Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

191012141558

Posts

  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,295
    edited June 2020


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    How far back are you going?

    The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

    Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

    Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?
    So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

    That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

    That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

    As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

    There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

    This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

    Charles Darwin was born after the slave trade ended. You are arguing your colonialism hobby horse which came later.
    And in fact there was plenty of pseudo scientific justification of the slave trade along the lines of blacks being an inferior people long before Darwin - Edward Long being one easily found example.

    I don't think Darwinian theory is really relevant to colonialism or racism except as a kind of post hoc justification for what would have happened anyway - evidenced as you say by the fact it was happening pre-Darwin, with very similar justification.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Jeremy.89 said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    He's not the one that hates how the country is today so much that he voted to try and take it back to the 70s though.
    Apart from highlighting your point as moronic I am not going to give you any more time
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here
    edited June 2020


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    How far back are you going?

    The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

    Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

    Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?
    So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

    That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

    That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

    As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

    There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

    This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

    Charles Darwin was born after the slave trade ended. You are arguing your colonialism hobby horse which came later.
    And in fact there was plenty of pseudo scientific justification of the slave trade along the lines of blacks being an inferior people long before Darwin - Edward Long being one easily found example.

    I don't think Darwinian theory is really relevant to colonialism or racism except as a kind of post hoc justification for what would have happened anyway - evidenced as you say by the fact it was happening pre-Darwin, with very similar justification.
    ...whaaaaat. On what basis? I mean, there's libraries full of people analysing what was written then and they all come to that conclusion I refer to, so how are you arriving at a different one?

    Of course there was justification of colonialism that pre-dates Darwin. Obviously, but it wasn't this evolutionary, *racial* definition, which is the issue at hand here, is it not?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,712

    Jeremy.89 said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    He's not the one that hates how the country is today so much that he voted to try and take it back to the 70s though.
    Apart from highlighting your point as moronic I am not going to give you any more time
    If all you are going to do is post abuse, I'm sure we'd all welcome that.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Don't worry, we're a diverse and successful country. We'll continue to be so.
    That will be because we continue progressing in the opposite direction to his views
  • coopster_the_1stcoopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    edited June 2020
    rjsterry said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    He's not the one that hates how the country is today so much that he voted to try and take it back to the 70s though.
    Apart from highlighting your point as moronic I am not going to give you any more time
    If all you are going to do is post abuse, I'm sure we'd all welcome that.
    It is not abuse to highlight the truth despite you finding it uncomfortable

    I know where the silent majority sit on this matter despite what the anarchist mob are trying to achieve.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,712


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    How far back are you going?

    The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

    Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

    Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?
    So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

    That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

    That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

    As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

    There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

    This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

    Charles Darwin was born after the slave trade ended. You are arguing your colonialism hobby horse which came later.
    And in fact there was plenty of pseudo scientific justification of the slave trade along the lines of blacks being an inferior people long before Darwin - Edward Long being one easily found example.

    I don't think Darwinian theory is really relevant to colonialism or racism except as a kind of post hoc justification for what would have happened anyway - evidenced as you say by the fact it was happening pre-Darwin, with very similar justification.
    ...whaaaaat. On what basis? I mean, there's libraries full of people analysing what was written then and they all come to that conclusion I refer to, so how are you arriving at a different one?
    It's a reasonable point that while the theory of evolution was bastardised to add a layer of respectability to colonial exploitation, that exploitation was in full swing long before.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 16,666
    The racists sure get angry when their big statues to slave traders come down.
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    This has happened on several episodes of Who Do You Think You Are? I think Ainslie Harriot, Marvin Humes and possibly Thandie Newton discovered their ancestry was slave owners.
    Interesting as they are, I have a bit of an issue with those programmes. They tend to give a very lopsided view of the subject's ancestors. By the time they have got back to the early 19th or late 18th century they are 7 or 8 generations back so for one ancestor who owned slaves there are another couple of hundred in the same generation who may not have.
    Of course, as you see with some that are direct descendants of William the Conqueror etc., there are probably a massive number of people in the country that if they had the research resources could trace back to similar. Trees become huge when you are going back what, 3 or 4 generations per century? I think with those I mentioned they were aware that they might find they had descended from slaves and were understandably shocked to find they actually descended from slave owners. It was Naomi Harris who I was trying to remember who was very upset on finding her descendant had been an overseer but ultimately you can't have responsibility for who your ancestors were or what they did (Jack Whitehall was pretty upset to discover his relative had played a leading role in putting down the Chartist Revolution).
    Well exactly. There's also a lot of guff about being proud of ancestors as if their actions can be inherited.

