Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

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.

That wasn't a response to you, it was a general point that the danger is you divert funds from Trusts etc. to a single, admittedly very important, issue and it can have unintended consequences on other vulnerable groups.

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I just think we're better off making a real and genuine difference now rather than going back to make amends for things done by others centuries before we were born. You say that removing statues etc. is just virtue signalling but surely so is a company throwing a few million into a trust fund due to an uproar over what the company did hundreds of years ago? It's just on a bigger scale.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

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.

They shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but sometimes it feels that they are. We have countless posts on Colston and very little on what can be done to improve lives today.

orraloon

'Kin L peeps, just scanned through the last several pages. 😳 You do know that "lockdown" as constantly parroted by the Beeb is "relaxed" and one can get outside and get a life?

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

I don't think we necessarily have the right to seize money that was made legally even if we now consider it morally unacceptable.

However again I don't see why we should pick out the Atlantic slave trade as uniquely worthy of being a wrong worth righting. Indentured labour, the Ottoman slave trade, English serfdom, enclosures, Highland clearances, conscription, war...the list goes on.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

For someone who claims to want government involvement in most things to be minimised, I'm struggling to get my head around you now arguing for a massive asset grab by the state.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

I’m not convinced you believe in this.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

I don't think we necessarily have the right to seize money that was made legally even if we now consider it morally unacceptable.

However again I don't see why we should pick out the Atlantic slave trade as uniquely worthy of being a wrong worth righting. Indentured labour, the Ottoman slave trade, English serfdom, enclosures, Highland clearances, conscription, war...the list goes on.

Are you able to hazard a guess?

Did you not do this in school?

I wonder if this is actually behind the big dividing line in this.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

I’m not convinced you believe in this.

You don’t think that I think the Swiss banks should have been made to hand over Jewish money?

You could not be more wrong, I think their behaviour was deplorable and I would not set a time limit on putting it right.

DeVlaeminck

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

I don't think we necessarily have the right to seize money that was made legally even if we now consider it morally unacceptable.

However again I don't see why we should pick out the Atlantic slave trade as uniquely worthy of being a wrong worth righting. Indentured labour, the Ottoman slave trade, English serfdom, enclosures, Highland clearances, conscription, war...the list goes on.

Are you able to hazard a guess?

Did you not do this in school?

I wonder if this is actually behind the big dividing line in this.

No I'm not able to hazard a guess as to why you think the Atlantic slave trade should be subject to reparations and no other wrong from history should be.

I thought you were actually against reparations so I'm not sure what your point is ?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

I’m not convinced you believe in this.

You don’t think that I think the Swiss banks should have been made to hand over Jewish money?

You could not be more wrong, I think their behaviour was deplorable and I would not set a time limit on putting it right.

Had the transatlantic slave trade happened over a period of less than 10 years, had there been detailed records of exactly whom had been enslaved and from where, had the profits of selling those people still been in bank accounts, then an attempt at direct reparations might have been achievable within 60 or so years of the abolition of slavery. Turning it around, had the money in those Swiss banks been withdrawn, reinvested and transferred many times over for two hundred years or more, it would be a far more difficult proposition.

That's not to say that organisations that can identify a significant historic benefit from slavery shouldn't take a long hard look at what they do with their money.

TheBigBean

This would all be less of a problem (individuals currently directly benefiting from slavery) with my harsh inheritance tax policies in place.

ballysmate

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

So if we go down the route of compensating the descendants of slaves, do these descendants have to pass the money on to the descendants of the Native Americans who were killed or forcibly removed from their lands?
After all, they are benefiting today from the way the Native Americans were treated in the past.

#redlivesmatter

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

I’m not convinced you believe in this.

You don’t think that I think the Swiss banks should have been made to hand over Jewish money?

You could not be more wrong, I think their behaviour was deplorable and I would not set a time limit on putting it right.

Had the transatlantic slave trade happened over a period of less than 10 years, had there been detailed records of exactly whom had been enslaved and from where, had the profits of selling those people still been in bank accounts, then an attempt at direct reparations might have been achievable within 60 or so years of the abolition of slavery. Turning it around, had the money in those Swiss banks been withdrawn, reinvested and transferred many times over for two hundred years or more, it would be a far more difficult proposition.

That's not to say that organisations that can identify a significant historic benefit from slavery shouldn't take a long hard look at what they do with their money.

The money had not been withdrawn because the bank made it difficult and example being refusing to pay out life insurance due to lack of a death certificate. The money had probably been paid out in dividends before the cost of being shut out of US markets caused them to fold. Frankly I would set no deadline.

Imagine Colton had left a house to the National Trust? In my world the decent thing would be to give it to the imaginary fund I have set up. Imagine the uproar from the local middle classes when they went for post march refreshments and found the tea rooms shut.

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

So if we go down the route of compensating the descendants of slaves, do these descendants have to pass the money on to the descendants of the Native Americans who were killed or forcibly removed from their lands?
After all, they are benefiting today from the way the Native Americans were treated in the past.

#redlivesmatter

You are going to be livid when you find out they have already been compensated.

