Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

I'd settle for politicians not to decide what gets put on the curriculum in schools and leaves it to a technocratic board like they do for interest rates, made up of an ever rotating cast of the great and the good of the relevant academic world and leaders in teaching.

The gov't influence could be the general guidance setting.

This is often my answer to most things, and it's no coincidence my penchant for technocracy means I'm quite sympathetic to EU structures.

Doesn't allow for ill-educated, ill-informed populist nonsense, and allows for u-turns, admitting mistakes, redrawing etc, because it's not political capital being put at stake.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No it's entirely predictable.

OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvement

There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.

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 take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent history

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.

Why West Africa? Surely that is rewarding the slavers. Or do you intend to identify which communities were slaving and which ones were victims?

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No it's entirely predictable.

OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvement

There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.

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 take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent history

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.

Why West Africa? Surely that is rewarding the slavers. Or do you intend to identify which communities were slaving and which ones were victims?

your are right far too difficult and we should just change the odd nameplate and remove a few statues

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No it's entirely predictable.

OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvement

There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.

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 take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent history

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.

Why West Africa? Surely that is rewarding the slavers. Or do you intend to identify which communities were slaving and which ones were victims?

your are right far too difficult and we should just change the odd nameplate and remove a few statues

I was thinking your fund should go to the Caribbean and southern US. I've never really understood why the slavers get a pass in these discussions. There were three crimes: (i) making people slaves (ii) transporting slaves (iii) using slaves.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

It's possible to think that there is a problem, but that the existence of symbols isn't it.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No it's entirely predictable.

OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvement

There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.

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 take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent history

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.

Why West Africa? Surely that is rewarding the slavers. Or do you intend to identify which communities were slaving and which ones were victims?

your are right far too difficult and we should just change the odd nameplate and remove a few statues

I was thinking your fund should go to the Caribbean and southern US. I've never really understood why the slavers get a pass in these discussions. There were three crimes: (i) making people slaves (ii) transporting slaves (iii) using slaves.

I wouldn't argue with the Caribbean,

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

First point, following your rationale we should be returning all the wealth the country generated as a result of colonial activities rather than just trusts surely? No, I'm not suggesting it would be the non-white elements of BAME that would 'ruin' it but I could see for example someone arguing Senegal should get the most as that's where most slaves came from and someone else arguing money should go to the Caribbean as that's where the descendants of the slaves are predominantly located and then someone chipping in with how the British Empire plundered the natural resources of India etc..

Second point, the timescales are the thing here - we're talking centuries with none of those directly affected still being around. I wouldn't give back the money had my many times Great Grandfather stolen it. If I did give it back, even allowing for any interest gained over the intervening centuries, would I then have to spread it thinly around all of the original victims descendants? Also, if somewhere along the line that £10 had got used in an investment / gamble and turned into millions should I then return the original £10, a share of the money I'd made from my ill-gotten gains or everything I made from my ill-gotten gains.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

First point, following your rationale we should be returning all the wealth the country generated as a result of colonial activities rather than just trusts surely? No, I'm not suggesting it would be the non-white elements of BAME that would 'ruin' it but I could see for example someone arguing Senegal should get the most as that's where most slaves came from and someone else arguing money should go to the Caribbean as that's where the descendants of the slaves are predominantly located and then someone chipping in with how the British Empire plundered the natural resources of India etc..

Second point, the timescales are the thing here - we're talking centuries with none of those directly affected still being around. I wouldn't give back the money had my many times Great Grandfather stolen it. If I did give it back, even allowing for any interest gained over the intervening centuries, would I then have to spread it thinly around all of the original victims descendants? Also, if somewhere along the line that £10 had got used in an investment / gamble and turned into millions should I then return the original £10, a share of the money I'd made from my ill-gotten gains or everything I made from my ill-gotten gains.

your Senegal argument is very weak.

why not ask organisations that profited from the slave trade to donate to a fund, shaming and legislation can come later.

the last point - index linking would be good enough for me

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

If you look at kids who get free school meals it's white boys that under perform. So you ignore them but black kids get extra funding ?

If there is money to be handed out out it into those that need it irrespective of skin colour.

Pross

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

If you look at kids who get free school meals it's white boys that under perform. So you ignore them but black kids get extra funding ?

