How Prof Uju Anya sparked moral judgment on Queen Elizabeth II

Advertisements

A spirited African professor, an angry tweet and a debate were what upended Queen Elizabeth II’s reputation as condolences encomiums began pouring in at the announcement of her death last weekend.

It took an angry tweet from an American university professor, Uju Anya, to flip open the dark side of Queen Elizabeth II as her organs started shutting down for inevitable death. And since then, other people of courage have come open with their disdain for colonialism, slave trade and bloody influence of the queen in Africa, Asia and Americas.

In summary, all the articles from angry but candid authors reactivated uncomfortable conversations about how the British government sacrificed millions of African lives to gain access to natural resources, commoditized native population as farm implements, and displaced generations of people into foreign lands where they have no kindred communities.

Worse still, when it became clear that direct colonial rule was no longer sustainable, Queen Elizabeth’s Britain left behinds feudal political structures that continue to brew civil wars and stall development in former colonies where the queen’s business interests are still protected by governments controlled from London.

Thus while people who beneficiaries are of slave trade and colonization, including Jeff Bezos of Amazons, find Prof Anya’s anger at the queen’s era of British government, people with better education and appreciation of issues have joined in the debate to provide highly needed appraisal and condemnation of the system and individuals that brought so much pain to the world.

From condemnation to commendation, Prof Anya is beginning to emerge as an advocate of justice for exploited, enslaved and deceived victims of colonialism and their children who are lost in distant lands where they are still scorned till today as disused tools.

Without mincing words, Prof Anya had in a tweet which has been expectedly deleted wished the late queen the level of pain the victims of her imperial conquests in Africa and Asia had suffered.

The two paragraph tweet has since sparked of internet inferno which is expected to shape a subject that will soon dominate debate sessions.

Here, The Oracle Newspapers has collated some of the articles that have sprung up from Prof Anya’s tweet in across the weekend as Her Imperial Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, succumbed to death.

Ten of the articles are culled and presented you our readers as they were published.

Carnegie Mellon professor wishes Queen Elizabeth ‘excruciating pain’ as she ‘finally’ dies

A professor at Carnegie Mellon University drew criticism on social media after wishing England’s Queen Elizabeth “excruciating pain” hours before she died on Thursday.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying,” Carnegie Mellon University Professor Uju Anya tweeted on Thursday morning. “May her pain be excruciating.”

The Twitter post came as reports began to circulate that the 96-year-old monarch’s health was deteriorating and doctors were “concerned” about her condition.

The tweet, which was re-tweeted and liked over 10,000 times on Twitter in just a few hours, prompted strong pushback from many users on Twitter.

“That sentiment is pure evil,” researcher Mike Galsworthy tweeted. “Please delete as it benefits the world nothing.”

“Hi @CarnegieMellon, this your professor?” Young America’s Foundation Spokesperson Kara Zupkus tweeted.

“Who are you again?” blogger and former conservative Member of British Parliament Louise Mensch tweeted. “Oh yeah absolutely nobody trying to grift off a beloved woman people care about.”

“This is what a complete lack of emotional intelligence & a heart full of hate looks like,” British model Jemma Palmer tweeted. “Don’t be like @UjuAnya. Be a better human.”

“This is someone supposedly working to make the world better?” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos tweeted. “I don’t think so. Wow.”

Anya, listed as an associate professor of second language acquisition on the Carnegie Mellon website, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

“If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star,” Anya later tweeted.

Hours after the tweet was posted, Buckingham Palace announced that Queen Elizabeth has died.

“The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon,” the royal family shared on its website. “The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.”

Carnegie Mellon University did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital but posted a message on social media regarding the controversy.

“We do not condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social media account,” the university posted on Twitter. “Free expression is core to the mission of higher education, however, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.”

Professor wished for queen’s death to be ‘excruciating,’ drawing ire from university

Hours before Queen Elizabeth II died after 70 years reigning over the United Kingdom, a professor in Pennsylvania wished her an “excruciating” death.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying,” tweeted Uju Anya, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. “May her pain be excruciating.”

While millions mourned the death of Queen Elizabeth II, others like Anya treated news of her passing with a different reaction. Many people from countries in Africa and the Caribbean expressed negative feelings toward the queen, citing the British empire colonizing countries with violence.

Maya Jasanoff, a Harvard University history professor, wrote in The New York Times that “we may never learn what the queen did or did not know about the crimes committed in her name.”

