The Fate of Kings
[col. writ. 4/30/11] (c) '11 Mumia Abu-Jamal
I must confess, few things irritate me more than the endless media feeding frenzy over the doings of British royals.
I flee it.
I don't blame the British media, but find it incredible when the big (and even medium-sized) media sends battalions of anchors, cameramen, set designers, costume-makers, and makeup artists (not to mention hairdressers) to gawk and gambol over royalty.
This is all the more amazing to me when Americans go gaga over this stuff, because, as De Toqueville reminds us, Americans never tire of talking about the revolution, founding fathers, the evils of British occupation and the like.
Perhaps it's just U.S. assignment editors looking for bright colors, the change of scenery, a little cultural dash - but I don't think so.
It's the American elite's credo of worship of wealth and power, two things reflected in British royalty. It's present in America, but it's much more subdued.
Here, the wealthy don't wear crowns, they spend them.
I'm curious about whether the French press went as bananas as did the Americans.
Hey -- I understand how some women get goosey over weddings, and dresses; a cultural inheritance inculcated in females since they were little girls. For the, the sheer spectacle is fascinating.
I get that. But there's a channel for almost every demographic. If this were heavily covered on Lifetime, or E!, or Oprah's channels -- cool. But, wall-to-wall!? On CNN? The major networks?
It nuts me out.
That greatest of America's 'founding fathers', Tom Paine, ridiculed the founding British king, William the Conqueror, of 1066 A.D., in his classic pamphlet, Common Sense. Paine wrote of William:
"A French bastard landing with and armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives..."
If he saw what Americans were doing today in adoration of the royals, he would pop a cord in exasperation.
And rightly so.
---(c) '11 maj