If there is money to be handed out out it into those that need it irrespective of skin colour.

That's my thinking too. For example, is it better to use the Rhodes Scholarship to allow a lad from a South London estate who has battled through adversity to a high level of academic achievement attend Oxford Uni or to support someone who has a middle class upbringing but comes from a particular ethnic background? I appreciate that you could have someone who comes from the same estate and the particular ethnic background but just trying to illustrate a point. I tend to worry about people being pressured into being seen to do the 'right thing' resulting in unintended consequences.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

First point, following your rationale we should be returning all the wealth the country generated as a result of colonial activities rather than just trusts surely? No, I'm not suggesting it would be the non-white elements of BAME that would 'ruin' it but I could see for example someone arguing Senegal should get the most as that's where most slaves came from and someone else arguing money should go to the Caribbean as that's where the descendants of the slaves are predominantly located and then someone chipping in with how the British Empire plundered the natural resources of India etc..

Second point, the timescales are the thing here - we're talking centuries with none of those directly affected still being around. I wouldn't give back the money had my many times Great Grandfather stolen it. If I did give it back, even allowing for any interest gained over the intervening centuries, would I then have to spread it thinly around all of the original victims descendants? Also, if somewhere along the line that £10 had got used in an investment / gamble and turned into millions should I then return the original £10, a share of the money I'd made from my ill-gotten gains or everything I made from my ill-gotten gains.

your Senegal argument is very weak.

why not ask organisations that profited from the slave trade to donate to a fund, shaming and legislation can come later.

the last point - index linking would be good enough for me

One of my points is how do we determine what organisations have profited. I suspect in one way or another most of us have profited in one way or another whether it's from a pension fund with investments in companies that had historical links to slavery, having Clients at our places of work with a similar history, attending a school where there was an endowment or trust fund of some kind or simply living in a country that bit much of its wealth through colonialism that has allowed us and our ancestors to live relative comfort with good levels of education and health care. The passage of time has been too great to realistically put measures in place now. Sure, there are probably some companies with very obvious links (tobacco companies, sugar manufacturers etc.) but I suspect there are many others that these days seem unrelated but at one point would have built their growth on industries that used slave labour.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

are you comparing the British monarchy selling a monopoly right to the west Africa slave trade to me being able to enjoy Tate Britain?

my argument is that everybody on here and the public atlarge is against doing anything that might materially cost us or be a bit difficult instead are happy to loudly condemn historical racists and their ill gotten gains. Seems a pretty good definition of virtue signalling

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

First point, following your rationale we should be returning all the wealth the country generated as a result of colonial activities rather than just trusts surely? No, I'm not suggesting it would be the non-white elements of BAME that would 'ruin' it but I could see for example someone arguing Senegal should get the most as that's where most slaves came from and someone else arguing money should go to the Caribbean as that's where the descendants of the slaves are predominantly located and then someone chipping in with how the British Empire plundered the natural resources of India etc..

Second point, the timescales are the thing here - we're talking centuries with none of those directly affected still being around. I wouldn't give back the money had my many times Great Grandfather stolen it. If I did give it back, even allowing for any interest gained over the intervening centuries, would I then have to spread it thinly around all of the original victims descendants? Also, if somewhere along the line that £10 had got used in an investment / gamble and turned into millions should I then return the original £10, a share of the money I'd made from my ill-gotten gains or everything I made from my ill-gotten gains.

your Senegal argument is very weak.

why not ask organisations that profited from the slave trade to donate to a fund, shaming and legislation can come later.

the last point - index linking would be good enough for me

One of my points is how do we determine what organisations have profited. I suspect in one way or another most of us have profited in one way or another whether it's from a pension fund with investments in companies that had historical links to slavery, having Clients at our places of work with a similar history, attending a school where there was an endowment or trust fund of some kind or simply living in a country that bit much of its wealth through colonialism that has allowed us and our ancestors to live relative comfort with good levels of education and health care. The passage of time has been too great to realistically put measures in place now. Sure, there are probably some companies with very obvious links (tobacco companies, sugar manufacturers etc.) but I suspect there are many others that these days seem unrelated but at one point would have built their growth on industries that used slave labour.

so we could give up before we even start or we start with the easy targets and progress from there.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

If you look at kids who get free school meals it's white boys that under perform. So you ignore them but black kids get extra funding ?