Anya’s mother was born in Trinidad and her father is from Nigeria, according to NBC News. She told the publication her view on the queen was largely shaped by the “suffering of her parents” during the Nigerian Civil War, which came after the country was decolonized.

“In addition to the colonization on the side of Nigeria, there’s also the human enslavement in the Caribbean,” she told NBC News. “So there’s a direct lineage that I have to not just people who were colonized, but also people who were enslaved by the British.”

Zoé Samudzi, an assistant professor of photography at the Rhode Island School of Design, had a similar feeling as Anya. She said in a tweet before Queen Elizabeth’s death that she would “dance on the graves of every member of the royal family if given the opportunity, especially hers.”

Twitter deleted the post from Anya, but she doubled down in several subsequent tweets.

Many Twitter users, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, criticized the comments by Anya, who is an associate professor of second language acquisition at Carnegie Mellon.

Carnegie Mellon later condemned Anya’s post, but did not say if the professor will face any disciplinary action.

“We do not condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social media account,” the statement from the university read. “Free expression is core to the mission of higher education, however, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression urged the university to “resist public pressure” and not punish Anya for her remarks.

“Anya’s speech is clearly protected by CMU’s free expression promises, which are in line with the First Amendment,” the foundation said. “CMU may, of course, exercise its own expressive right to criticize Anya’s speech — as it has done. However, it may not investigate or punish Anya for simply expressing her opinion.”

Anya’s remarks have also been met with support, including from one Twitter user who said she is “saying everything you are scared to say.”

The Professor Who Caused An Uproar By Wishing The Queen “Excruciating” Pain On Twitter Is Defending Her Position

Uju Anya, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who sparked backlash after her tweet wishing Queen Elizabeth II “excruciating” pain went viral, is defending her position, saying in a statement that “I stand by what I said.”

As news of the Queen’s failing health emerged on Thursday hours before her death was announced, Anya tweeted her response. “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying,” Anya said in the now-removed tweet. “May her pain be excruciating.”

The cause of Queen Elizabeth II’s death on Thursday has yet to be disclosed as the UK undergoes a period of mourning and transition as King Charles III takes the throne.

Many criticized Anya for lacking empathy toward the Queen and Royal Family, including none other than Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who quote-tweeted her on Thursday, saying: “This is someone supposedly working to make the world better? I don’t think so. Wow.”

Bezos’ involvement pushed the tweet into a new level of visibility. In response, Carnegie Mellon tweeted a statement calling Anya’s statement “offensive and objectionable,” and Twitter removed her original comment, saying it had violated the platform’s rules. On Friday, Anya told The Cut her email inbox was flooded with hateful messages, with subject lines that “all start with the N-word, bitch, genetically inferior.”

But Anya continued to defend her beliefs. “There’s not going to be any apology from me,” she said on Friday. “I stand by what I said.” On social media, she has retweeted more posts discussing the horrific impacts of British colonization.

Others came to Anya’s defense, and specifically called out Jeff Bezos for picking out her tweet. One user found a post of Anya with Chris Smalls, one of the core organizers and founders of the Amazon Labor Union. “I have been wondering, why Prof Anya was selected by Jeff Bezos,” they wrote. “This is why.” Some pointed out that Carnegie Mellon had previously accepted a $2 million donation from Amazon.“I already got my tweets lined up for you when you go,” one told Jeff Bezos. The tweet ratioed Bezos’ in the process.

Meanwhile, Anya doubled down on her stance.

‘The View’: Sunny Hostin Says The Queen “Wore A Crown With Pillaged Stones From India And Africa”

“I think though we can mourn the Queen and not the empire,” said Sunny Hostin on The View today.

Hostin’s assertion came in response to a story from Joy Behar about her time doing standup in the U.K., where she said jokes about the Queen did not go over well.

Hostin said that, having lived in the U.K., she herself got caught up in the “pomp and circumstances” surrounding the monarchy.

She offered a more critical take.

“Because if you really think about what the monarchy was built on,” she continued, “it was built on the backs of Black and brown people.”

The View co-host held up the crown itself as an example.

“She [the Queen] wore a crown with pillaged stones from India and Africa,” said Hostin. “And now what you’re seeing, at least in the Black communities that I’m a part of, they want reparations.”

The conversation comes on the heels of a controversial tweet from a Carnegie Mellon professor wishing Queen Elizabeth II “excruciating” pain in her final hours.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating,” tweeted Uju Anya, whose parents both came from countries under British colonial rule.

Jeff Bezos raised the profile of her post by questioning its purpose and tone. The tweet was later taken down for violating Twitter’s content policies.

