Slashdot Mirror
Obamas Give Queen Elizabeth an iPod
Ponca City, We love you writes "What did the Obamas give Queen Elizabeth II on Wednesday when they arrived at Buckingham Palace? An Obama aide reported the queen was given an iPod loaded with video and photos of her 2007 trip to the United States, as well as songs and accessories. She also received a rare songbook signed by the composer Richard Rodgers. The gift issue had come up after Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the White House last month. Mr. Brown gave Mr. Obama a pen holder carved from the timber of an anti-slave ship, receiving in return a DVD box set of American movies, igniting a torrent of criticism in the British press. According to news reports, the queen gave the Obamas a silver-framed signed photograph — a gift she gives to all visiting dignitaries."
It seems kind of 'tarded to give a 70+ year old woman an ipod with a tiny screen filled with speeches she is very unlikely to agree with (not that he would even be aware of her political leanings.)
I would have given her a gift of pictures of her during the WW2 blitz on London, showing her changing tires and working along with the rest of the people under siege by the Germans and put this into a classy montage. I would want to honor her good qualities, and there is plenty out there. For one of the richest women in the world, I'm certain trinkets are not high on her shopping list.
Seriously, Obama is a sad amateur. Camacho was a smarter president.
Are there really not enough issues in the world to get worked up about that people are arguing over a freakin' gift exchange?
mmmm...forbidden donut
After all, would ANY government allow one of their top people to accept an electronic gift without it being checked to make sure it's not bugged? That would be a serious security lapse.
First, who cares who gave who what? Seriously? I mean, if you made a *major* boo-boo and gave Obama some racist memoribilia or something, then you're an idiot, but otherwise who cares? You're talking negotiations over the future of countries, anyone who reads anything into the gifts is clearly desperate for news or clearly focusing on the wrong things.
Have the governments of the two countries seriously got nothing else better to waste their money on than gifts for other nations? Sure, bring something along but keep it simple. A couple of bouquets for the missus and a bottle of special wine or something to enjoy over dinner one night. Anything else is asking for a cock-up because it'll have been made from the ship that X's father fought against in war Y or something. And, trust me, nobody British really cared what gift was received/given the last time the US president and the UK prime minister met. Nobody. The press obviously had nothing else better to report, or were feeling snubbed themselves. They don't even care that Churchill's bust was moved in the Whitehouse... really... we don't have American presidents lining 10 Downing Street, so why should the American's have anything similar? So long as it was done respectfully (i.e. they didn't kick it down the stairs after drawing a moustache on it), who cares?
Personally, I think the Queen's gift is the worst out of all those listed (in all the linked articles) anyway - it's too imperialist and overbearing... a signed photo... "Look, I have given you something cheap and readily available to remind you that you were once in my presence". Urk.
If he had really wanted to put two seconds' thought into it, he would have gotten something for her dogs ... either the corgis or the labs. She's absolutely nuts over her corgis (same as every dog lover :-)
Yeah, I really do think Corgi owners are a fun lot, and Corgis are some of the nicest dogs around. As the poster said above , The Queen of England is not exactly a simpleton, a slouch or unintelligent. I find someone so entitled has gotten down on all fours like the rest of us and she has done a lot more for her country, I believe, than Obama ever will.
See her first telivised christmas address in 1957.
It's fairly poignant the fact that she gives everyone the same gift, a silver framed picture of her... Pretty much says, 'you ain't shit better than anyone else, but I am da bomb.'
flinging poop since 1969
I think it's indicative of Obama's naivete and complete lack of experience with regard to foreign policy. IIRC, he also blew off an official state dinner with Brown saying he was "too busy", and dismissed the US-UK relationship as "nothing special", and sent back the bust of Churchill that had been at the White House for quite a long time. Oh, and the DVDs came with a couple of Marine One helicopter toys, too.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Are there really not enough issues in the world to get worked up about that people are arguing over a freakin' gift exchange?
This just in...Israel and Palestine are fighting. More at the top of the hour...
A lot of people are pissed about Government bailouts. News at 11.
The economy sucks. More to come.
Don't complain. At least this is "new" by comparison to the rest of the shit that keeps getting dredged up day after day.
There's a recession on, people. Do you really expect Obama to be handing out diamond necklaces? How's that going to look?
Also, both sides know perfectly well that whatever they give, the other side won't be allowed to keep it as a matter of anti-corruption policy. Every single gift given to an American president goes straight into a vault. So there's no point in giving anything really expensive.
I piss off bigots.
I wish there was a "± 0 Confusing" mod point...
I think from the context, we can figure out which one they mean. When you read a tabloid headline that says "Prince Charles Admits To Yet Another Fuck-up," do you actually have to wonder whether they're referring to Charles Stuart or Charles Windsor? Besides, saying "Elizabeth II" over and over again in headlines would appear even more stupid. "Elizabeth II to visit U.S." would elicit a collective response of "...as opposed to Elizabeth I, who has been dead for 400 years?" It would be a constant, and needless, distraction from the intended communication.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not the gifts themselves that are the issue... it's the symbolism, if you will.
