330
US archivist ousted after refusing to let Trump give Eisenhower’s sword to King Charles – reports
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
330 points (99.7% liked)
News
32597 readers
2738 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Being for colonization is racist bullshit. Being against colonization is anti-racist humanism. It is humanist to call for reduction and limitation of USA and Commonwealth, with no irony.
But I'm not calling for that because it's useless, just saying that I'll enjoy the part where their superiority feeling will be finally firmly matched with reality. I won't enjoy the parts where they'll try to take revenge for it upon whoever they can.
🙄 we did it lemmy, the annoying pedantic scolds have arrived
No you are nativist. It is a joke to call Advocating for the genocide of the descendants of colonists "humanist". Please go on about blood and soil.
You as a descendant of the colonists can invent any words you want, but nobody is calling for genocide.
Just for correcting some historical wrongs.
It's telling that you can't imagine that happening in any other way than genocide, because that's what your ancestors did.
USA and the Commonwealth existing as they are are not the natural order of things. Yes, telling population of big cities to pack and leave for Europe is not an option, but there's plenty of territory their ancestors cleansed from their inhabitants which is still not occupied or occupied for things like farming.
What can't be returned to rightful owners without genocide, shouldn't be. But the enormous territory (that culture of suburbs in USA and Australia - it's hard to imagine for a European despite being shown in movies and such) that can, should be.
It's very simple - there's a huge gap between saying that indigenous peoples have a superior claim, which should be respected when that's possible without mass atrocities, and saying that all colonists should be murdered.
And if you don't do it, then eventually what happened in Algeria will happen everywhere. USA+Commonwealth+other former empires together are shrinking as a percentage of global power, and nobody forgets anything. It's really a better option to do the decolonization thing on your own terms.
What about rights of people robbed of their land by your ancestors? On the contrary, any right that you have on it can only be justified by blood spilled for soil. Which is a principle I'm not using.
Or those rights can be discarded, and addressing your identity becomes racist?
Why do you keep saying commonwealth? Is it part of some weird belief structure of yours? (I'm genuinely curious)
It's part of the weird belief system of the former British Empire English-speaking inhabitants that they are not colonists, but "Canadians", "Australians", "New Zealanders" and so on. As if those lands belonged to them.
I get that you're likely a cryptofascist or a person trying on a bunch of different belief structures like they're hats or something.
But still, why commonwealth so often? What meaning does that term hold for you?
I haven't changed anything in this conversation.
Commonwealth because it's the current form of the genocidal British Empire.
It's telling how you descendants of the worst ghouls in history start squealing when the declared common values are applied to you in the slightest.