A beautiful piece of salmon,
but huge for two people.
Usually
Sunday dinner is family dinner around here. Other nights, different people have
different activities, and Jordan and I try to plan menus around who will be
here which night. For instance, I’m having a dinner guest tomorrow, so they are
on their own. Tuesday, Jordan has business meetings until seven, and I have
happy hour guests until six, but I’ll whip up a quiche and have it ready for a
late supper (I hope). But Sundays all four of us are here, and we cook
something special. Often Christian grills or cooks us an Asian dish
 |
| Roast salmon dinner |
Dinner
over and done with and dishes done, I’m still chewing on the people who find
themselves unable to mourn the Queen because of British colonialism. I read an
article that helped me organize my thoughts, and the similarities in history occurred
to me. Slavery is a huge blot on American history, despite book banning and
revisionists who would have us believe slaves were happy and masters were
benevolent. Now many states are forbidding teachers, librarians, etc. to talk
about it lest it make poor white kids feel guilty.
Somewhat
the same is true of British colonialism: it is a blot on the country’s history,
and like slavery, colonialism (which involved a lot of slavery) was the product
of greed and capitalism. British colonialism began at least 400 years ago;
Elizabeth II took the throne in 1953. She could do nothing to change the
history, but she did preside over the dissolution of much of the empire. Two
facts stand out: a commentator said she is guilty for the centuries of
atrocities by her family, which fails to take into account her family did not
inherit the throne until 1901 when colonialism was well established and perhaps
already fading. And she never declared war on any country—the last monarch to
do so was her father who declared war on Nazi Germany. Furthermore, Elizabeth
was a figurehead—granted a powerful one, whose opinions mattered, but she was
incapable of ordering the conflicts and atrocities that survived into the
twentieth century. Her mission seemed to be to ensure peace in her empire
I can
understand the bitterness of descendants of people who suffered immeasurably
under colonialism, but attributing it to Elizabeth, instead of to history, is
misplaced anger. Some countries that kept their ties to England because of the
Queen are now talking about republic status—that’s a good thing and perhaps
right in line with the slimmed-down monarchy that Charles talks about.
Interesting
though that some countries stayed close to Britain because of the Queen. I read
an article that suggested had she, as heir to the throne, been a male, her
reign would have been totally different. As Queen, Elizabeth never tried to be equal
with the old white men who surrounded her. She was a thoroughly feminine woman
with a lot of charm and grace, and she used those qualities daily. She was
iron-willed enough, with great knowledge of public and international affairs
and a quick wit, but it in no way diminishes her to say that she was quite
feminine. There’s perhaps a lesson there for the belligerently angry feminists
we sometimes see today. As it was, she inspired loyalty.
So I’m
back where I started: Criticize America’s history of slavery and Britain’s
colonialism, but don’t lay it all at the feet of the late Queen. Celebrate her
for what she was—a wonderful woman and diplomat, the inspiration for hundreds
of thousands. A unifying figure, not only in Britain but throughout much of the
world.
Charles
has big shoes to fill, but it appears he will take the monarchy in a different
direction in whatever time is given to him. God Save the King!
No comments:
Post a Comment