back to square one of the issue. Honestly, I feel like England's royalty is sort of an extreme case in point of what I dislike about celebrity culture in general.