Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
interesting article about Robert Lee that tries to define what is acceptable, not saying I agree but it touches on many of the issues raised on this thread
We need a set of guideposts to get us past name-calling and confrontation, a set of questions that can allow a reasoned discussion. For instance, does the statue commemorate an individual who inflicted harms on a living person that would be actionable in a federal court? If so, remove the statue. Did the individual order the commission of treason, capital crimes, slavery, genocide or terrorism (as defined by the International Court of Justice)? If so, no statue.
Less cut and dried but worth thinking hard about: Did the individual have a specific connection to the location of the statue? Lee never lived in New Orleans or Charlottesville, but he did rent a home in Richmond. Is the statue used as an active venue for promoting treason, capital crimes, slavery, genocide or terrorism? The police data should tell us.
Finally, did the individual undertake specific acts to mitigate the historical harms done? If so, put them on a plaque on the base.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/16/confederate-statues-banish-robert-e-lee-lets-talk-allen-guelzo-column/568795001/0 -
I've been aware of the local context for a long while, but I certainly don't see how that justifies decision making by mob violence.rick_chasey said:
You can see why this instance it was a bit different, right? Now you're a bit more aware of the local context.shortfall said:
I wouldn't put it back up but i don't approve of mobs deciding which are next to be torn down going forward.rick_chasey said:
Given the choice, would you put the statue back up or not?shortfall said:
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...
AFAIK the only opinion poll on this was the 2014 newspaper poll - yes, with all the caveats about how much that's worth - which showed a clear majority in favour of retaining the statue.1 -
I understand your point but, it won't stop there (these people who demand statues are taken down don't often see nuance) and the statue was put up in honour of what he did for the town (as far as I know) not for his involvement in the slave trade. Though, I admit, it does seem a bit like Tony Soprano donating to a local charity.morstar said:
I think there is a difference between characters such as BP or Churchill who are recognised for what they achieved whilst holding views that don’t meet today’s standards and somebody whose primary achievement was making money through slavery.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.0 -
Does a statue plinth count as a small hill?TheBigBean said:
I wonder how many are actually interested in the statues.rick_chasey said:It does seem rather likely that there are going to be bunch of fights in London around a bunch of statues i suspect.
Lots of football hooligan type organisations going down to london on the weekend to 'protect' a bunch of statues, and presumably a bunch of 'demonstrators' looking for the next statue to go after.
(As in "it's not a hill I'm willing to die on).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.0 -
It wasn't put up because the council wanted it, or because everyone at the time loved him.nickice said:
I understand your point but, it won't stop there (these people who demand statues are taken down don't often see nuance) and the statue was put up in honour of what he did for the town (as far as I know) not for his involvement in the slave trade. Though, I admit, it does seem a bit like Tony Soprano donating to a local charity.morstar said:
I think there is a difference between characters such as BP or Churchill who are recognised for what they achieved whilst holding views that don’t meet today’s standards and somebody whose primary achievement was making money through slavery.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
A guy tried to raise funds for a statue over a couple of drives, failed, and had to pay for it himself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
"The statue, designed by John Cassidy, was erected in the area now known as The Centre in 1895, to commemorate Edward Colston's philanthropy.[3][4] It was proposed by James Arrowsmith, the president of the Anchor Society. Several appeals to the public and to Colston-related charitable bodies failed to raise the £1,000 needed for its casting and erection, and Arrowsmith ended up paying the shortfall himself."- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Vilnius railway station:nickice said:
I understand your point but, it won't stop there (these people who demand statues are taken down don't often see nuance) and the statue was put up in honour of what he did for the town (as far as I know) not for his involvement in the slave trade. Though, I admit, it does seem a bit like Tony Soprano donating to a local charity.morstar said:
I think there is a difference between characters such as BP or Churchill who are recognised for what they achieved whilst holding views that don’t meet today’s standards and somebody whose primary achievement was making money through slavery.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
https://www.govilnius.lt/visit-vilnius/latest-tips/discoveries-in-vilnius-the-hip-district0 -
I really hope we don't get a second wave because of all this stupidity.0 -
Ironically it seems the statue was put up to distract the masses from everything else going on
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2 -
Indeed.kingstongraham said:
I really hope we don't get a second wave because of all this stupidity.
Unfortunately the more the BLM movement push into less clear waters, the more the tide of opposition is going to push back.