Carnegie Mellon called its professor’s tweet “offensive and objectionable” and indicated it did not “represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.”

But Hostin saw Anya’s tweet — apart from wishing pain on the Queen — as simple fact.

“There isn’t a lie in the rest of that tweet,” she countered. “It was a thieving, raping, genocidal empire.”

Referring to (now) King Charles, Hostin continued, “It’s time for him to modernize this monarchy and it’s time for him to provide reparations to all of those colonies.”

She also offered that Charles “could address the accusations of racism by his son and Meghan Markle, as well.”

Charles’ succession stirs Caribbean calls for reparations, removal of monarch as head of state

The accession of King Charles to the British throne has stirred renewed calls from politicians and activists for former colonies in the Caribbean to remove the monarch as their head of state and for Britain to pay slavery reparations.

Charles succeeds his mother, Queen Elizabeth, who ruled for 70 years and died on Thursday afternoon.

The prime minister of Jamaica said his country would mourn Elizabeth, and his counterpart in Antigua and Barbuda ordered flags to half-staff until the day of her burial.

But in some quarters there are doubts about the role a distant monarch should play in the 21st century. Earlier this year, some Commonwealth leaders expressed unease at a summit in Kigali, Rwanda, about the passage of leadership of the 56-nation club from Elizabeth to Charles.

And an eight-day tour in March by now heir-to-the-throne Prince William and his wife, Kate, to Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas was marked by calls for reparation payments and an apology for slavery.

“As the role of the monarchy changes, we expect this can be an opportunity to advance discussions of reparations for our region,” Niambi Hall-Campbell, a 44-year-old academic who chairs the Bahamas National Reparations Committee, said Thursday.

Hall-Campbell sent condolences to the Queen’s family and noted Charles’ acknowledgment of the “appalling atrocity of slavery” at a ceremony last year marking the end of British rule as Barbados became a republic.

She said she hopes Charles would lead in a way reflecting the “justice required of the times. And that justice is reparatory justice.”

More than 10 million Africans were shackled into the Atlantic slave trade by European nations between the 15th and 19th centuries. Those who survived the brutal voyage were forced to labor on plantations in the Caribbean and the Americas.

Jamaican reparations advocate Rosalea Hamilton said Charles’ comments at the Kigali conference about his personal sorrow over slavery offered “some degree of hope that he will learn from the history, understand the painful impact that many nations have endured ’til today” and address the need for reparations.

The new king did not mention reparations in the Kigali speech.

The Advocates Network, which Hamilton coordinates, published an open letter calling for “apologies and reparations” during William and Kate’s visit.

The Queen’s grandchildren have the chance to lead the reparations conversation, Hamilton added.

Jamaica’s government last year announced plans to ask Britain for compensation for forcibly transporting an estimated 600,000 Africans to work on sugar cane and banana plantations that created fortunes for British slave holders.

“Whoever will take over the position should be asked to allow the royal family to pay African people reparations,” said David Denny, general secretary of the Caribbean Movement for Peace and Integration, from Barbados.

“We should all work towards removing the royal family as head of state of our nations,” he said.

Jamaica has signaled it may soon follow Barbados in ditching royal rule. Both remain members of the Commonwealth.

An August survey showed 56% of Jamaicans favor removing the British monarch as the head of state.

Mikael Phillips, an opposition member of Jamaica’s parliament, in 2020 filed a motion backing the removal.

“I am hoping as the prime minister had said in one of his expressions, that he would move faster when there is a new monarch in place,” Phillips said on Thursday.

Allen Chastanet, a former St. Lucia prime minister and now leader of the opposition, told Reuters he backed what he said was a “general” movement toward republicanism in his country.

“I certainly at this point would support becoming a republic,” he said.

After Queen Elizabeth II’s Death, Many Indians Are Demanding the Return of the Kohinoor Diamond

Shortly after British monarch Queen Elizabeth II passed away on Sept. 8, the word “Kohinoor” began trending on Indian Twitter.

It was a reference to one of the world’s most famous gems. The Kohinoor diamond is just one of 2,800 stones set in the crown made for Elizabeth’s mother, known as the Queen Mother—but the 105-carat oval-shaped brilliant is the proverbial jewel in the crown.

In India, it is notorious for the way in which it was acquired by the British.

When it was mined in what is now modern-day Andhra Pradesh, during the Kakatiyan dynasty of the 12th-14th centuries, it was believed to have been 793 carats uncut. The earliest record of its possession puts it in the hands of Moguls in the 16th century. Then the Persians seized it, and then the Afghans.

