Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
They just used the concept of ladies and gentlemen to make the distinction.rjsterry said:
From what I've read there are differing views on this, but anyway: it is of course true that life was pretty hard for the 19th century European working classes, too. I don't think there was much of a movement to classify the working classes as an inferior subspecies, though.TheBigBean said:
A quick google reveals this isn't true. It was a big struggle at the time and only returned to profitability once the indentured labourers had arrived and been established. Interestingly they also didn't do well in the years prior to the ban on slavery.rjsterry said:
Very. Freed slaves in the Caribbean mostly continued working on the same plantations for low wages.TheBigBean said:
Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.rjsterry said:
They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.TheBigBean said:
You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?rick_chasey said:
I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.TheBigBean said:Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.
It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”
The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.
I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.
This is entirely irrelevant though to the point I was making which is that is that life wasn't great for many in the UK at the time, and the ruling classes were entirely comfortable with this
It does sound like an interesting period in the Caribbean. From my brief bit of research it appears much of the disagreement is over why there was an economic decline i.e. should the former slaves or the former slave owners be blamed. One bit of research suggested the whole importation of indentured labourers, who received much better conditions than former slaves, was far more expensive, but was done purely due to pride/spite.
0 -
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.TheBigBean said:
They just used the concept of ladies and gentlemen to make the distinction.rjsterry said:
From what I've read there are differing views on this, but anyway: it is of course true that life was pretty hard for the 19th century European working classes, too. I don't think there was much of a movement to classify the working classes as an inferior subspecies, though.TheBigBean said:
A quick google reveals this isn't true. It was a big struggle at the time and only returned to profitability once the indentured labourers had arrived and been established. Interestingly they also didn't do well in the years prior to the ban on slavery.rjsterry said:
Very. Freed slaves in the Caribbean mostly continued working on the same plantations for low wages.TheBigBean said:
Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.rjsterry said:
They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.TheBigBean said:
You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?rick_chasey said:
I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.TheBigBean said:Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.
It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”
The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.
I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.
This is entirely irrelevant though to the point I was making which is that is that life wasn't great for many in the UK at the time, and the ruling classes were entirely comfortable with this
It does sound like an interesting period in the Caribbean. From my brief bit of research it appears much of the disagreement is over why there was an economic decline i.e. should the former slaves or the former slave owners be blamed. One bit of research suggested the whole importation of indentured labourers, who received much better conditions than former slaves, was far more expensive, but was done purely due to pride/spite.
Undoubtedly the end of the slave trade forced a change in the economics of sugar production and other plantation crops, but clearly names like Tate show it was still possible to make a great deal of money from it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Isn't that part of what is looked at in the report? Class, or wealth, is far more influential in outcomes than race. When I consider my snobby neighbours, that certainly seems to be the case in their views on things.rjsterry said:
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.0 -
This is why I find it interesting that there isn't very much discussion of structural racism in the report beyond its definition.TheBigBean said:
Isn't that part of what is looked at in the report? Class, or wealth, is far more influential in outcomes than race. When I consider my snobby neighbours, that certainly seems to be the case in their views on things.rjsterry said:
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.0 -
I'm not sure it is as straightforward to separate the various factors. In any case, it's not an either/or question. They can all be issues worthy of attention.TheBigBean said:
Isn't that part of what is looked at in the report? Class, or wealth, is far more influential in outcomes than race. When I consider my snobby neighbours, that certainly seems to be the case in their views on things.rjsterry said:
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I haven't had time to read the report. In general, when I have seen discussion between those that have and those that haven't and are outraged, I have favoured the argument of the former.kingstongraham said:
This is why I find it interesting that there isn't very much discussion of structural racism in the report beyond its definition.TheBigBean said:
Isn't that part of what is looked at in the report? Class, or wealth, is far more influential in outcomes than race. When I consider my snobby neighbours, that certainly seems to be the case in their views on things.rjsterry said:
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.
But I can't really comment on your point itself.0 -
For the whole nation, which is majority (by a long way) white, this is not surprising. Almost by definition of a minority, it's hard for racism against black people to affect the whole UK population when only 2% of the UK population is black (according to the census 10 years ago).TheBigBean said:
Isn't that part of what is looked at in the report? Class, or wealth, is far more influential in outcomes than race. When I consider my snobby neighbours, that certainly seems to be the case in their views on things.rjsterry said:
Some went further to suggest that the working classes should be 'discouraged from breeding'. I think it is difficult to argue that 18th and 19th century pseudo-scientific ideas on race haven't had a longer tail than ideas on the natural superiority of the upper classes.
Being working class is not the same dynamic.
I still don't understand the parallels you are drawing between empire and the poor - I don't think you are ignorant of what happened in the empire so I am struggling to see how this is comparable, so I therefore am fairly sure this is whataboutism.
0 -
workhouses and colonialism were of an age. Perhaps working class people should be paid reparations.rick_chasey said:
You’ve lost me. Who’s proud of work houses and why are they comparable to colonialism?TheBigBean said:
You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?rick_chasey said:
I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.TheBigBean said:Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.
It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”
The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.
I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.0 -
david37 said:
workhouses and colonialism were of an age. Perhaps working class people should be paid reparations.rick_chasey said:
You’ve lost me. Who’s proud of work houses and why are they comparable to colonialism?TheBigBean said:
You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?rick_chasey said:
I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.TheBigBean said:Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.
It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”
The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.