None of which bodes well for controlling the real burning issue of the moment."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.1 -
Great thread thankstailwindhome said:Ironically it seems the statue was put up to distract the masses from everything else going on
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It had been illegal for 60 years, so... I'll put that as a yes. It's worth reading up on the history of who put up the statue, why, and how they paid for it.nickice said:
But at the time they put it up was there strong objection to it and was it not put up to honour what he had done for the town rather than his involvement in the slave trade?rjsterry said:
People disagreed strongly with slavery at the time, too. Wesley was almost a contemporary of Colston (born when the latter was in his 60s) and the Methodists were strongly anti slavery and very prominent in Bristol. Colston banned nonconformists from his school.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
The statue itself was set up after the trade was made illegal, so presumably at least some of the Viictorians thought it was wrong as well.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Spare a thought for poor Robert the Bruce, having had his statue at Bannockburn vandalised by BLM protesters.
Initially I thought that his only crime had been to stitch up Mel Gibson in Braveheart but it turns out I was wrong.
It turns out that after he died in 1329, he allowed his heart to be carried on a crusade to fight Muslims in Spain. What an absolute cunt.! Tear his statue down!
Jesus (or deity of your choice) wept!!
0 -
On the topic of vandalism. I know there was a lot of chat about Churchill's statue being vandalised; so much so a box was put around the statue, and a lot of angry folk who had a propensity for football hooliganism and sieg heils made their way to London to 'protect it'.ballysmate said:Spare a thought for poor Robert the Bruce, having had his statue at Bannockburn vandalised by BLM protesters.
Initially I thought that his only crime had been to stitch up Mel Gibson in Braveheart but it turns out I was wrong.
It turns out that after he died in 1329, he allowed his heart to be carried on a crusade to fight Muslims in Spain. What an absolute censored .! Tear his statue down!
Jesus (or deity of your choice) wept!!
Only, the same statue pretty much gets vandalised every may day march. If you want to look them up. There's one where he was given a mohican and side-burns.
I even saw a photo of bunch of 'lads' proudly protecting a statue of what turned out to be one of the leading feminist writers of her time...
I get the impression a lot of the concern about 'all statues being removed' is a bit over the top, and a lot of the 'threats' to statues being taken down all rather imagined rather than real.0 -
If Robert the Bruce's statue has been vandalised and he's being label posthumous racist, I would suggest it's the protesters that are going "way over the top" to the point of lunacy.rick_chasey said:
On the topic of vandalism. I know there was a lot of chat about Churchill's statue being vandalised; so much so a box was put around the statue, and a lot of angry folk who had a propensity for football hooliganism and sieg heils made their way to London to 'protect it'.ballysmate said:Spare a thought for poor Robert the Bruce, having had his statue at Bannockburn vandalised by BLM protesters.
Initially I thought that his only crime had been to stitch up Mel Gibson in Braveheart but it turns out I was wrong.
It turns out that after he died in 1329, he allowed his heart to be carried on a crusade to fight Muslims in Spain. What an absolute censored .! Tear his statue down!
Jesus (or deity of your choice) wept!!
Only, the same statue pretty much gets vandalised every may day march. If you want to look them up. There's one where he was given a mohican and side-burns.
I even saw a photo of bunch of 'lads' proudly protecting a statue of what turned out to be one of the leading feminist writers of her time...
I get the impression a lot of the concern about 'all statues being removed' is a bit over the top, and a lot of the 'threats' to statues being taken down all rather imagined rather than real.
They seem to be forgetting that racism cuts both ways and the black African's invading Europe should also be viewed as unacceptable.
Obviously, in this case, it would have taken some serious engineering to go the "Full Colston".
It is not at all hard to imagine a lot of statues being removed as the cheapest, easiest and least confrontational option.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I think it is much simpler than that. If you allow a mob to get mob justice, other mobs fancy a crack at it. That includes mobs wanting to protect statues and have a fight at the same time, and mobs wanting to remove statues of figures such as Gandhi.rick_chasey said:
On the topic of vandalism. I know there was a lot of chat about Churchill's statue being vandalised; so much so a box was put around the statue, and a lot of angry folk who had a propensity for football hooliganism and sieg heils made their way to London to 'protect it'.ballysmate said:Spare a thought for poor Robert the Bruce, having had his statue at Bannockburn vandalised by BLM protesters.
Initially I thought that his only crime had been to stitch up Mel Gibson in Braveheart but it turns out I was wrong.
It turns out that after he died in 1329, he allowed his heart to be carried on a crusade to fight Muslims in Spain. What an absolute censored .! Tear his statue down!
Jesus (or deity of your choice) wept!!
Only, the same statue pretty much gets vandalised every may day march. If you want to look them up. There's one where he was given a mohican and side-burns.
I even saw a photo of bunch of 'lads' proudly protecting a statue of what turned out to be one of the leading feminist writers of her time...