    Is this not what it basically boils down to? I'm not taking any responsibility for the actions of someone else right now or my ancestors. And I wouldn't expect anyone to expect anything from me for something my ancestors (may or may not have) done.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    mr_goo said:

    Most of the grand buildings in Bath were built off the back off the slavers ( called Blackbirders in the day) operating out of Bristol.

    Unfortunately we cannot rewrite history, but we can learn from it.

    Did you know? That the Barbery pirates (Algeria/Tunisia) raided Ireland, South Coast of England for white slaves. Many were held hostage until ransom demanss were met. Many of those from Ireland didn't want to return as their lives of serfdom in North Africa was actually better than the poverty experienced at home.

    Also many convicted felons from England were sent to the New World as white slaves to work on plantations in states like Georgia.

    To be taken as a white slave to the new world was known as 'napping' and many thousands were children 'kids'. This is where the word 'kidnapping' comes from.

    See you've learnt something today.

    I knew about the Barbary pirates (and it at least partly explaining the French invasion of North Africa). It's almost as if everyone was at it...

    but I didn't know that other stuff. Very interesting!
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,712
    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    This has happened on several episodes of Who Do You Think You Are? I think Ainslie Harriot, Marvin Humes and possibly Thandie Newton discovered their ancestry was slave owners.
    Interesting as they are, I have a bit of an issue with those programmes. They tend to give a very lopsided view of the subject's ancestors. By the time they have got back to the early 19th or late 18th century they are 7 or 8 generations back so for one ancestor who owned slaves there are another couple of hundred in the same generation who may not have.
    Of course, as you see with some that are direct descendants of William the Conqueror etc., there are probably a massive number of people in the country that if they had the research resources could trace back to similar. Trees become huge when you are going back what, 3 or 4 generations per century? I think with those I mentioned they were aware that they might find they had descended from slaves and were understandably shocked to find they actually descended from slave owners. It was Naomi Harris who I was trying to remember who was very upset on finding her descendant had been an overseer but ultimately you can't have responsibility for who your ancestors were or what they did (Jack Whitehall was pretty upset to discover his relative had played a leading role in putting down the Chartist Revolution).
    Well exactly. There's also a lot of guff about being proud of ancestors as if their actions can be inherited.

    Is this not what it basically boils down to? I'm not taking any responsibility for the actions of someone else right now or my ancestors. And I wouldn't expect anyone to expect anything from me for something my ancestors (may or may not have) done.
    Agreed. With the caveat that some of the consequences of those ancestors' actions are still being felt/enjoyed hundreds of years later and should be recognised.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:


    And some people whose ancestors once upon a time were African would like that recognised, and that means, in a small part, looking at who stands in public spaces today in statue.

    If they are British and their ancestors were African and not Caribbean, aren't they more like to have been slavers than slaves?
    This has happened on several episodes of Who Do You Think You Are? I think Ainslie Harriot, Marvin Humes and possibly Thandie Newton discovered their ancestry was slave owners.
    Interesting as they are, I have a bit of an issue with those programmes. They tend to give a very lopsided view of the subject's ancestors. By the time they have got back to the early 19th or late 18th century they are 7 or 8 generations back so for one ancestor who owned slaves there are another couple of hundred in the same generation who may not have.
    Of course, as you see with some that are direct descendants of William the Conqueror etc., there are probably a massive number of people in the country that if they had the research resources could trace back to similar. Trees become huge when you are going back what, 3 or 4 generations per century? I think with those I mentioned they were aware that they might find they had descended from slaves and were understandably shocked to find they actually descended from slave owners. It was Naomi Harris who I was trying to remember who was very upset on finding her descendant had been an overseer but ultimately you can't have responsibility for who your ancestors were or what they did (Jack Whitehall was pretty upset to discover his relative had played a leading role in putting down the Chartist Revolution).
    Well exactly. There's also a lot of guff about being proud of ancestors as if their actions can be inherited.

    Is this not what it basically boils down to? I'm not taking any responsibility for the actions of someone else right now or my ancestors. And I wouldn't expect anyone to expect anything from me for something my ancestors (may or may not have) done.
    Agreed. With the caveat that some of the consequences of those ancestors' actions are still being felt/enjoyed hundreds of years later and should be recognised.
    Felt by who exactly? The past always has an effect on the present (pretty sure the effects of the Norman invasion are still felt, in some way, in the UK) but that's not just true for black people. At some point you have to just let things go and work with the cards you've been dealt.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,295

    The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

    Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

    Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?
    So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

    That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

    That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

    As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

    There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

    This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

    Just to go back to your original post Rick - the point is that people were already making very similar justifications for the slave trade along the lines of black Africans being an inferior people long before Darwin was born.

