Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
I guess what I mean by arguing in bad faith is not having a mutual optimal outcome, but pretending you do.bompington said:
I read Quillette regularly, and I doubt I have missed an article on it for the last few years.rick_chasey said:I don't think quilette argue in good faith. Bluntly.
Quilette specifically has a reputation for publishing people who argue for scientific racism and eugenics, which I firmly believe is are pseudosciences. This reputation is obviously relevant in this context.
I have never seen an article there arguing for racism of any sort, or eugenics.
Could it be that you are confusing the difference between believing that genes have a significant impact on certain characteristics (and yes,that includes intelligence) and eugenics?
I find that "they're arguing in bad faith" is most often used by people to block out having to deal with what the arguments actually are.
So, for example, I feel there is a material minority of people who are opposed to things like the quotas for women on Boards, not because they believe that it is counter productive or that boards do not function as well, but because they are misogynist, but they recognise that misogyny isn't really an acceptable reason, so they instead argue other reasons.
I often feel Quilette (and Nick, in this instance) do the same.
With regard to Quilette specifically, they often publish article from writers who are associated with the "Human Biodiversity Movement" who believe that some behaviour patterns are inborn, and are specific to certain ethnic groups. I see no logical difference in that and the principals of eugenics.
It also publishes work by Noah Carl, who was dismissed from his post at Cambridge University after 500+ academics signed a letter repudiating his research and public stance on race and intelligence, calling it "ethically suspect and methodologically flawed". His work regularly tries to marry up old ethnic stereotypes with data, and uses flawed and selective data to do so.
An associate editor of the Quilette is also Toby Young who has written an article in the same publication advocating 'progressive eugenics', and it's been well publicised in other areas that Toby Young is a modern iteration of a eugenicist.
Bomp: I think we've clashed on this before, about a similar topic. No need to rake over those coals. But for the reasons above, I don't agree with the fundamental premises and assumptions that quillete believe in.
I don't think it's enormously unreasonable therefore, when time is limited, to write off what they write when it comes to race, if you believe that all races are equal - which I do.
They can publish what they want, but it doesn't mean I want to read it. I don't want to take the views of Mein Kampf either.
But, lads, feel free to pile on.0 -
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
I had never heard of it, so googled it. It is easy to see how Rick would not be a fan.Jeremy.89 said:I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.
2 -
'Matter less' if you prefer.nickice said:
That's, obviously, not the same thing. Just because people might hold some racist views does not mean they think black lives don't matter.rjsterry said:
The number of people in the UK who admit to holding racist views has been fairly steady for decades at between a quarter and a third. That would suggest that it is more than 'very few'.nickice said:
That might cost them money. Saying black lives matter doesn't cost anything because very few people think black lives don't matter.durhamwasp said:Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Explains why you throw around terms like 'racist' and 'bigot' so easily. Apparently you have the ability to get into people's heads and find out 'what they really mean'. Surely one for the irony thread that you're talking about other people arguing in bad faith.rick_chasey said:
I guess what I mean by arguing in bad faith is not having a mutual optimal outcome, but pretending you do.bompington said:
I read Quillette regularly, and I doubt I have missed an article on it for the last few years.rick_chasey said:I don't think quilette argue in good faith. Bluntly.
Quilette specifically has a reputation for publishing people who argue for scientific racism and eugenics, which I firmly believe is are pseudosciences. This reputation is obviously relevant in this context.
I have never seen an article there arguing for racism of any sort, or eugenics.
Could it be that you are confusing the difference between believing that genes have a significant impact on certain characteristics (and yes,that includes intelligence) and eugenics?
I find that "they're arguing in bad faith" is most often used by people to block out having to deal with what the arguments actually are.
So, for example, I feel there is a material minority of people who are opposed to things like the quotas for women on Boards, not because they believe that it is counter productive or that boards do not function as well, but because they are misogynist, but they recognise that misogyny isn't really an acceptable reason, so they instead argue other reasons.
I often feel Quilette (and Nick, in this instance) do the same.
With regard to Quilette specifically, they often publish article from writers who are associated with the "Human Biodiversity Movement" who believe that some behaviour patterns are inborn, and are specific to certain ethnic groups. I see no logical difference in that and the principals of eugenics.