The Sikh Maharajah, Ranjit Singh, brought it back to India after taking it from Afghan leader Shah Shujah Durrani. It was then acquired by the British during the annexation of Punjab. The East India Company got hold of the stone in the late 1840s, after forcing the 10-year-old Maharajah Dunjeep Singh to surrender his lands and possessions.

The company then presented the gem to Queen Victoria. Prince Albert, her consort, asked for it to be recut and it was set in the crowns of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary before being placed in the Queen Mother’s crown in 1937.

The Queen Mother wore part of the crown at her daughter’s coronation in 1953. The Kohinoor has been among the British crown jewels since then, but governments in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India have all laid claim to the diamond.

The crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, containing the famous Kohinoor diamond, pictured on April 19, 1994.<span class=”copyright”>Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images</span>

The crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, containing the famous Kohinoor diamond, pictured on April 19, 1994.Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images

While no plans for the future of the gem have been disclosed, the prospect of it remaining in the U.K. has prompted many Twitter users in India to demand its return.

“If the King is not going to wear Kohinoor, give it back,” wrote one.

Another said the diamond “was stolen” by the British, who “created wealth” from “death,” “famine” and “looting.”

It is not the first time that the diamond’s return has been sought. Upon India’s independence in 1947, the government asked for the diamond back. India made another demand in the year of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation. These demands fell on deaf ears, with the U.K. arguing that there are no legal grounds for the Kohinoor’s restitution to India.

British-Indian author and political commentator Saurav Dutt says the chances of the U.K. returning the jewel are slim.

True, the British recently facilitated the return of the Benin Bronzes—72 artifacts looted by British soldiers in the 19th century—to the Nigerian government. But Dutt says the British royal establishment is still “married to this romantic version of empire, even though it is long dead, and has lost its power.” The Kohinoor is a symbol of that power, Dutt argues, and in turning it over, he believes the Royals “would essentially be eviscerating themselves.”

At the very least, King Charles III must acknowledge the “black history” of the Kohinoor diamond, Dutt says.

“A recognition of the fact that it was obtained through stealth and deception would be a significant step at this stage, that lays the groundwork for the next generation to be able to give it back,” he tells TIME.

Many Indians may not have that patience. In the wake of the Queen’s death, there is only one demand on Indian Twitter: “Now can we get our #Kohinoor back?”

Queen Elizabeth’s death revives criticism of Britain’s legacy of colonialism

As the death Thursday of Queen Elizabeth II prompted an outpouring of grief from millions across the world, it also revived criticism of her legacy, highlighting the complicated feelings of those who saw her as a symbol of the British colonial empire — an institution that enriched itself through violence, theft and oppression.

Her tweet had been retweeted more than 10,000 times and had garnered nearly 38,000 likes by Thursday evening.

In an interview Thursday, Anya, 46, said that she is “a child of colonization” — her mother was born in Trinidad and her father in Nigeria. They met in England in the 1950s as colonial subjects who were sent there for university. They married there and moved to Nigeria together.

“In addition to the colonization on the side of Nigeria, there’s also the human enslavement in the Caribbean,” she said. “So there’s a direct lineage that I have to not just people who were colonized, but also people who were enslaved by the British.”

While Elizabeth ruled as Britain navigated a post-colonial era, she still bore a connection to its colonial past, which was rooted in racism and violence against Asian and African colonies. There have been growing calls in recent years for the monarchy to confront its colonial past.

Zoé Samudzi, a Zimbabwean American writer and an assistant professor of photography at the Rhode Island School of Design, wrote on Twitter: “As the first generation of my family not born in a British colony, I would dance on the graves of every member of the royal family if given the opportunity, especially hers.” She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Matthew Smith, a professor of history at University College London who directs the Center for the Study of the Legacies of British Slave-ownership, said: “The reactions indicate the complicated and mixed relationship that people have had with the British monarchy, people in the Commonwealth and particularly in the Caribbean.

“I think when people voice those views, they’re not thinking specifically about Queen Elizabeth,” Smith said in a telephone interview from London. “They’re thinking about the British monarchy as an institution and the relationship of the monarchy to systems of oppression, repression and forced extraction of labor, and particularly African labor, and exploitation of natural resources and forcing systems of control in these places. That’s what they’re often responding to. And that’s a system that exists beyond the person of Queen Elizabeth.”

