JonathanCid
Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 7
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #1 |
My family heritage takes my ancestry back to Cuba, and before Cuba, Spain. Before that, well, who knows. I've done alot of thinking about monarchism, and I sometimes think that were I monarchist (I'm still a republican) I would likely support not only the restoration of monarchies, but maintaining empires based on shared language.
I say this because I've seen both the strengths and weakness of both republicanism, and monarchism. I believe that monarchism is strongest when it is free of politics - when monarchs serve all their people, and not just any particular group in the struggle for power... and by that I mean the struggle for power between socialists/communists/liberals/conservatives/reactionaries/greens, etc. but also the struggle for power between races when it comes about, between religions when it comes about, and between any other sections of the public. Special interests should have no role in a monarchy, at least not any monarchy I could feel comfortable supporting.
I've seen America repeatedly torn apart with these "culture wars". IMHO, these fights are ludicrous. When people live together, they must learn to get along with each other, and taking and giving between each other, a common culture is inevitable.
In the case of Cuba, my family has suffered to be exiled by a dictator who came to power and eventually served only a special interest group on the island - the Communists, specifically those of an authoritarian bent. Some republicans would call this a "monarchy" because Castro held practically unlimited power. If one understands monarchy to be solely about power (I've seen some who think constitutional monarchy is no monarchy at all), then yes, Fidel Castro was (his brother now is) King of Cuba in everything but name! However, if one understands the monarchy to be the embodiment and safeguard of all (and I again stress that all) a nation's people, then Castro cannot be a monarch, because he caters only to the interests of a particular segment of the population, based on their political beliefs. In the past, some monarchs have catered to particular segments of the population based on religious belief. I see these as no different - they both turn the monarchy into a political institution... if your special interest gets the monarch, your special interest gets the power, through influence. That undermines the protective nature of monarchy.
Now, Cuba in particular has been plagued by instability. And although America has been relatively stable the past 200 or so years, I fear that a day could come when the stability could perish. I like President Obama. But I know how many people would rather forcefully remove him and undermine the nation's stability. I don't think that will happen, but what may not happen today may, incumbent upon transforming circumstances, unfortunately happen in the future. What would happen then? What would be the stabilizing forces on America? I look to Cuba and think of the influence Spain has been exerting on the island, especially as of late. The other day I asked my grandparents if they would rather that Cuba be placed under Spanish rule, and they said, much to my surprise, that they would. It seems to me that people of the same language tend to have enough cultural similarities that all could be united as one nation, as one people. Language, our mode of communication, is an incredibly powerful factor in all our lives. We feel more comfortable with people who "speak our language", if you will. We use the very phrase to express a feeling of like-mindedness.
I'm a liberal. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't use force against others if you wouldn't want them to use the same force against you. If you don't want to be killed, don't kill. If you don't want to live under Sharia law, don't promote requiring others to live under Catholic law. Unite people based on what they have in common, and respect differences where people aren't causing any measurable harm to others.
Although I'm still a republican, I sometimes wonder if nations can maintain the rule of law (very important to me) and secure the rights of all when they are unstable. Think of South America, where guerillas form. Think of the things we associate with the term "banana republic." What if all of these had a stabilizing factor? Is monarchy civilization, culture, unity? Can it actually be the key to fraternity, liberty, and equality? Can it be the key to international peace?
Imagine if Elizabeth II were Queen of all the English-speaking peoples. Imagine if Juan Carlos of Spain were King of all the Spanish-speaking peoples. And so on. Empires instead of smaller nation-states.
Your thoughts?
__________________
"To be a King and wear a crown is a thing more pleasant to them that see it, than it is pleasant to them that bear it." - Queen Elizabeth I |
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,419
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #2 |
Communism is gangsterism, not ideology. The ideology is a tool gangs use on fools to gain power. Those at the top know they're only pretending, even if they always do so even to each other, even to themselves. It is power and the fruits of power that Communists seek, at first for a small clique and ultimately for one person, that person being himself for each clique member. When one person succeeds in his goal, if he manages not to be overthrown by another with similar ambitions then very often on his death or failing health he will transmit power to a family member, as has been seen in many Communist republics. This is not monarchism, it is what gang bosses do.
The loathsome polity that is Cuba is a prime example. From the beginning it has cruelly, tyrannically and murderously oppressed the Cuban people, keeping them in crushing poverty and often semi-starvation while the elite revel in luxury, imprisoning or killing those who dissent. The poverty was not so bad when Cuba was subsidised by the Soviet Union, as its prime Western Hemisphere foothold, there was money to spare to keep the people fed at least. When subsidy ceased along with the unlamented Evil Empire, the true priorities of the gangsters in power were seen.
As for people wishing the forcible overthrow of President Obama, nonsense. I don't like him, and nor do many of the people I speak to on-line on politics, who are many. Most of them dislike him quite violently, and think his administration a building catastrophe. Not a one wishes him to be removed except by the American people in the 2012 Presidential election. America has made its choice, and now has four years in which to regret it. No one thinks that during that term America should be able to change it.
Unlike plenty of Democrats I spoke to during the Bush years, who sought any means, admittedly short of actual coup, to have Bush's term ended, and if not have him tried and imprisoned after its finish, to the equal harm of American democracy. Talk by them of coup-plotting against President Obama is a lingering symptom of the same madness.
America didn't look all that stable during and around the Civil War years, which I believe fell within the last two centuries. Many people think the American system was also in danger during the Great Depression, and that whatever one may think of the second President Roosevelt his actions averted that peril from within. I'm not sure what I think myself, don't know enough about it, but it is the opinion of people I do know and whose views I respect.
