if by this you mean the Queen was not issuing edicts based on a racist agenda, fully formed like Venus from the sea, along the lines of the Nazi final solution programs, South African apartheid, of USA Jim Crow lines, no -- I would have been astonished if she had
Interesting selections ...
Freudian?
the ideology of racial supremacy was a development of thought. historically, one can begin, at the "official" level (designated loosely) with the Elizabeth I proclamations through to Edward Long, and subsequently
Well on that subject, in his day Edward Long had a
broadly similar view the Klan did some years later, although they had the useful distinction of being
American.
His one redeeming legacy being genuinely useful and inciteful historical record of events in that region - immediately prior to the American Revolution. As for the Klan ... nothing much springs to mind.
As for Elizabeth I being the root of 'Anglo Saxon>British' racial divisivness, that's unlikely. There is evidence one must reach somewhat further back for that, around 1200 years actually.
It
was of a somewhat different nature, certainly a little less well ... documented so I suppose acceptance could depend on one's definition of 'official'. Truth be told, it's not entirely accepted - but 'bitter' pills sometimes take a while to swallow,
don't they.
Regardless, like many you appear to have fallen into the common trap of thinking 'racism' is about skin colour.
That particular flavour had to wait in line for for
its say in the sun.
you mention that other thread -- that is where I pointed out the converse development. by the time of Jefferson white supremacy was the norm among English elites (which included Jefferson), and the contrary notions were just beginning to be articulated by the American Quakers, premised on the undiluted teachings of Christianity
And for good reason - one of my strongest amusements in that thread was your fallacious blather about ficticious legislation, and the outright denial of the existence of key race relations legislation
even when the text of the Act was put in front of you! Your credibility took a dive that day, although it wasn't a
high dive, it must be said.
As for the rest; it is of course a matter of historical record that US race relations embarked on an immediate and sustained period of improvement immediately after independence, to reach the near state of perfection they are today. Or, if I'm mistaken and that's not true, who will
you blame? Jim Crow [et al] has come home to roost,
again.
I forgot how this thread turned to race relations, but of course [yet again] it was you blaming the British for events two, three and four hundred years ago. I'd imagine you a closet
Reaganite or perhaps not since he got on well with Thatcher and that wouldn't do. Besides, being British she must be responsible for
something ...
anything that may be wrong in contemporary America.
*
*Actually, she was responsible for a great deal, although probably not US race relations.