In decent company I would avoid using “red” to refer to Native American Indians

ballysmate

Cortez captured Tenochtitlán and killed 100,000 Aztecs. Are their descendants due a payout by the Spanish?

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

Cortez captured Tenochtitlán and killed 100,000 Aztecs. Are their descendants due a payout by the Spanish?

The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of questions to answer

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

I would like to know how you work out where the money comes from and where it should go to and what effect it will have.

I will mark you down as being in agreement.

What do you think about the Swiss banks being forced to give money to Jewish organisations? I seem to remember they hid behind a lack of proof and various other excuses. Possibly the difficulty of reuniting the money, gold, art with their rightful beneficiaries

How long would they have had to hang on before you would have allowed they to keep the money?

I’m not convinced you believe in this.

You don’t think that I think the Swiss banks should have been made to hand over Jewish money?

You could not be more wrong, I think their behaviour was deplorable and I would not set a time limit on putting it right.

Had the transatlantic slave trade happened over a period of less than 10 years, had there been detailed records of exactly whom had been enslaved and from where, had the profits of selling those people still been in bank accounts, then an attempt at direct reparations might have been achievable within 60 or so years of the abolition of slavery. Turning it around, had the money in those Swiss banks been withdrawn, reinvested and transferred many times over for two hundred years or more, it would be a far more difficult proposition.

That's not to say that organisations that can identify a significant historic benefit from slavery shouldn't take a long hard look at what they do with their money.

The money had not been withdrawn because the bank made it difficult and example being refusing to pay out life insurance due to lack of a death certificate. The money had probably been paid out in dividends before the cost of being shut out of US markets caused them to fold. Frankly I would set no deadline.

Imagine Colton had left a house to the National Trust? In my world the decent thing would be to give it to the imaginary fund I have set up. Imagine the uproar from the local middle classes when they went for post march refreshments and found the tea rooms shut.

The NT has, I think, about 95 properties where there are strong connections to the slave trade. For sure they could address this better. Did you put your own surname into that UCL database, by the way?

Here's an article looking at some of the issues with direct monetary reparations to those who can demonstrate slave ancestry in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/which-americans-should-get-reparations/2019/09/18/271cf744-cab1-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

This quote stood out.

“The idea that unless you can actually trace your family directly to a slave that you haven’t been subject to the legacy of slavery is a bunch of hogwash.”

blazing_saddles

Sounds nasty.
Multiple stabbing incident at a BLM gathering in reading.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-53123975

webboo

But not connected to it according to the link you posted.

DeVlaeminck

Sounds like it may be a racially motivated attack - time will tell though.

ballysmate

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

But still ignore poor white boys who statistically do worse than poor black boys ? Who is to say a black kid's ancestors have anything to do with slavery at all ?

At some point most of us have ancestors who were slaves, indentured labourers, serfs or something along those lines - picking one instance from history and trying to make amends based purely on skin colour doesn't seem to achieve anything.

If black kids are disproportionately affected by social deprivation then they'll benefit disproportionately by tackling social deprivation.

At the same time there should be robust legislation to make sure that they do not suffer now from racism - at the same time there may be a case for positive discrimination when it comes to things like the police force or other public services where failing to represent society may impact on their performance.

It is a debate about using the proceeds of slavery for the benefit of the victims descendants.

In fairness everybody else is against seizing the money whereas you seem to only be against where to spend it.

I would expect the Trustees to educate themselves about where African slaves were transported to which should allow them fairly easily to figure out who the beneficiaries should be.

To reiterate, I believe the best way to break the circle of social deprivation is through education.

So if we go down the route of compensating the descendants of slaves, do these descendants have to pass the money on to the descendants of the Native Americans who were killed or forcibly removed from their lands?
After all, they are benefiting today from the way the Native Americans were treated in the past.

#redlivesmatter

You are going to be livid when you find out they have already been compensated.

In decent company I would avoid using “red” to refer to Native American Indians

Like this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.html

You are talking about companies and organisations which profited from the slave trade making restitution. Apples and oranges.

blazing_saddles

webboo said:

But not connected to it according to the link you posted.

No, not connected at all.
The perils of posting a BBC link.
Especially very early on, when actual facts are scarce.

tailwindhome

It's a sport I know nothing about, but the scenes around Nascar were quite something.

Short version as I understand it, the only black driver Bubba Wallace had petitioned for the end of confederate flags at the races, Nascar agreed, a noose was left in Wallace's team garage. As a show of solidarity the other drivers pushed his car to the start line of the next race

rick_chasey

No-one's grassed up the guy who laid the noose down, mind.

Pross

tailwindhome said:

It's a sport I know nothing about, but the scenes around Nascar were quite something.

Short version as I understand it, the only black driver Bubba Wallace had petitioned for the end of confederate flags at the races, Nascar agreed, a noose was left in Wallace's team garage. As a show of solidarity the other drivers pushed his car to the start line of the next race

Surprised by that, I'd always thought of that being a sport aimed almost entirely at Trump supporters both as spectators and participants. Maybe there is hope after all.