It also publishes work by Noah Carl, who was dismissed from his post at Cambridge University after 500+ academics signed a letter repudiating his research and public stance on race and intelligence, calling it "ethically suspect and methodologically flawed". His work regularly tries to marry up old ethnic stereotypes with data, and uses flawed and selective data to do so.
An associate editor of the Quilette is also Toby Young who has written an article in the same publication advocating 'progressive eugenics', and it's been well publicised in other areas that Toby Young is a modern iteration of a eugenicist.
Bomp: I think we've clashed on this before, about a similar topic. No need to rake over those coals. But for the reasons above, I don't agree with the fundamental premises and assumptions that quillete believe in.
I don't think it's enormously unreasonable therefore, when time is limited, to write off what they write when it comes to race, if you believe that all races are equal - which I do.
They can publish what they want, but it doesn't mean I want to read it. I don't want to take the views of Mein Kampf either.
But, lads, feel free to pile on.0 -
I'd heard of it. I don't have as strong a view as Rick, but find it odd that the people who most strongly advocate for genetics being the answer to all sorts of social problems, so rarely seem to have any background in the study of genetics, or indeed any science. Toby Young being a prime example. Whenever he starts holding forth on the importance of being able to discuss challenging ideas, what he seems to mean is that he would like to be able to publish his unsubstantiated guff without having people point out that it's unsubstantiated guff.TheBigBean said:
I had never heard of it, so googled it. It is easy to see how Rick would not be a fan.Jeremy.89 said:I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I have got a theory that they are doing it deliberately. Like with Marcus Rashford and painting your plane for £1m a monkey would have a better record of good decision making.kingstongraham said:Foreign secretary claims that he thinks people taking the knee are doing it because of Game of Thrones.
If you remember Steve Bannon, he used to make outrageous decisions on a Friday so that the opposition would have the weekend to express their rage which in turn would stoke up Trump supporters.0 -
You share this theory with a very senior galactic brain type investor who I know quite well.surrey_commuter said:
I have got a theory that they are doing it deliberately. Like with Marcus Rashford and painting your plane for £1m a monkey would have a better record of good decision making.kingstongraham said:Foreign secretary claims that he thinks people taking the knee are doing it because of Game of Thrones.
If you remember Steve Bannon, he used to make outrageous decisions on a Friday so that the opposition would have the weekend to express their rage which in turn would stoke up Trump supporters.0 -
How people work out what people mean by what they write. What a great mystery.nickice said:
Explains why you throw around terms like 'racist' and 'bigot' so easily. Apparently you have the ability to get into people's heads and find out 'what they really mean'. Surely one for the irony thread that you're talking about other people arguing in bad faith.
How is that witchcraft ever done?0 -
If it was outrageous things rather than making themselves look a bit daft then kind of apologising, that would make sense.surrey_commuter said:
I have got a theory that they are doing it deliberately. Like with Marcus Rashford and painting your plane for £1m a monkey would have a better record of good decision making.kingstongraham said:Foreign secretary claims that he thinks people taking the knee are doing it because of Game of Thrones.
If you remember Steve Bannon, he used to make outrageous decisions on a Friday so that the opposition would have the weekend to express their rage which in turn would stoke up Trump supporters.
They could just say nothing and it seems like the news would cannibalise itself anyway and move on from their general incompetence (Sunak excepted) if that is the ploy.0 -
It's a whole school of thought I know nothing about, and didn't really know existed. I was originally referring to today's 3,300 word article titled "Bad Vibrations: The Lies Universities Tell Their Students about Sex".rjsterry said:
I'd heard of it. I don't have as strong a view as Rick, but find it odd that the people who most strongly advocate for genetics being the answer to all sorts of social problems, so rarely seem to have any background in the study of genetics, or indeed any science. Toby Young being a prime example. Whenever he starts holding forth on the importance of being able to discuss challenging ideas, what he seems to mean is that he would like to be able to publish his unsubstantiated guff without having people point out that it's unsubstantiated guff.TheBigBean said:
I had never heard of it, so googled it. It is easy to see how Rick would not be a fan.Jeremy.89 said:I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.
0 -
It's behind the usual paywall, but from what I could read, it sounds like it's a real hoot.DeVlaeminck said:
Stepford students! Snowflakes! Students are mocked but in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, it is vice-chancellors who spot trauma everywhere and want to turn universities into one big safe space.
The vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Louise Richardson, has announced that students traumatised by the video of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer can ask for special dispensation if they feel they were unable to perform at their best in final exams or assessments. She has urged her colleagues to "reach out to any black students who may be experiencing difficulty at this time...."
She must still be stoned from her student days.
No way that offer is wide open to being used and abused.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
HaHa. What a convenient way of actually not engaging with any points in a text. 'This might not be racist/homophobic/transpĥobic etc but I think that's the motivation behind it so I can just ignore it.' In a way, nobody can win against that.rick_chasey said:
How people work out what people mean by what they write. What a great mystery.nickice said:
Explains why you throw around terms like 'racist' and 'bigot' so easily. Apparently you have the ability to get into people's heads and find out 'what they really mean'. Surely one for the irony thread that you're talking about other people arguing in bad faith.
How is that witchcraft ever done?1 -
Treating people as groups. How ironic.blazing_saddles said:
It's behind the usual paywall, but from what I could read, it sounds like it's a real hoot.DeVlaeminck said:
Stepford students! Snowflakes! Students are mocked but in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, it is vice-chancellors who spot trauma everywhere and want to turn universities into one big safe space.
The vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Louise Richardson, has announced that students traumatised by the video of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer can ask for special dispensation if they feel they were unable to perform at their best in final exams or assessments. She has urged her colleagues to "reach out to any black students who may be experiencing difficulty at this time...."
She must still be stoned from her student days.
No way that offer is wide open to being used and abused.0 -
A bit like people with very little scientific knowledge talking about viruses.rjsterry said:
I'd heard of it. I don't have as strong a view as Rick, but find it odd that the people who most strongly advocate for genetics being the answer to all sorts of social problems, so rarely seem to have any background in the study of genetics, or indeed any science. Toby Young being a prime example. Whenever he starts holding forth on the importance of being able to discuss challenging ideas, what he seems to mean is that he would like to be able to publish his unsubstantiated guff without having people point out that it's unsubstantiated guff.TheBigBean said:
I had never heard of it, so googled it. It is easy to see how Rick would not be a fan.Jeremy.89 said:I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.
0 -
I think *most* of us would freely admit that we are posting from the layperson's point of view. We're all just having a chat, not writing a blog post and then demanding it be taken seriously by the world.nickice said:
A bit like people with very little scientific knowledge talking about viruses.rjsterry said:
I'd heard of it. I don't have as strong a view as Rick, but find it odd that the people who most strongly advocate for genetics being the answer to all sorts of social problems, so rarely seem to have any background in the study of genetics, or indeed any science. Toby Young being a prime example. Whenever he starts holding forth on the importance of being able to discuss challenging ideas, what he seems to mean is that he would like to be able to publish his unsubstantiated guff without having people point out that it's unsubstantiated guff.TheBigBean said:
I had never heard of it, so googled it. It is easy to see how Rick would not be a fan.Jeremy.89 said:I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So up early and thought I would Google a few points that had been puzzling me. Sure enough Colston’s Company had a royal charter and was headed up by the future James II who has a statue in Trafalgar Square.0
-
Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
0 -
James II was a Stuart and therefore a Scot, so lets turn the blame to the Scots!0
-
No it's entirely predictable.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]0 -
OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvementrick_chasey said:
No it's entirely predictable.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]0 -
Media like the Guardian perhaps?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/11864739/lincoln-guardian-shut-down/amp/0 -
There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.surrey_commuter said:
OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvementrick_chasey said:
No it's entirely predictable.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
I mean, the royals generally have a whole bunch of bad practices (like going round Epstein's house and having sex with trafficked underage women, burning Catholics at the stake, arranging pogroms for when they want to avoid paying loans for wars that only they want etc etc). So why is this any different?
If the royals had a history of apologising for various misdeeds down the years and this instance was excluded then fair enough, but, let's be honest, they don't admit to having a living nonce in their own family and have an entire entourage trying to stop him being arrested or helping the american police prosecute people, so to expect apologies for things their family did centuries ago is a bit far-fetched.0 -
I take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent historyrick_chasey said:
There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.surrey_commuter said:
OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvementrick_chasey said:
No it's entirely predictable.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
I mean, the royals generally have a whole bunch of bad practices (like going round Epstein's house and having sex with trafficked underage women, burning Catholics at the stake, arranging pogroms for when they want to avoid paying loans for wars that only they want etc etc). So why is this any different?