I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.
a workhouse is obviously not what you think it is 0 -
Talking of workhouses the one at Southwell near Nottm makes a good family day out - or in fact just a good day out if you don't have a family - think it's National Trust.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
-
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Bless him for thinking that those who engage in online rows about those things using those words actually want to do anything other than argue online about those things using those words.rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:0 -
The Sewell report outlines its definitions of the various forms of racism as I posted higher up.0
-
0 -
is he cancelling wokeism or is he unwoke to cancel culture?shirley_basso said:0 -
That was a lot of words to tell me something that is fairly obvious.
Another example is feminism. The vast majority of women believe in equality, yet most don't believe the are feminists despite the two, in theory, being the same.
0 -
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).0 -
or "do you have a conscience" rather than ask if someone is woke.Pross said:
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).
0 -
Lol, trust me, the discussions on here are not remotely on the extreme save for the botser.Pross said:
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).0 -
I would say quite a few take the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism which is why people get a bit narked at its use whilst others use it in line with the CRE definition so that's the two extremes of the definition I would suggest (I'm not suggesting people on here hold views at the extreme ends). I suppose the one extreme could be that you are only racist if you actively attack people on the basis of their race rather the Oxford definition though.rick_chasey said:
Lol, trust me, the discussions on here are not remotely on the extreme save for the botser.Pross said:
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).0 -
Misogyny in action, particularly when one of the aims of the talks was to talk about women's rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/07/ursula-von-der-leyen-snubbed-in-chair-gaffe-at-eu-erdogan-talks
0 -
there's a natural order in life and panic von der leyen is on the naughty step.elbowloh said:Misogyny in action, particularly when one of the aims of the talks was to talk about women's rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/07/ursula-von-der-leyen-snubbed-in-chair-gaffe-at-eu-erdogan-talks0 -
There used to be a time when gentlemen pulled out chairs for ladies and didn't sit until the lady was seated...0
-
Adding to the theme of redefining words, I see that 'silenced' now means 'some people have questioned the accuracy of what you have published'. And when a person responds to that criticism with a feature article in a national paper, well, that's being silenced all over again. Tony Sewell is on the front of the Telegraph claiming not only that he is being 'silenced' (see the Features section), but also that the fact that some people disagree with his report 'proves' that he was right.Pross said:
I would say quite a few take the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism which is why people get a bit narked at its use whilst others use it in line with the CRE definition so that's the two extremes of the definition I would suggest (I'm not suggesting people on here hold views at the extreme ends). I suppose the one extreme could be that you are only racist if you actively attack people on the basis of their race rather the Oxford definition though.rick_chasey said:
Lol, trust me, the discussions on here are not remotely on the extreme save for the botser.Pross said:
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
SO silenced means getting appointed to head a government commission, get it endorsed by Government and have it's findings published/aired in every media outlet in the country.rjsterry said:
Adding to the theme of redefining words, I see that 'silenced' now means 'some people have questioned the accuracy of what you have published'. And when a person responds to that criticism with a feature article in a national paper, well, that's being silenced all over again. Tony Sewell is on the front of the Telegraph claiming not only that he is being 'silenced' (see the Features section), but also that the fact that some people disagree with his report 'proves' that he was right.Pross said:
I would say quite a few take the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism which is why people get a bit narked at its use whilst others use it in line with the CRE definition so that's the two extremes of the definition I would suggest (I'm not suggesting people on here hold views at the extreme ends). I suppose the one extreme could be that you are only racist if you actively attack people on the basis of their race rather the Oxford definition though.rick_chasey said:
Lol, trust me, the discussions on here are not remotely on the extreme save for the botser.Pross said:
I feel a lot of people could learn from this paragraph:rjsterry said:
Was just about to post the same. Plenty of examples of that kind of thing around here.shirley_basso said:
"How can we get around this? One way is to talk without using these highly charged, badly defined terms. “Taboo your words”: rather than ask “Is Britain a racist country?”, ask “Do ethnic minorities have worse outcomes than white people?” (Yes.) Or “Are black people less likely to be hired than equivalently qualified white people?” (Yes.) Rather than saying “Is cancel culture real?”, ask “How many people lose their jobs over social media outrage?” (Some, although I have no idea how widespread a problem it is.) Then you avoid the slippery definitions and vague mood-affiliation and can talk about real things." as a lot of the arguments on here stem from how people interpret a 'high charged' word (and we really do have the both extremes among regular posters).
Poor guy.
0 -
I tell you what guys there are not a lot of white people on that Sewell report. So whats the deal are they correct with their findings or have the establishment got to all these people and turned them into stooges. I am going with the former. Who is for the latter?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf1 -
You read it all?john80 said:I tell you what guys there are not a lot of white people on that Sewell report. So whats the deal are they correct with their findings or have the establishment got to all these people and turned them into stooges. I am going with the former. Who is for the latter?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf
I haven't read all of it, but on what I have read, I'm with the "they got a lot of things right, other conclusions don't make sense even based on what they have in the report."
Also, the "summary" that was released before the report doesn't accurately summarise the report, and I don't expect this government to implement the recommendations in it.
This is an interesting and fairly balanced view from one of the people quoted in the report (who says they didn't use his latest writings). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/07/sewell-report-structural-racism-researchI think about these ethnic inequalities in two ways. The first perspective considers what causes the causes of ill health. Smoking, poor diet and obesity are causes of ill health, but the “causes of the causes” are the social determinants of health – the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. Structural racism can be one cause of the social determinants of health – the causes of the “causes of the causes”.0 -
You heard of stock images?john80 said:I tell you what guys there are not a lot of white people on that Sewell report. So whats the deal are they correct with their findings or have the establishment got to all these people and turned them into stooges. I am going with the former. Who is for the latter?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf0