If there is money to be handed out out it into those that need it irrespective of skin colour.

That's my thinking too. For example, is it better to use the Rhodes Scholarship to allow a lad from a South London estate who has battled through adversity to a high level of academic achievement attend Oxford Uni or to support someone who has a middle class upbringing but comes from a particular ethnic background? I appreciate that you could have someone who comes from the same estate and the particular ethnic background but just trying to illustrate a point. I tend to worry about people being pressured into being seen to do the 'right thing' resulting in unintended consequences.

don't strawman me into funding middle class kids.

my argument is that your kid on the S. London Estate faces too many headwinds to get anywhere near Oxford or to even understand that is an attainable target. I would target the funds at a younger level.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

Speak for yourself. I put my money where my mouth is with regard to the stolen artefacts on show at UK museums, and did a bit of lobbying along with my professor on the issue.

I would say that, in part, a lot of this is about symbolism (after all, this is statues), so to criticise the chat about various symbols for being too symbolic and not practical is a bit much, but I take your point.

I honestly don't think reparations solve the future problem, which is what is more important.

I think the statues of guys like Colston and Rhodes reflect a natural and reflexive reticence to get to grips and deal with the problems of racism; the reticence to reflect it in the history of the UK is the same reticence to reflect on its prevalence in UK society today.

You've seen multiple people on here argue that it isn't a problem, despite the overwhelming stats and noise from the black community saying otherwise; often they are the same people who are disappointed the statue was taken down - this is probably not a coincidence.

It is all symbolic, of course, but symbols matter a bit, however trivial, otherwise they wouldn't be symbols, right?

i guess where I am coming from is that I see the primary problem and solution as being education. Funding from wealth derived from the slave trade would help find a solution to the education underperformance of black kids.

If you look at kids who get free school meals it's white boys that under perform. So you ignore them but black kids get extra funding ?

If there is money to be handed out out it into those that need it irrespective of skin colour.

happy to have a debate about why poor black and white kids underperform at school, why don'tyou start a new thread.

This argument is about taking the ill-gotten gains of slavery and using it for the benefit of the victims ancestors

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

I just don't think many people care about historical statues, and areas would be more likely to be improved by reopening/building local youth centres and ending lots of the local cuts.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

don't strawman me into funding middle class kids.

my argument is that your kid on the S. London Estate faces too many headwinds to get anywhere near Oxford or to even understand that is an attainable target. I would target the funds at a younger level.

I posted at the same time as you, hence the dangerous appearance that agree with you on something.

veronese68

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No it's entirely predictable.

OK, more specifically why are the more republican wings of the media and society so quiet on their involvement

There comes a point where the entire nation in some form or other has benefited from appalling practices.

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 take all of your points but the world has changed and 1700s now seen as recent history

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.

Why West Africa? Surely that is rewarding the slavers. Or do you intend to identify which communities were slaving and which ones were victims?

your are right far too difficult and we should just change the odd nameplate and remove a few statues

Maybe not having these people on a pedestal is a start.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

I think you underestimate the scale of the issue. We're not talking about a few dozen trusts. UCL has catalogued over 3000 individual legacies in the Great Britain.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/maps/britain/#zoom=4&lng=-3.955611&lat=51.917039

And then there are the hundreds of buildings still standing, which were funded by investing profits from the trade. Do you suggest we start compulsorily purchasing whole streets of Georgian houses in Bath?

veronese68

rjsterry said:

Do you suggest we start compulsorily purchasing whole streets of Georgian houses in Bath?

Well it seems a few believe there's no point in doing things by halves, so it's all or nothing.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

are you comparing the British monarchy selling a monopoly right to the west Africa slave trade to me being able to enjoy Tate Britain?

my argument is that everybody on here and the public atlarge is against doing anything that might materially cost us or be a bit difficult instead are happy to loudly condemn historical racists and their ill gotten gains. Seems a pretty good definition of virtue signalling

The core of that world class collection of art HM has was put together by Charles I. The RAC was set up by Charles II. So you tell me how that's different from Tate Britain or Bristol University or any of the other institutions founded with money from the trade?