The queen died less than a year after Barbados removed her as its head of state and became a republic, a move born, in part, from growing criticism of the monarchy among Caribbean countries. Others, including Jamaica, have hinted at declaring their independence.

Smith, who was born in Jamaica, where he has spent most of his life, said some people in the Caribbean are deeply mourning the queen’s death, particularly older generations who might have memories of seeing her on one of her visits to the islands.

Some of what endeared Caribbeans to the queen was that she carried out her role in a way that seemed quite a contrast to how people understood British monarchs, Smith said, adding that her personality and the fact that she was a woman also distinguished her. “She did not look like historical monarchs,” and she “came to the crown young,” he said.

But Anya said that her perspective on the queen has been shaped largely by Britain’s role in the suffering of her parents and many others during the Nigerian Civil War that followed the nation’s decolonization in 1960.

Her family was displaced in the war and some of her relatives were killed. Her parents, siblings and extended family “suffered tremendous trauma,” she said.

“I take deep offense at the notion that the oppressed and survivors of violence have to somehow be deferential or respectful when their oppressors die,” Anya said. The crown, she said, continues to “meddle in African affairs” and oppress.

“There are people literally around the world, rejoicing at this woman’s death, not because they’re vile or cold but because her reign and the reign of her monarchy by extension was violent,” Anya said.

She said she hopes that her commentary on Twitter prompts people to research the Nigerian Civil War.

Hours before the royal family announced the queen’s death, Ebony Thomas, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Education, cautioned against policing how people reacted to the announcement from Buckingham Palace that Elizabeth had been placed under medical supervision and that her doctors were “concerned” about her health.

“Telling the colonized how they should feel about their colonizer’s health and wellness is like telling my people that we ought to worship the Confederacy,” Thomas tweeted. “‘Respect the dead’ when we’re all writing these Tweets *in English.* How’d that happen, hm? We just chose this language?” Her tweet was liked more than 25,000 times, but she also faced some criticism.

Thomas declined a request for an interview. She later defended her position in a series of tweets.

“I made these observations before the official announcement,” she wrote, adding that her original tweet was made in solidarity with colonized people worldwide. She also said she was neither dancing on anyone’s grave nor policing anyone’s emotions.

Mixed feelings among some in Africa for Queen Elizabeth

As condolences poured in from around the world after Queen Elizabeth’s death, there were mixed feelings among some Africans about the monarch and her country’s colonial legacy on a continent where Britain once ruled more than half the territory.

Some had fond memories of Britain’s longest serving monarch — who came to smile and wave at crowds in 20 countries across the continent during her 70-year reign.

Others however have retained anger at British colonial times and recalled things like the brutal 1950s crushing of Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion as the sun set on Britain’s empire, and a huge diamond the British royal family acquired from colonial South Africa in 1905, which the queen never returned despite calls to do so.

Elizabeth was just 25 and on a visit to Kenya with her husband Philip when she learned of her father King George VI’s death and her accession to the throne on Feb. 6, 1952.

She was to return many times to Africa as queen.

“When the queen visited Uganda in 1954, I was a young boy in primary school. She was a young and small woman who looked very humble. She was very admirable and smiling,” Vincent Rwosire, an 84-year-old retired postal worker, told Reuters.

“We could not believe that such a young woman could have so much power,” he said by phone from Mbarara, western Uganda.

Ghana’s President Nana Akufo-Addo, whose country the queen visited in 1961, four years after it became one of the first African countries to get independence, lowered flags and said Ghana was proud to be part of the Commonwealth of nations.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, whose first name means freedom in Swahili and whose country gained independence in 1963, called her “a towering icon of selfless service”.

‘THEY OCCUPIED MY LAND’

Many were less enthusiastic about celebrating the life of a monarch whose country has a chequered history in Africa — like 98-year-old Kenyan Gitu Wa Kahengeri, who was 17 when he joined the Mau Mau rebellion against British rule.

“They occupied my land; my birthright,” he said, twirling a black cane at his home in Thika as he recalled being detained in a camp by British forces, beaten and denied food.

“But we are mourning (the) queen because (she) is a person. A human being,” he said. “We are sorry for people to die.”

South Africa’s Marxist opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters, said: “We do not mourn the death of Elizabeth”.

“Our interaction with Britain has been one of pain, … death and dispossession, and of the dehumanisation of the African people,” it said, listing atrocities committed by British forces in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Despite this view of her, Elizabeth forged a close relationship with late South African leader Nelson Mandela, the first post-apartheid president, and visited South Africa twice after the end of white minority rule.

