Harry, Megan & Piers Morgan Saga

[SS10]

Hi All,

I live in the UK and the event that dominating the news is the current situation as titled above.

Are these sort of matters simply just gossip or should we investigate further into weather the royal family is racist and what implications this has for the rest of western society..

 

[Preety_India]

 

(and yes I believe that the royal family is racist given the past record of their treatment of HRH Princess Diana.) 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Preety_India

[Megan Alecia]

Its Meghan

Just makes me a bit uncomfortable lol

[Rilles]

Can we pls just abolish the monarchy already

[Danioover9000]

@SS10

4 hours ago, SS10 said:

Hi All,

I live in the UK and the event that dominating the news is the current situation as titled above.

Are these sort of matters simply just gossip or should we investigate further into weather the royal family is racist and what implications this has for the rest of western society..

 

   What does Harry and Megan really want out of this situation? How do we know they are telling the truth, and not just leeching off of the situation?

   The royal family, at first, is obviously evil in some ways, especially in the past, yet we can't discount that Megan and Harry have their own agendas in this situation, going public and utilizing the current political climate, because Megan and Harry can't climb the ladder any higher.

   One obvious negative in all this, is that while they are stirring up drama, there would be less attention to actually investigating one of the members of the royal family, that was involved in America for allegedly dating an under aged girl, and any other alleged crimes. However, because of this drama, focus is shifted elsewhere.

   The only positive they get out of this is a growing fanbase, that they could leech off support financially if they want to start their business. If there's any positives out of this, do list them.

   On a side note, this is drama, so I'm not sure if this is appropriate for this forum, almost reported for low quality content, but let's see if there's any worth here. Also, reported for wrong sub-forum, because it's silly to post OP this is wrong sub-forum, that's why we have the report button above, to let mods know quicker. I know this is general sub-forum, but this is a political topic, so just remember OP in future that if your topic is already a specific type, post on the right sub-forum. Thanks.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Danioover9000

[Godhead]

A group of old white rich people that live in a bubble, that has profited from racism and imperialism like no other, is racist?

Big shocker! 

[Preety_India]

36 minutes ago, Godhead said:

A group of old white rich people that live in a bubble, that has profited from racism and imperialism like no other, is racist?

Big shocker! 

I know right. 

I can't believe that people don't believe mm. 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Rilles

4 hours ago, Rilles said:

Can we pls just abolish the monarchy already

   We have already, with a democratic parliament. China has also replaced theirs, but kept the architecture around for, you know, tourism and sight seeing. The UK just has a living, animated version of monarchy.

[Danioover9000]

@SS10  If you have link, that'll be great for other people to see.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@SS10  Is this the one?

 

[Forestluv]

Racism isn't binary as either 100% racist or 0% racist. There are all sorts of degrees of racism as well as how it is perceived. 

Some instances of racism are cut-and-dry, such as the Holocaust. Yet there are also much lesser degrees and nuances.

For example, Harry and Meghan said members were "concerned" about the the likely tone of Archie's skin. This can have a wide variety of orientations from the giver and perceptions of the receiver. At one extreme, "concerned" is an euphemism for blatantly racist. Someone might have a racist orientation in which they don't want a dark skinned person to ever have the title of Prince. . . Yet in another domain, "concern" could be concern about the welfare of the child if it has relatively dark skin tone. If the media treated Meghan so harshly based on skin tone, we could be concerned that the media would treat Archie harshly due to his skin tone. . . .

As well, "concerned" can also have a curiosity component. Skin tone is a multi-genic trait and from a physiological perspective, we could be curious about the distribution of melanin-producing genes between a very light-skinned person (Harry) and a moderately-toned person (Meghan). 

As well, these aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can be a mixture of having moderate racism (and using "concern" as a mask to hide their racism) and some genuine curiosity of Archie's welfare and some genuine curiosity. 

I'm not at all immersed in this story, so I have a detached view. Based on what I saw in the interview, previous behavior of the royal family and the statement from the royal family - my intuition tells me that they are conceding that there was at least some degree of insensitivity based on race. Part of this is likely due to public perception, yet my sense is that part of it is also due to some underlying truth of some racism. Yet this could be a mild degree of racism. A more extreme form of racism would have been if the royal family pressured Meghan to have an abortion because they didn't want to take the chance of having a relatively dark toned Prince in the royal family.  

People commonly use the term "racism" as a binary construct. It is much more nuanced than that. 

[soos_mite_ah]

56 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The comment about how dark Archie would come out do not shock me in the slightest. Because it is a legitimate one to ask oneself as racism is a reality to consider when it comes to power dynamics and related issues. I bet they wondered themselves how that baby would look like. Now, if it was for unjustified reasons as such as thinking this baby would be a disgrace on the family picture... we're not talking about the same matter. But I highly doubt that this was it.