See, diplomacy is a game, of sorts, and it's heavily dependent on symbolism. Things like gift exchanges, summit meetings, state dinners, and all that are mostly useless from a practical standpoint... but it's part of the game. They're the rules; to be taken seriously you have to at least play along with them and pretend that you care. It's like Christmastime at the office; you go to the parties and you buy little gifts for each other, not because you really care about everyone or want to hang out with them, but because it smooths things over and is just part of office politics.
Obama's not playing by the rules. And while the gifts and all that aren't really a big deal, he's committing a diplomatic faux pas--toward his country's closest ally, no less. What makes this (and similar small diplomatic blunders) ironic, and what the European press is starting to make noise about, is that everyone thought Obama would be better at international relations than Bush. True, he has yet to start any wars; but flubbing even the basic, petty, easy stuff like state dinners and symbolic gift exchanges with your closest allies and your historical and powerful military/economic rivals (China and Russia) certainly isn't getting off on the right foot.
It's like the new guy showing up at the office Christmas party with PBR and dollar store gag gifts for the exchange when everyone else brought drinkable wine or liquor and a $15 gift... then cutting loose a giant fart and laughing loudly about it. Sure, it doesn't really affect business operations, it's just a stupid little party. But now everyone's looking at him kinda funny and thinking "hey, we thought he was cool, but this guy's a bit of an ass." In other words, it may not be harmful, but he certainly isn't doing us any favors.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
I agree mostly, but wanted to add that another big component of showing respect in gift giving is thoughtfulness of the gift chosen - the pen holder carved from an anti-slave ship is an obvious example of this.
Consumer electronics and media gifts like iPods and DVD's are what you give when your out of ideas. They do not show a good level of understanding of the person you are giving the gift to, although at least the iPod was loaded with pictures of the queens visit... but like all electronics they are ephemeral things, not really gifts to last or provide deeper meaning as you said.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
first, he gives the British PM a stack of DVDs (ultra lame). next, he gives the queen of england a friggin ipod
The DVDs and iPod are not the gifts, they are the packaging. The real value of these gifts is of the content that's on them -- examples of the artistic and cultural outputs of the United States, which have been exported to the world.
That most of this culture is available to anybody with $300 to spare is not an indictment of Obama's stinginess, nor of America's, but a celebration of our egalitarianism.
Obmama didn't 'give her an iPod' at all.
Obama gave her a signed Rogers (Of Rogers and Hammerstein, who the queen loves,and considers the a song from Oklahoma her and her husbands 'song') songbook.
It was an absurdly good gift. Personal, and yet historic enough that it can be displayed with a bunch of other historic things.
He also gave her a bunch of footage of her trip here that was filmed. He presented this to her within a video iPod.
And everyone trying to make an issue of this is a giant moron.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I can explain this for you. I know they don't really teach this in schools in as much detail as they should.
Slavery was not fully abolished, technically, until 1865. Now, that sounds like a long time ago. Over 100 years. But what happened after that? Well for 100 years, blacks were not allowed to go to the same schools with whites, they weren't allowed to live by whites, they weren't allowed to meaningfully interact with whites, they're vote was actively negated through Jim Crow laws, and they weren't even allowed to drink the same water.
Let me repeat that lest the math was not clear, they were actively and openly oppressed, exploited, violently attacked by both private vigilanties and law enforcement, and disenfranchised until 1965 . That means if you're 43 or over, you were alive then. It also means your parents were almost assuredly alive and could either tell tales of fighting for or against the Civil Rights movement unless you're very young.
What does this mean really? I'm sure the response is "Well, I didnt' do any of that!". This is true, but the entire American society did that. Laws aren't passed by individuals, they are passed by nations. Widespread discrimination of that calibar is not commited by individuals, it's sanctioned by states. And so, it is society that owes a debt.
It was not African American's Great Great Great Grandparents that were shoved into ghettos, educationally marginalized, disenfranchised, and openly, violently opposed. Those who experienced this first hand are still alive today as are those who perpetrated these grave crimes against humanity.
The audacity to presume that in less than one full generation 300 years of this stature of oppression would simply *poof* disappear. Do you really think that all the fathers and grandfathers who were so sure that blacks were less than human in their teens, 20's, and 30's all of a sudden did a 180 and changed their attitudes? It takes more than 1/2 a generation to repair that kind of dehumanization.
And to compare this to Dresden. Are you completely daft? Are you truly that ignorant of the difference (not in a hateful sense, but in the literal sense of igorance)? Dresden was a single event in a war that spanned a few years. The decendents of dresden were not stripped of their heritage, educational opportunities, and identity. Forced into slavery, shoved into ghettos, hanged from trees, and treated verbally and physically like animals for 15 generations .
Just ponder that for a moment. Just think of the significance, of the impact that has on a culture. I am amazed that the black community is so forgiving. That the sons (literally) of those our nation abused so egregiously are not absolutely raving with desire for revenge. That they're recovering so quickly economically, educationally, and culturally.
No, it is not one individual that owes a debt, the entire country owes a debt.
Now, I don't think monetary reperations are the right way to make amends. Mainly, because the harm is nigh incalculable. But if it were possible to guarantee a free ride to every black child to a first class college to give them the opportunity to pull their communities out of the ghettos that our nation put them in then that might be a good start. Of course, we probably can't afford that either.
The solution is not easy, nor is it simple, nor is it cheap. But your indignation is misplaced, misguided, and misinformed.