She was an enthusiastic advocate for the Commonwealth of 56 nations, most of them former British colonies.

Some Nigerians recalled Britain’s support in the 1960s for a military dictatorship that crushed the Biafra rebellion in the east of the country. Igbo officers launched the rebellion in 1967, triggering a three-year civil war that killed more than 1 million people, mostly from famine.

Uju Anya, an Igbo professor who is now living in the United States, sparked controversy when she wrote on Twitter late on Thursday of her “disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome”.

Her comments were “liked” 67,000 times, but her Carnegie Mellon University distanced itself from her messages, which the university called in a statement “offensive and objectionable”.

Britain’s monarchy plays a largely figurehead role, so while the queen formally appointed prime ministers and held regular meetings with them, she did not make policy.

Meanwhile, the accession of King Charles to the throne has stirred renewed calls from politicians and activists for former colonies in the Caribbean to remove the monarch as their head of state and for Britain to pay slavery reparations.

The Queen Represented Racist Violence As Much As She Did Glamour

I don’t know why people get sad when someone famous, old, and comfortable finally dies. It just doesn’t strike me as that devastating; death is the ultimate retirement, and I’ve been trying to be idle since the minute I was born. But on Sept. 8 at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, at 96, Queen Elizabeth II died. She had a long, well-documented, dutiful life: She was the eighth Queen of England, a thorn in the sides of several nonwhite countries for seven decades, and, of course, the reason why immigrant mothers like my own defended Princess Diana so fiercely. The internet appears deeply divided between people dunking on her (myself included) and people mourning someone whose best quality was how much she loved corgis. (Those tweets are also pretty funny but clearly not intentionally so.)

I don’t care that the Queen is dead. She had a good run and I didn’t know her, so why should I waste the six tears I am allotted per year on a stranger? The only reason I’m here is because I delight in upsetting Europeans, a long-held tradition for nonwhite Canadians for at least a century and a half. (Have you ever confused a shepherd’s pie and a chicken pot pie in front of a white person? You should. It turns into a whole thing.) But I struggle with the fact that so many people are actively devastated about her death. We are sure to enter at least a week of celebrations of her very long life, but…why?

Her wealth and influence persisted entirely because of colonialism.

Queen Elizabeth’s death, unlike those of other famous older women, signals almost nothing at all for the day-to-day lives of people around the world; it might mean some changes for how we view the monarchy, but politically, her death is a nonevent. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death meant that Roe v. Wade would certainly be overturned (and boy were we right). Queer activist Urvashi Vaid died earlier this spring, a loss to several civil rights movements, from healthcare justice to anti-war efforts. When activist and writer Barbara Ehrenreich died at the beginning of the month, it meant one fewer voice of reason in the public discourse of socialism, feminism, and community.

Queen Elizabeth’s death, conversely, means nothing other than that she opted not to be cryogenically frozen in order to be brought back during the next fall of civilization so she can take more jewels that never belonged to her or her family in the first place.

Do I sound bitter? I do not care. There’s something uniquely pitiful about mourning a woman who has been running an organization notorious for its genocidal tendencies. In the short time since her death, some people have argued that you can mourn the individual without mourning the empire. This, as far as I, a brown person, am concerned, is impossible, because Queen Elizabeth didn’t just profit from the pillaging and racial evisceration her lineage propagated since the beginning of British civilization; she was an active participant. Ultimately, her entire existence was buoyed by the atrocities of her family’s past; her wealth and influence persisted entirely because of colonialism.

I know it’s nice to rewrite history, to present Queen Elizabeth as a softer member of the monarchy. But it’s not like she wasn’t alive during colonialism guided by British exceptionalism or the political unrest it caused (and continues to cause). People who were children when the British ruled their countries are still alive; it was just under a year ago that Barbados removed her as its head of state. Countries like India and Pakistan continue to wrestle with the economic, geographic, and cultural impacts of British colonialism, while others, like Saint Kitts and Nevis, have only recently gained true independence after centuries of meddling from the royals.

There are many photos and videos of the Queen visiting her former colonies, with locals fawning over her as if her legacy isn’t a part of what hurled their countries into upheaval in the first place. I find that coverage creepy, like photos of a prison warden walking the grounds, the inmates grateful to be in the presence of such disproportionate wealth and ambivalence. Why did she keep coming back to India, to Canada, to Ghana? To remind everyone that she still could, that her reach would always extend to their shores?