Anyway, language as a basis for empire. I don't like it. I like diversity, tolerance, peoples living side by side and mingling in harmony. I don't like polities defined by one unifying characteristic, unless this is the traditions, history and culture of the state itself. States should unite all their peoples under one banner, not use that banner to separate sheep and goats. I can see why you had the thought, and am not pouring scorn; just giving my thoughts as you asked. On religious polities, see my remarks in reply to you on the Important Questions for Monarchists thread, or whatever it was called exactly. Something like that.
|
| Loading... | | |
BaronVonServers
Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 8,792
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #3 |
Her Majesty's Governments have been much kinder to her French Speaking subjects than what there own French Speaking was.
May her Majesty continue to reign over Quebec.
The Quebecos and the Amish, though very different folks give lie to the idea that a common culture is inevitable. Thank God for the fact that multiple cultures can peaceably live under one government!
One can not be a King in all but name.
If one declines that name, one is not King, if one can not obtain the name, on is at best an usurper. Mr. Castro may be a 'wannabe' like Cromwell, but he is no King, not in name, nor in 'fact'.
My French speaking Cajun kin would have nothing to do with the French republic, twice bastards that it is. A common language can be as great a gulf as it can be a unifying force.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.
Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net |
| Loading... | | |
JonathanCid
Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 7
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #4 |
Gentlemen, you are very convincing. I am happy to be on a forum with some intelligent folks. I've chucked out the language-based empire idea. Good food for thought on these forums, although I wish they were a bit more active. Hopefully we can get more people in on these discussions.
__________________
"To be a King and wear a crown is a thing more pleasant to them that see it, than it is pleasant to them that bear it." - Queen Elizabeth I |
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,419
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #5 |
By the moderator's wish, supported by most of the membership not that we are a democracy, the forum is confined to people of monarchist sympathies. Republicans like yourself who are open to monarchical ideas and interested in civil discussion are welcome; republicans who seek to attack monarchism are not. This is because we all get that everywhere, and want a haven from it here. Of course very many more people are monarchists than wish to talk about monarchism, they just are and get on with other things without thinking about it. And then many people are monarchists but wish mainly to talk about what could be called the "showbiz" aspects of monarchy.
There are places such as The Glittering Forums devoted to precisely that, with huge memberships, very active. I do not say there is no substantive discussion there, but it is buried in such an avalanche of gossip that I for one find the place wearying. What this all amounts to is that we are a somewhat self-selecting and unfortunately quite a small group, although we still manage to have a remarkable range of opinions. I would certainly like more activity too, but not at the price of the place becoming something different.
|
| Loading... | | |
Ponocrates
Registered: 01/31/09
Posts: 300
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #6 |
Peter, is there a reading list anywhere on this list for someone who wants to learn more about monarchism? I think it could be categorized into the general and the more specific: e.g., countries, periods, and etc. I think people here who are well-informed on the subject could contribute to the list. For example, what are the ten most essential books for any monarchist or for a person who wants to understand monarchism? It might make it easier for someone to get involved and to become a more informed contributor to the conversation. I'm eager to hear what anyone else thinks should be read.
Update: I thought I should add at least add a couple of entries (I don't know the specific issues that many of you know). I'll try to expand this bibliography when more come to mind.
Edmund Burke - Reflections of the Revolution in France (1790)
- for obvious reasons
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America (volume 2)
- Explanation: the second volume of DIA contrasts the Americans (democratic) and the English (aristocratic, or what we would probably call monarchistic) in a whole range of categories: e.g., view of history, literature, manners, religion, and so forth. It's an enjoyable and interesting read.
|
| Loading... | | |
Peter
Registered: 07/27/08
Posts: 2,419
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #7 |
I don't think I've read any books on monarchism, so couldn't recommend any. I've read lots of histories, and that's where most of my thinking on the subject comes from. Perhaps others will be able to make some suggestions for a monarchist's library to add to yours, but I can't, sorry. |
| Loading... | | |
Ponocrates
Registered: 01/31/09
Posts: 300
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #8 |
No worries, but I think histories would qualify. For example, books about the Romanov dynasty or about the French succession that so many people argue about. I'm sure that some historians are better than others. The two books I suggested are not specifically about monarchism (I'm not aware of any books just about monarchism), but they present a monarchist view in contrast to something else (respectively, the French and American revolutions), which is useful. Over time, it would be nice to pull together what people recommend for different subjects that pertain to this list. I'm always looking for something to add to the reading list. 
|
| Loading... | | |
royalcello
Moderator
Registered: 05/24/06
Posts: 4,064
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #9 |
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed--anarcho-capitalist rather than monarchist but still useful in attacking the widely held idea that the movement from monarchy to democracy represents genuine "Progress"
Anything by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, especially Leftism Revisited (which I haven't exactly read but have encountered excerpts from and comments about) and Monarchy and War, which I have.
For shorter works, see my Opinion pages.
Quote: Originally Posted by Ponocrates
present a monarchist view in contrast to something else ...American revolution....
James Henry Stark, The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution (available online via Google)
|
| Loading... | | |
Ponocrates
Registered: 01/31/09
Posts: 300
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #10 |
Theodore, thanks for your suggestions. I'll especially look into Kuehnelt-Leddihn and your opinion page. |
| Loading... | | |
Pachacutec
Registered: 10/07/09
Posts: 111
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #11 |
Dignified and Efficient: The British Monarchy in the 20th Century by Charles Douglas-Home. Details the workings of constitutional monarchy 'behind the scenes' in particular and the very real difference a King makes to the functioning of a state. |
| Loading... | | |