Just because people don't agree with your 'scheme' doesn't follow that they are against *anything* that costs them money.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

I just don't think many people care about historical statues, and areas would be more likely to be improved by reopening/building local youth centres and ending lots of the local cuts.

Most of them, no. That particular one, they did. Yes practical considerations are at least as important, but the two things are not mutually exclusive.

blazing_saddles

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

I had the same question on the tips of my fingers.

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.

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).

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.

Well I think back in the day ,the trust was fairly racist, and it has been reformed since.

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?

nothing, just saying that is an easy bit of virtue signalling

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.

We'd bankrupt the country if we tried to right every wrong from the colonial era and there'd also be countless committees arguing over which groups should be compensated which would probably just result in fresh division within the numerous sections of the BAME 'community' (I always find it slightly odd that, when discussing race, people seem to treat all those with the same skin colour as though they are the same. It feels almost racist!). The logical extension would be that all individuals that have built fortunes over generations off the back of initial money being made in a dubious manner should give their entire fortune back to those who were exploited.

The National Trust has almost certainly got properties that were owned by less than savoury characters but it would be a stretch to say they benefit from them. Their whole reason to exist is really just to preserve 'national treasures' be it part of the built or natural environment and the money they make just goes back into that.

People should be judged on their own actions not on those of the past, apologising for the actions of others that you had no control over even if they were your descendants is futile. Even if a living relative of mine did something heinous I wouldn't feel the need to apologise on their behalf unless I could have reasonably prevented them doing it but I would condemn it.

so in a nutshell you think that taking assets off trusts will bankrupt the country and that if we did get a pot together the non-black elements of BAME would ruin it for everybody so we should not even try.

Say your Dad gave you £10k and 2 weeks from now you find that he had conned it out of an old lady. Would you return your money?
Same scenario but the old lady is now dead, do you give it to her surviving relatives
Same scenario but it was your Grandfather who conned the old lady 10 years ago and gave it to you..

I am sure you get the point... at what point would you consider the money adequately washed by time that you did not feel the need to return it?

I think you underestimate the scale of the issue. We're not talking about a few dozen trusts. UCL has catalogued over 3000 individual legacies in the Great Britain.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/maps/britain/#zoom=4&lng=-3.955611&lat=51.917039

And then there are the hundreds of buildings still standing, which were funded by investing profits from the trade. Do you suggest we start compulsorily purchasing whole streets of Georgian houses in Bath?

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

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?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

You seem to have won your own award.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

don't strawman me into funding middle class kids.

my argument is that your kid on the S. London Estate faces too many headwinds to get anywhere near Oxford or to even understand that is an attainable target. I would target the funds at a younger level.

I posted at the same time as you, hence the dangerous appearance that agree with you on something.

thanks for the explanation it had thoroughly discombobulated me

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

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 this

It 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]

Do you not find it interesting that the Royal Family has escaped censure for it role and profiteering in the slave trade?

No. We all have to some extent. All that profit is built into the fabric of our cities, their buildings and institutions. The important thing is that people know about it and the average Briton's grasp of history is shocking. Sure, removing a statue or changing a name isn't going to make anyone's material circumstances easier, but just referring to any symbolic gesture as virtue signalling is such a lazy argument. Civic symbols convey meaning. They tell people what values a society holds dear and which it does not.

are you comparing the British monarchy selling a monopoly right to the west Africa slave trade to me being able to enjoy Tate Britain?

my argument is that everybody on here and the public atlarge is against doing anything that might materially cost us or be a bit difficult instead are happy to loudly condemn historical racists and their ill gotten gains. Seems a pretty good definition of virtue signalling

The core of that world class collection of art HM has was put together by Charles I. The RAC was set up by Charles II. So you tell me how that's different from Tate Britain or Bristol University or any of the other institutions founded with money from the trade?

Just because people don't agree with your 'scheme' doesn't follow that they are against *anything* that costs them money.

yep it can go

and I would hand back the Elgin Marbles and Kohinoor diamond

I am genuinely surprised that I am a lone wolf on this and that you lot are so ready to cling on to the ill gotten gains of Britain's involvement and indeed management of the slave trade.

I can only think I have shaken Rick to the core by out woking him and making him by proxy an apologist for slavery.