I watched the interview and apparently, people were concerned about the baby's skin color and then late on they switched up the rules out of nowhere to say the baby wouldn't be considered a prince therefore meaning the baby wouldn't get security. These rules weren't there for the other children born in the royal family so i wonder what could be different this time around smh. 

It wasn't so much of the title as it was about what it meant which is a sense of safety for the kid. Considering the way Meghan was unfairly scrutinized in the press and the amount of hate she got for her race, if anything, that baby would have needed more security, not less. Plus, having the only baby to have POC genes and royal blood not having a title like everyone else is sus. Especially considering the context of traditionalism that is upheld in that circle. Considering all of those things, I wouldn't be surprised if most of it was race related. I'm unsure where the power dynamic element would come in because it looks worse to not give the baby a title. Also, he's a baby....

56 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I am more under the impression that other factors came into the consideration in the clash between them and Harry. Wills didn't seem to like much the idea of him bringing in their circle an American actress, especially not at full speed. If anything that's more snobism than anything else.

Probably was he afraid that things would get rocky due to a value mismatch, and a lack of preparation/knowledge of the institution. Being a member of this royal fam takes grooming, as it can be inherently destructive. For the Crown and for the new member.

In the interview she mentioned that she wasn't given much preparation or knowledge compared to other people who joined the royal family from the outside like Kate. I'm sure in addition to her being American, an actress, a divorcee, race is also a very important factor contributing to the snobbery though it isn't the only one. 

56 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Let's remember that they accepted this wedding pretty gracefully and went out of the comfort zone during the ceremony by embracing some strong displays of black culture. I've seen a lot of good faith.

Symbolic acceptance =/= actual acceptance. Sure that's what was broadcasted but that wasn't what was actually going on systemically. 

 

Then there is the whole thing of the royal institution not doing anything to defend Megan from the blatantly racist things she was facing and even going as far as blocking her access to mental health care when she was having suicidal thoughts. She was at the point where she felt that she was hated just for existing. I don't know much about how the royal institution works but that whole thing pretty messed up. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by soos_mite_ah

[Preety_India]

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

To be honest, I don't know whether they are a strong case of racism. Almost everyone is a bit racist as it is internalized.

Yes it is a case of the racism. It's obvious 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Let's remember that they accepted this wedding pretty gracefully and went out of the comfort zone during the ceremony by embracing some strong displays of black culture. I've seen a lot of good faith.

This means absolutely nothing. They did it for P Harry. 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Elizabeth II has been also an helpful force -within her political reach- when it came to put pressure on the most hideous racist displays in international relations (apartheid, decolonization, some imperialism ... ). 

She has been known for his classism. Best example is not lowering the Union Jack at half mast at Buckingham during Princess Diana's death. 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

But of course, her husband Prince Philip is notably known for his untasteful comments. But he's also born like in 1920. So no much surprise there.

Birth time or Era is no excuse for racism. He should know better. 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The comment about how dark Archie would come out do not shock me in the slightest. Because it is a legitimate one to ask oneself as racism is a reality to consider when it comes to power dynamics and related issues. I bet they wondered themselves how that baby would look like. Now, if it was for unjustified reasons as such as thinking this baby would be a disgrace on the family picture... we're not talking about the same matter. But I highly doubt that this was it.

How do we know that? Meghan made a Comment. Prince Harry supported it. Isn't the testimony of 2 people enough? 

The grandson of the monarchy himself confirmed it. What else is needed? 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

When it comes to other senior royals, Charles and William appear to me as rather nice chaps.

 

P William is known to have cheated on Kate numerous times. P Charles cheated on P Diana. Not nice chaps in my opinion who have absolute disregard for their wive's mental health. 

P Harry is looking like the better person in the Monarchy and he decided to leave. Should be a clue. 

 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

 

With their international background and London as a base, I highly doubt that they are racist beyond the norm. I would even say, they are most likely open-minded. But do they have blind spot? Probably so. That said, I can't blame and rage on people for their blindspot when overall their development and progress towards more equality seems to have been made.

What is racist beyond a norm? I'm curious 

 

43 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I am more under the impression that other factors came into the consideration in the clash between them and Harry. Wills didn't seem to like much the idea of him bringing in their circle an American actress, especially not at full speed. If anything that's more snobism than anything else.

Probably was he afraid that things would get rocky due to a value mismatch, and a lack of preparation/knowledge of the institution. Being a member of this royal fam takes grooming, as it can be inherently destructive. For the Crown and for the new member.

There is no justification for treating Meghan badly. P Harry can live his life on his terms. That's what P Diana wanted. 