Nations impacted by the British Empire struggle to own their histories; they’re simply stopovers in the long march of imperialism. The empire didn’t grow organically. Their riches were stolen in the form of labor from enslaved people, pilfered bijous, and of course, tea. Elizabeth could have given any of the wealth back. She could have cemented herself as the royal who redistributed what was taken. She didn’t, though, and that wasn’t by mistake.

What global value do you have if your relevancy is tied entirely to what your family has stolen?

Don’t get me wrong; the Queen was certainly historically significant. The royals have always thought they knew how to run countries better than the native populations did; she followed in these footsteps. She had parties where people showed up wearing blackface brooches. She was a walking, living piece of undeniable history. It’s not like anyone was going to, or will, cancel the Queen; she was too fundamental to England and the Commonwealth. Even Canada is still obsessed with her, and we formally cut ourselves off from the royal teat in the late ’70s. We still have a representative of the monarchy in the federal government! She’s still featured on our comically green $20 bills! No wonder everyone else in the UN makes fun of us.

Yet by the end of her life, the Queen had almost no tangible political power. As colonialism became less popular, her influence waned as well. Are you actually powerful if that power comes only through destruction? What global value do you have if your relevancy is tied entirely to what your family has stolen?

Most of us can agree symbols are important. That doesn’t mean we need to mourn when those historical figures take their last gasps. Swastikas are an indisputable part of European history, but most of us agree we don’t need to keep them around in order to remember the Holocaust. (Another thing white people took from Hindus, but, whatever, one enormous trespass at a time I guess.) You can go to all the Jubilees and celebrate all the sesquicentennials you want (a fun word that the Canadian government made all of us learn in 2017 that has never been useful since), but the British Empire has a long, well-documented history of racist violence. The Queen, ultimately, is a symbol of destruction in the same way she’s a symbol of glamour and wealth and history. That’s an unforgettable reality for most of us, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to celebrate it, either.

And frankly, the empire’s history of racism isn’t even that far back in the past. Even the treatment of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, within both the family and the firm made it clear the monarchy learned very little. British tabloids are brutal, but they would’ve easily bent at the knee had the Queen told them to stop ritualistically harassing the only nonwhite member of her entire lineage. Instead, she toed the party line. Timid in your 90s? What’s the point?

If you’re sad about the Queen, no matter your nationality, it requires some deep introspection. What are you sad about?

And yet, celebrities like Liz Phair and Paris Hilton (what??) are out here praising her for being the “original girl boss” icon, for not taking shit from men while, let’s say, British soldiers tortured and killed thousands of Kenyans in the ’50s. We’re only just beginning to understand the abuses coming from the British Empire; documents that were thought to be “lost” but resurfaced in 2011 reveal so much barbarity. While she was alive, the Queen never apologized for these crimes done in her name. As the head of the firm, she never even acknowledged England’s grisly history.

I’ve been visiting family in Canada for the last two weeks, perfect timing to be visiting the Commonwealth. My parents are from India; they’re native Kashmiris, a community still reeling from the effects of Partition. My dad was born three years after the British decided to leave, and as such, the Queen hasn’t exactly been held in high esteem by my family. When my dad found out that she died, he barely reacted — if anyone should care, it should perhaps be an Indian Canadian with a Napoleon complex who likes gilded chairs and unyielding allegiance to a cause. Instead, he grumbled how she should posthumously return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India. “I know she won’t,” he admitted, resigned, while sucking down some falooda. He’s right — apparently, the diamond will go to Camilla, because I guess the royals want my dad to have a heart attack and for my mom to scream at me for a fortnight about why white women don’t even look good in flashy jewelry in the first place.

If you’re sad about the Queen, no matter your nationality, it requires some deep introspection. What are you sad about? What do you feel like we lost? A piece of history already so thoroughly documented? A reminder of what imperialism looked like back when whiteness, wealth, and European domination were even more pronounced than it currently is? Is it nostalgia for a time when things were easier — for you? The monarchy is defunct, its members are institutionally powerless, and now the Queen is dead. The world is moving on past what the monarchy gave us or, rather, what the monarchy took. Diana’s gone, Meghan’s making podcasts in Palo Alto, and you want me to feel sad that the Queen died? Pass. Save your tears for something that matters.

Why some people are refusing to mourn Queen Elizabeth

During a soccer match at Tallaght Stadium in Dublin, Ireland, on Thursday night — just hours after the death of Queen Elizabeth II — the crowd broke into song.

“Lizzy’s in a box, in a box, Lizzy’s in a box!” they sang.

