Skip to main content

DEATH OF THE ENGLISH QUEEN AND JOHN DONNE by Bill lee


Last Thursday, like everyone in the world it seems, I read, saw and heard that the Queen of England had died. Since then, every news outlet of every type, as well as social media, has been jam packed full of stories about the Queen and of how almost all people are mourning the loss. While the general reaction has been sadness and there has been a huge outpouring of sympathy for the “Royal Family”, there have been alternative reactions. One, which I understand, is the position that the British Monarchy has a long history of Imperial and colonial crimes. In the spirit of the well known “full Disclosure”, personally, I come at my view of the British Monarchy, in part, from my Irish heritage, with various ancestors fleeing the country because of resistance to the British colonizers and the poverty, in great part caused by the British land holders who squeezed their Irish tenants and did everything they could to exterminate Irish culture and identity. The last of my ancestors to flee to Canada was a great grandmother who, as a girl of 15, survived a crossing on one of the dreaded “coffin ships” at the height of the Famine’s or the Great Hunger, in Black 47.

There are however two other aspects of my condemnation of the British Monarchy. First, the modern Monarchy is essentially part of the capitalist system of domination of the working class by the monied classes. A Facebook post by man named John Riemman reflects my views here.

I watched a little bit of CNN's coverage of the crowds streaming in to pay homage to Queen Elizabeth, who just died. They did brief interviews with some of them. They were all talking about how sad they were that she had died. Sure, the US capitalist news pumps up the British royalty, but why? Just like the ruling class anywhere in the world, the British capitalists need certain cultural traditions to legitimize their rule. It's a very visible reminder that ‘thou shall not rule by force of arms alone.

There is another related but more historical view. James Connolly, the martyred Irish revolutionary: “We confess to having more respect and honour for the raggedest child of the poorest labourer in Ireland today than for any, even the most virtuous, descendant of the long array of murderers, adulterers and madmen who have sat upon the throne of England.” I’ve been hearing, from some of my friends in the Indigenous community, echoes of this deeply held view. They, legitimately, see the British Crown as an institution which underwrote or sanctioned or legitimated the colonial oppressions and genocides that were visited upon their ancestors and experienced by them, in Canada. We all have heard, or read, similar anger from many of those living in (or from) Africa to South Asia to the Caribbean. At the same time, it would be unfortunate to allow a reasonable condemnation of the Crown, as the “official” head of government, to deflect from the fact that it was the Canadian government which was the effective author and funder of the theft of Indigenous land (Daschuck, 2013) and the horror of the residential school system (CBC News, 2021)1.

I suspect that for many, maybe most, of those who raise their voices against the monarchy (though obviously not all) that it doesn’t involve any particular personal animosity to this specific monarch, though that is not the same as feeling any particular sense of loss.

I confess that I take a somewhat different feeling, neither gladness at the death of a “monster” as I’ve read here and there or any particular feeling of loss when I hear of the death of any personage who really has no relevance to my life as a Canadian. The Queen is, after all, a figurehead, a representative of an outmoded institution that, these days, only has power as a legal fiction.

I don’t possess much notion, if any, of the nature of the “hereafter”, or whether there is an actual hereafter. From my experience however, I have come to believe that every human person has a significant and compelling sense of their life as real, and that life has true meaning and value. Not only however, do our lives have importance and meaning to us, but as social beings they have meaning and value to others. For what it’s worth, I’m a firm believer in Donne’s wise and compelling observation that, “any [person’s] death diminishes me, because I am involved in [humankind].”2 On the other hand, the Brits who care about the institution of the Crown that Elizabeth II represented, may spend time mourning this passing. It is their institution after all, and their Queen. For me, as a Canadian, I only hope the legal fiction of it being a meaningful Canadian institution disappears in our country ASAP. It will please me no end. But as to the death of Elizabeth II, I simply observe the event as one more loss of a fellow human being, like any other, and will note, not celebrate it. RIP.

Resources:
CBC News. (2021). “Your questions answered about Canada's residential school system”. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-residential-schools-kamloops-faq-1.6051632. July 1.
Daschuck, J. (2013). CLEARING THE PLAINS. DISEASE, POLITICS OF STARVATION, AND THE LOSS OF INDIGENOUS LIFE. University of Regina Press.

1 I have to admit that this point is somewhat undercut by the fact that while both the Government of Canada and the Papacy have at least delivered apologies to Indigenous people for the genocidal actions with which they have been so deeply involved, the British Crown, including the late Queen, has remained silent. 2 Here is Donnes’s beautiful poem in full. It is well worth reading: No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ANY LEFT LEFT? OR WHY I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE NDP

 By Bil Lee Prior to announcing that they would not support the Liberal budget (thus triggering an election over what was really a pretty left friendly Liberal program) the NDP in Ontario has been wasting a great deal of breath on hammering the Liberals over the "gas plant" scandal. Of course the Libs have been their old tricky and disingenuous selves in many ways and did waste a pile of money (and try to cover up how much) attempting to score some bi-election wins by cancelling the damn things. But the fact is the PC's and the NDP had both made a promise to cancel them if they got into power, so the money ws going to be wasted in any event. So it was all game playing, and pretty boring game playing actually. I am not against a solid critique of the Libs (except I continue to disagree on the utility of playing at the gas thing). My concern with role back of corporate tax breaks that Horvath has muted about as an election promise is that though I clearly support the ide...

"Marketing climate change" - interview with Terry O Riley

By: Dan Mossip-Balkwill Dan : Let’s start with emotions vs facts.  Why are emotions more powerful than facts in terms of motivation.   Terry: I don’t think facts are a good way to motivate people.  I think facts are seductive to the person with the facts.  A fact seems powerful on its own, it has a revelation or epiphany attached to it, the problem with facts is that they are not emotionally rooted.  In order to move people at all, you need to connect with them emotionally, and most facts don’t do that.  A fact sits there coldly on a piece of paper, and has no emotion attached. One example we’re always told is to chance our batteries in our fire detectors when the clock changes (daylight savings time).  It’s a wonderful fact, but nobody does it.  Getting people to change their behaviour is the toughest thing you can do.  It’s one thing to create desire for a product, but a totally different thing to change ...

RITUALS KEEP CHANGING by Tony Boonstra

It is interesting that since time immemorial people have developed rituals. Sometimes we forget the initial meaning of the ritual. Take Christmas. It was originally “the Mass being celebrated at the time of Christ's birth”. That is literally what the word means. What I found helpful is an idea I came across in my studies at McGill University years ago. One professor shared with us the difference between a sign and a symbol. A sign is literally what it says. So, when one comes to a stop sign there is only one meaning. Stop. No rolling stops allowed. The meaning of a symbol on the other hand, is the meaning that a community embraces. This can change over time as the community's values and belief systems undergo changes. In the Netherlands they celebrate Sinter Klaas-Santa Claus, on December 5. The celebration takes on much of the meaning of what Christmas is in Canada. There is goodwill, exchanges of gifts, celebrations, etc. Then Christmas is a quiet day for reflection and for C...