    I think without Darwin we do very much get racism as we know it - we'd just have some slightly different bullshit justifications for it - evidenced by the fact these existed pre Darwin and included very similar arguments just without the evolutionary hypothesis.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,590

    Pross said:

    Let's just clear a few things up.

    People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

    Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

    Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

    Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

    That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

    It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

    Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

    Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?
    So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

    They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

    We now do, ergo they need to go.

    As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

    As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

    I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

    It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.
    I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

    Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.
    This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.
    Am I the vegan or is Rick?
    I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.
    I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

    Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

    I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea
  • webboowebboo Posts: 3,828
    I would imagine those of you who still possess music by Eric Clapton and David Bowie will getting rid of it because of their past history of racist remarks.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,712

    Pross said:

    Let's just clear a few things up.

    People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

    Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

    Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

    Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

    That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

    It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

    Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

    Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?
    So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

    They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

    We now do, ergo they need to go.

    As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

    As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

    I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

    It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.
    I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

    Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.
    This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.
    Am I the vegan or is Rick?
    I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.
    I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

    Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

    I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea
    The time to make direct reparations to slaves was in 1833 or earlier, but instead we made the people who profited from their exploitation even more wealthy and now we've missed the chance. I don't think we get to make it all right again.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here

    Pross said:

    Let's just clear a few things up.

    People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

    Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

    Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

    Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

    That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

    It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

    Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

    Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?
    So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

    They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

    We now do, ergo they need to go.

    As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

    As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

    I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

    It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.
    I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

    Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.
    This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.
    Am I the vegan or is Rick?
    I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.
    I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

    Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

    I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea
    How would you work it out?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here

    The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

    Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

    Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?
    So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

    That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

    That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

    As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

    There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

    This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

    Just to go back to your original post Rick - the point is that people were already making very similar justifications for the slave trade along the lines of black Africans being an inferior people long before Darwin was born.

    I think without Darwin we do very much get racism as we know it - we'd just have some slightly different bullshit justifications for it - evidenced by the fact these existed pre Darwin and included very similar arguments just without the evolutionary hypothesis.
    Yeah quite probably. I would argue it wouldn't be as murderous.

    There is a real shift when evolution comes into the equation in terms of how Europeans ran their African colonies - of course, colonialism pre-dates that.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Oh come on mate, I thought we'd put this to bed after I suggested you take the advice of Trump on how to combat corona?
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,549

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?
  • Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?
    He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

    In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!
  • Jeremy.89Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    History would suggest that an overly nationalistic viewpoint was the real virus.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,590

    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?
    He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

    In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!
    why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

    Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,772
    Think I'm going to stop clicking on this thread. It's toxic.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,590

    Pross said:

    Let's just clear a few things up.

    People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

    Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

    Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

    Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

    That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

    It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

    Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

    Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?
    So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

    They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

    We now do, ergo they need to go.

    As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

    As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

    I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

    It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.
    I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

    Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.
    This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.
    Am I the vegan or is Rick?
    I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.
    I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

    Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

    I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea
    How would you work it out?
    if he paid for a building sell it, if he provided an endowment give it up

    harder than changing a name plate but surely more meaningful
  • Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?
    He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

    In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!
    why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

    Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.
    That is exactly what the BLM movement have on their fundraising page.
  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 4,348
    I certainly don't agree with many of Rick's views, or the way he puts them across, but calling him a virus is unfair and out of order. It's just as bad as his earlier suggestion you (Coopster) go and drink a load of bleach.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here

    Pross said:

    Let's just clear a few things up.

    People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

    Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

    Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

    Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

    That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

    It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

    Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

    Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?
    So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

    They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

    We now do, ergo they need to go.

    As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

    As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

    I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

    It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.
    I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

    Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.
    This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.
    Am I the vegan or is Rick?
    I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.
    I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

    Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

    I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea
    How would you work it out?
    if he paid for a building sell it, if he provided an endowment give it up

    harder than changing a name plate but surely more meaningful
    But not say, his inheritance? What if the paid for a building that has since been sold? etc etc etc
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 16,744
    I'd think that most if not all universities in this country benefitted in the past.
    Should they all be sold off?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,590

    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

    Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

    You really are contemptible.
    I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country
    Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

    I've even paid off my tuition fees. ;)

    Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.
    What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

    Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.
    Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.
    Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

    Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.
    Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?
    He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

    In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!
    why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

    Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.
    That is exactly what the BLM movement have on their fundraising page.
    whereabouts? the only words I could find on their fundraising page were

    Fund the Movement



    We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.



    Donate to fuel our campaigns for justice.
Sign In or Register to comment.