[Opo]

8 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

 Birth time or Era is no excuse for racism. He should know better. 

Hm your position is very detached. 

Have you ever had a racist thought? 

[Arcangelo]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Racism isn't binary as either 100% racist or 0% racist.

Exactly. Every single person in the world is a racist.

 

 

Arc

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Opo said:

Hm your position is very detached. 

Have you ever had a racist thought? 

Any example? 

 

[Opo]

9 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Any example? 

 

Idn towards who is your culture racist, maybe Pakistani ppl? 

So let's say you see a Pakistani person and you assume some stereotype onto that person that your culture has for Pakistani ppl.

I'll give a specific example. Let's say you see a black person and you become conscious of your stuff and you put your hand on the purse so it doesn't get stolen. 

[Danioover9000]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Racism isn't binary as either 100% racist or 0% racist. There are all sorts of degrees of racism as well as how it is perceived. 

Some instances of racism are cut-and-dry, such as the Holocaust. Yet there are also much lesser degrees and nuances.

For example, Harry and Meghan said members were "concerned" about the the likely tone of Archie's skin. This can have a wide variety of orientations from the giver and perceptions of the receiver. At one extreme, "concerned" is an euphemism for blatantly racist. Someone might have a racist orientation in which they don't want a dark skinned person to ever have the title of Prince. . . Yet in another domain, "concern" could be concern about the welfare of the child if it has relatively dark skin tone. If the media treated Meghan so harshly based on skin tone, we could be concerned that the media would treat Archie harshly due to his skin tone. . . .

As well, "concerned" can also have a curiosity component. Skin tone is a multi-genic trait and from a physiological perspective, we could be curious about the distribution of melanin-producing genes between a very light-skinned person (Harry) and a moderately-toned person (Meghan). 

As well, these aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can be a mixture of having moderate racism (and using "concern" as a mask to hide their racism) and some genuine curiosity of Archie's welfare and some genuine curiosity. 

I'm not at all immersed in this story, so I have a detached view. Based on what I saw in the interview, previous behavior of the royal family and the statement from the royal family - my intuition tells me that they are conceding that there was at least some degree of insensitivity based on race. Part of this is likely due to public perception, yet my sense is that part of it is also due to some underlying truth of some racism. Yet this could be a mild degree of racism. A more extreme form of racism would have been if the royal family pressured Meghan to have an abortion because they didn't want to take the chance of having a relatively dark toned Prince in the royal family.  

People commonly use the term "racism" as a binary construct. It is much more nuanced than that. 

   Good points. At first, people construct racism in binary ways, but in reality it's more complicated. I hope this thread takes the high road, and not become polarizing in discussing this issue, as I'm seeing a few here getting triggered.

[Carl-Richard]

@Danioover9000 We're talking about one of the oldest institutions in the world. Just from that alone I would be surprised if it didn't harbor any bigotry. Using "stirring up drama" as a way to delegitimize someone has become way too easy these days and is a testament to the regressive aspects of internet culture.

[Preety_India]

4 hours ago, Opo said:

I'll give a specific example. Let's say you see a black person and you become conscious of your stuff and you put your hand on the purse so it doesn't get stolen. 

I never had such a feeling. Racism is a deep issue. I never remember being racist to anyone in my life. 

Not everyone thinks in racist ways.. 

In fact I was the victim of racist hate attacks several times in my life both online and offline. 

I faced a lot of racism for being Indian that I'm not comfortable talking about. 

That's why I understand how racism feels. It's a deep issue 

 

Btw, I'm not saying that you are racist but racists generally come up with this justification that "everyone is racist to some degree", it's a nice way of defeating the real issue. 

So should we stop talking about pedophilia and rape because everyone got molested at some point? 

How far do we wanna go in normalizing racism by saying that "everyone is to a degree?" 

Normalizing racism is a dangerous phenomenon and has been going on for Centuries. 

Thanks to cancel culture, people are suddenly aware of their language 

If racism exists, it should be acknowledged, accepted and then removed, the person needs to stop doing it in the future. This is not hard at all.. It's about working on one's attitude. 

There is no defense for racism. It hurts very deeply. 

If you are a white person, most likely you will not experience it, not the way non white people experience so don't try to invalidate the experiences of non white people. 

People are waking up to the horrors of racism thanks to the media. 

It is never okay to give a green signal to racism because the wounds are very deep that come from it. 

There is absolutely no victim mentality there. You feel that people blow it up because you haven't experienced it yourself. 

And even if you experienced racism, you already internalized it and normalized it which is a sign of weakness and a coping mechanism. And an absolutely horrible thing to tell other victims to internalize it. 

Racism leads to generational trauma. Remember that.