I get the impression a lot of the concern about 'all statues being removed' is a bit over the top, and a lot of the 'threats' to statues being taken down all rather imagined rather than real.3 -
Yeah that's probably right.TheBigBean said:
I think it is much simpler than that. If you allow a mob to get mob justice, other mobs fancy a crack at it. That includes mobs wanting to protect statues and have a fight at the same time, and mobs wanting to remove statues of figures such as Gandhi.rick_chasey said:
On the topic of vandalism. I know there was a lot of chat about Churchill's statue being vandalised; so much so a box was put around the statue, and a lot of angry folk who had a propensity for football hooliganism and sieg heils made their way to London to 'protect it'.ballysmate said:Spare a thought for poor Robert the Bruce, having had his statue at Bannockburn vandalised by BLM protesters.
Initially I thought that his only crime had been to stitch up Mel Gibson in Braveheart but it turns out I was wrong.
It turns out that after he died in 1329, he allowed his heart to be carried on a crusade to fight Muslims in Spain. What an absolute censored .! Tear his statue down!
Jesus (or deity of your choice) wept!!
Only, the same statue pretty much gets vandalised every may day march. If you want to look them up. There's one where he was given a mohican and side-burns.
I even saw a photo of bunch of 'lads' proudly protecting a statue of what turned out to be one of the leading feminist writers of her time...
I get the impression a lot of the concern about 'all statues being removed' is a bit over the top, and a lot of the 'threats' to statues being taken down all rather imagined rather than real.
Shows how unfortunate and challenging local obstinate leaders can be?
In hindsight, they screwed up trying to block everything, including sensible suggestions like plaques etc.
I do think however the 'threat' of lots of statues being removed was deliberately overplayed.0 -
Has anyone actually threatened war memorials? I don't see the connection to BLM so is it just an extenion of this supposed threat being overplayed? Is it that some people equate Churchill with the war so assume war memorials are under threat?rick_chasey said:
I do think however the 'threat' of lots of statues being removed was deliberately overplayed.
0 -
veronese68 said:
Has anyone actually threatened war memorials? I don't see the connection to BLM so is it just an extenion of this supposed threat being overplayed? Is it that some people equate Churchill with the war so assume war memorials are under threat?rick_chasey said:
I do think however the 'threat' of lots of statues being removed was deliberately overplayed.
Well, as it happens. this past weekend:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53034110
Although, it doesn't seem to be a widespread trend."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Well, if you looked into the people listed on war memorials, I bet you could find at least one racist in pretty much every one. Tear them down I say!0
-
That's what I mean, nothing concrete, they had a tip off there might be damage. Yet the only people near any war memorials is idiots looking for a fight.blazing_saddles said:veronese68 said:
Has anyone actually threatened war memorials? I don't see the connection to BLM so is it just an extenion of this supposed threat being overplayed? Is it that some people equate Churchill with the war so assume war memorials are under threat?rick_chasey said:
I do think however the 'threat' of lots of statues being removed was deliberately overplayed.
Well, as it happens. this past weekend:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53034110
Although, it doesn't seem to be a widespread trend.0 -
-
That two week sentence for having a Jimmy was ridiculous, no?0
-
Bit like the guy that got six months for stealing a bottle of water during the London riots. Always best to limit criminal behaviour when mobs are about.kingstongraham said:That two week sentence for having a Jimmy was ridiculous, no?
0 -
Absurd.kingstongraham said:That two week sentence for having a Jimmy was ridiculous, no?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As absurd as some recent causes of offence have been, how about this from 3 years ago.
An Asian American sports presenter was removed because of his name. Robert Lee.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/espn-robert-lee-remove-presenter-charlottesville-confederate-general-racist-asian-american-name-a7907701.html0 -
Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.0
-
First Race Relations Act, which outlawed discrimination on basis of race, colour or ethnicity, came in in 1965. Just shows you need to do a bit more than passing a law. Mind you the 1964 general election included *that* infamous campaign slogan in the Smethwick constituency.Pross said:Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think a theory that the amount of common shared political ground between UK citizens is smaller than it has been for a long time is not an unreasonable theory, wouldn’t you say?Pross said:Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.
I mean, whenever there is an event that aligns with one side of the culture wars, however reasonable or not, the other side *kicks off*.
The guy presumably doesn’t mean most divisive *ever* since, y’know, there was a civil war and stuff, but you get his point.0 -
I'm not convinced. I think it's just that 'normal people' have more of an opportunity to have their opinion heard through social media and as a result people get to hear the extremes. Divisive in relation to race might even be a move forward if, previously, it was a case that the vast majority took the racist view?rick_chasey said:
I think a theory that the amount of common shared political ground between UK citizens is smaller than it has been for a long time is not an unreasonable theory, wouldn’t you say?Pross said:Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.
I mean, whenever there is an event that aligns with one side of the culture wars, however reasonable or not, the other side *kicks off*.
The guy presumably doesn’t mean most divisive *ever* since, y’know, there was a civil war and stuff, but you get his point.0