If the royals had a history of apologising for various misdeeds down the years and this instance was excluded then fair enough, but, let's be honest, they don't admit to having a living nonce in their own family and have an entire entourage trying to stop him being arrested or helping the american police prosecute people, so to expect apologies for things their family did centuries ago is a bit far-fetched.
I was thinking more about them making a multi-million pound donation, add that to the funds from selling Colston School and we are starting to build a significant endowment for improving life in West Africa.0 -
I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
It's a wonder that the they haven't targeted the Duke of Edinburgh for censure.
He doesn't even have the historical excuse.
I noticed that some were questioning whether the Uni would be removing The Rhodes Trust and it's scholarships to poor but very clever students to attend Oxford."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
The Richard Evans article I posted gives a good history of that trust. It's not as straightforward as that. (I suspect they will just re-name it).blazing_saddles said:
I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
It's a wonder that the they haven't targeted the Duke of Edinburgh for censure.
He doesn't even have the historical excuse.
I noticed that some were questioning whether the Uni would be removing The Rhodes Trust and it's scholarships to poor but very clever students to attend Oxford.0 -
oh no we could not possibly do anything that will cause inconvenience. All these woke winkers are doing the equivalent of getting a prius to the airport for a private jet.rick_chasey said:
The Richard Evans article I posted gives a good history of that trust. It's not as straightforward as that. (I suspect they will just re-name it).blazing_saddles said:
I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
It's a wonder that the they haven't targeted the Duke of Edinburgh for censure.
He doesn't even have the historical excuse.
I noticed that some were questioning whether the Uni would be removing The Rhodes Trust and it's scholarships to poor but very clever students to attend Oxford.1 -
Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.surrey_commuter said:
oh no we could not possibly do anything that will cause inconvenience. All these woke winkers are doing the equivalent of getting a prius to the airport for a private jet.rick_chasey said:
The Richard Evans article I posted gives a good history of that trust. It's not as straightforward as that. (I suspect they will just re-name it).blazing_saddles said:
I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
It's a wonder that the they haven't targeted the Duke of Edinburgh for censure.
He doesn't even have the historical excuse.
I noticed that some were questioning whether the Uni would be removing The Rhodes Trust and it's scholarships to poor but very clever students to attend Oxford.
Nonetheless, it doesn't send a great message to black students and professors by having his name on there - so what's wrong with changing the name?0 -
nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signallingrick_chasey said:
Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.surrey_commuter said:
oh no we could not possibly do anything that will cause inconvenience. All these woke winkers are doing the equivalent of getting a prius to the airport for a private jet.rick_chasey said:
The Richard Evans article I posted gives a good history of that trust. It's not as straightforward as that. (I suspect they will just re-name it).blazing_saddles said:
I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?rjsterry said:Yes. The James II statue was set up before he died, which I think is a bit different from the two-centuries-later rebranding exercise that led to the Colston statue.
Interestingly for the "removing statues is removing history" gang, there is thisIt was taken down after the Glorious Revolution but was replaced by order of William III. In 1898 it was moved to a location in the garden of Gwydyr House, but was taken down four years later to make room for the stands for the coronation of Edward VII.[13] It lay on its back amid grass and weeds in a state of total neglect until it was re-erected in 1903 outside the New Admiralty building,[6]
It's a wonder that the they haven't targeted the Duke of Edinburgh for censure.
He doesn't even have the historical excuse.
I noticed that some were questioning whether the Uni would be removing The Rhodes Trust and it's scholarships to poor but very clever students to attend Oxford.
Nonetheless, it doesn't send a great message to black students and professors by having his name on there - so what's wrong with changing the name?
even on here everybody runs a mile when i suggest doing the hard yards.
why not identify all of the wealth derived from slavery that has been used as gifts and or endowments and use that money to build a multi-billion pound fund to help out the descendants of slaves or the regions from which they originated.
To answer my own question... it is because the woke brigade are just as guilty of self-interest as the rest of us and won't want to see museums and galleries stripped of artefacts and all the other trusts they enjoy the benefits of being reduced.
The National Trust must own property built with the proceeds of the slave trade do you think they will do anything other than token gestures.
The argument that it was all a long time ago and has nothing to do with us has more going for it than these absolute tossers who want to do anything and everything that does not impact their own lives.3