The death of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch at age 96 was met with an outpouring of tributes from people around the world mourning her passing.

But critics of the crown were quick to point out the royal family’s role in the subjugation of people in countries formerly controlled by Britain, including Ireland, India and Nigeria — sparking an online debate over the monarchy itself.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating,” Uju Anya, associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, wrote in a tweet after Buckingham Palace announced that the queen’s doctors were concerned about her health.

The tweet was removed by Twitter for violating the platform’s rules, and the school released a statement saying Anya’s views “absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.”

There are plenty of people, however, who share similar views.

“The matriarch of a royal family legacy of slave-trading, imperialism, colonialism, theft, symbol of opulence and mascot for the ruling class is dead,” the rapper and film director Boots Riley tweeted.

On Thursday afternoon, CNN international correspondent Larry Madowo delivered a live report from Kenya, calling attention to the reality that the queen was not universally loved.

“Across the African continent, there have been people who are saying, ‘We will not mourn for Queen Elizabeth because my ancestors suffered great atrocities under her people,’” Madowo said. “And she never fully acknowledged that.”

The Economic Freedom Fighters, an activist group in South Africa, posted a lengthy statement to Twitter explaining why it would not be mourning the queen.

“We do not mourn the death of Elizabeth, because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history,” the statement said. “During her 70-year reign as Queen, she never once acknowledged the atrocities that her family inflicted on native people that Britain invaded across the world.

“The British royal family stands on the shoulders of millions of slaves who were shipped away from the continent to serve the interests of racist white capital accumulation,” it added. “If there is really life and justice after death, may Elizabeth and her ancestors get what they deserve.”

For longtime royal watchers, some of the criticism of the queen and monarchy is justified — and some is unfair.

“We can’t and shouldn’t deny the actions of history,” Myko Clelland, an expert on British royalty and director of content for MyHeritage.com, told Yahoo News. “But the modern constitutional role of monarchy being separated from politics, and acting only on the instruction of the government of the day, means that we have to look to other people, people who have their hands on the levers of power, to examine who was responsible for those decisions.”

The queen presided over the transition of the British Empire into the Commonwealth and the modernization of the monarchy — one that is “remarkably capable of hearing public sentiment and adapting,” Clelland said.

“Queen Elizabeth lived through tumultuous times,” he said. “She did not intervene as the Empire became the Commonwealth, and nations decided to take control of their own affairs. Centuries before, we may have seen different actions.”

And the queen did acknowledge some of the abuses that predated her reign.

In 1986, amid a groundswell of global opposition to apartheid in South Africa, she was reportedly angry at British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she refused to go along with sanctions.

In 2011, when Queen Elizabeth made history as the first monarch to travel to Ireland since its independence from Britain in 1922, she addressed their shared, painful past.

“To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past, I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy,” she said in a speech at Dublin Castle. “With the benefit of historical hindsight, we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all.”

The following year, the queen made headlines when she shook hands with Martin McGuinness, a former commander of the Irish Republican Army who had become deputy first minister of Northern Ireland. The IRA, a paramilitary group that waged a terrorist campaign to drive British forces from Northern Ireland, assassinated the queen’s cousin, Lord Mountbatten, in 1979.

“We can only judge her on her own choices,” Clelland added. “And the response to those choices is seen perhaps most effectively by the immense outpouring of respect and grief we are now seeing around the world.”

But even in England, some critics of the crown are frustrated by all the adulation.

“The royals seem to be adored by so many, and at times like this, I find it a bit frustrating when so many are suffering, and those in power don’t appear to care about that,” Mo Varley, a teacher in Sheffield, England, told the New York Times. “I don’t think you can have a family paid for by the state be free of scrutiny.”

The queen’s death also comes as a growing number of British territories in the Caribbean have replaced, or are seeking to replace, the monarch with their own heads of state, calling for reparations and demanding that Britain apologize for its abuses during the colonial era.

“Undoubtedly, she formed a special bond with the people of Jamaica,” Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness said in a statement. “We are saddened that we will not see her light again, but we will remember her historic reign.”

And for those who are in mourning, “the grief is genuine,” Polly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian.

“The admiration for the woman who has been an emblem of a nation for so many decades is deeply sincere,” Toynbee wrote. “There will be appreciation for the great care she took in such a fractious age not to take a side, express a view or add to the rifts that sharply divide the country. Every nation needs a figurehead; and, however perverse the sheer randomness of being born into that role, she did it with remarkable skill and dignity.”