Reply to: Trevor Phillips talking sense as usual

[vetran]

Well yes most of what you say is uncontroversial to a person of long European descent. But I'm going to play devils advocate so indulge me please.


Imagine you are of, lets say for argument, Afro-Caribbean descent in its typical connotation. Therefore, your recent ancestors were slaves. How do integrate into a society whose defining moments can never be yours: Julius Caesar, Vikings, 1066, Agincourt, Armada, Trafalgar, Waterloo etc. Yes commonwealth troops did play some part in WWI and WWII, but it's not mainstream. You only first appear in History as Slaves, in fact your ancestors probably never had a written name until it was a slave name. There are some hurdles to come over, Trevor Phillips and John Barnes are to be applauded for their forbearance, fortitude, and understanding.

The African Kings were feeding a demand, much like the drug dealers, no demand = no slaves or in modern parlance no drug dealers.

Why are there more ethnic minority drug dealers :- work it out.

When we're winning at sport the black is a hero, when losing the demon. We do have a problem and it is resulting in self-defeating circles of blame that unless we we break out of, then we will continue to suffer.

Plenty of highly qualified and reputable people of African descent. Doctors, Scientists etc. in the UK. I work with a number of people who ae outstanding but not of European heritage. Plenty have told me about their countries customs & achievements.

There must be some great legends to come from Africa yet we need to redefine our culture to include others, our stories to do the same. Lets have a ZULU comics with a Z universe. DC comics are only a few decades old.

The slavers were just feeding a need. - works both ways. I'm not an apologist for slavers or their suppliers. Both were disgusting.

No black people are not the devil but dug dealers are. The anti police attitude of certain cultures drives victims into the drug dealers arms as 'soldiers'.

I see no blame in skin colour just actions.

[d000hg]

The statue is itself part of history now, that's a good point.

[Whorty]

Even a poll in the right wing Daily Express thought Colston's statue should not be on prominent display. No justification for the toppling though, we shouldn't destroy history or heritage. Move it to a museum.

As this is still fresh history we have a certain view of this statue and what happened to it. I'm certainly not condoning vandalism and would have preferred it just removed if that was the wish, but actually, I think the statue is more valuable/interesting now as a historic artifact than if it had just been replaced and stored in a box in some dusty cellar. It's (I believe) still on display but for different reasons so his name hasn't been wiped for ever.

Isn't society interesting eh?

[Gibbon]

One also needs to be sensitive of the times that it happened in. If every TV report about African slavery started with :

"Once the Arabs found it too difficult to capture slaves from Europe in the 7th century they turned to Africa where they could easily buy from African traders whose rulers readily sold their brethren into Slavery as they had to the Romans, Greeks etc.

They continued to send millions of slaves abroad. In the 1400s the Portuguese and Spanish came to buy slaves as well, eventually the British turned up in 1570 to buy slaves so many were sold that the price doubled.

In 1810 the British realised Slavery was cruel and enforced a worldwide ban which upset most of the African royalty who had profited from it for many centuries. For some reason only the British & Americans are expected to pay reparations and be forced to understand African suffering.

Probably because the Arabs, Portuguese Spanish, Italians and Greeks told them to get stuffed"

By the way owning and buying of slaves was totally legal in the laws of the time in almost every country.

I suspect there would be outrage but more understanding.

Colston was a merchant he bought & sold legal commodities. Revolting now but revisionism is judging by modern times.

Do we now pull down statues of Brunel because his workers didn't have hard hats or a pension?

Well yes most of what you say is uncontroversial to a person of long European descent. But I'm going to play devils advocate so indulge me please.


Imagine you are of, lets say for argument, Afro-Caribbean descent in its typical connotation. Therefore, your recent ancestors were slaves. How do integrate into a society whose defining moments can never be yours: Julius Caesar, Vikings, 1066, Agincourt, Armada, Trafalgar, Waterloo etc. Yes commonwealth troops did play some part in WWI and WWII, but it's not mainstream. You only first appear in History as Slaves, in fact your ancestors probably never had a written name until it was a slave name. There are some hurdles to come over, Trevor Phillips and John Barnes are to be applauded for their forbearance, fortitude, and understanding.

The African Kings were feeding a demand, much like the drug dealers, no demand = no slaves or in modern parlance no drug dealers.

Why are there more ethnic minority drug dealers :- work it out.

When we're winning at sport the black is a hero, when losing the demon. We do have a problem and it is resulting in self-defeating circles of blame that unless we we break out of, then we will continue to suffer.

[vetran]

Even a poll in the right wing Daily Express thought Colston's statue should not be on prominent display. No justification for the toppling though, we shouldn't destroy history or heritage. Move it to a museum.

It's also daft when some obsess about a minor flaw in a great character and ignore the real achievements. Churchill may have had some racist views but he helped to save us all from Adolph. Would Africans really have been better off if he had won and taken over the nations still in the empire?

One also needs to be sensitive of the times that it happened in. If every TV report about African slavery started with :

"Once the Arabs found it too difficult to capture slaves from Europe in the 7th century they turned to Africa where they could easily buy from African traders whose rulers readily sold their brethren into Slavery as they had to the Romans, Greeks etc.

They continued to send millions of slaves abroad. In the 1400s the Portuguese and Spanish came to buy slaves as well, eventually the British turned up in 1570 to buy slaves so many were sold that the price doubled.

In 1810 the British realised Slavery was cruel and enforced a worldwide ban which upset most of the African royalty who had profited from it for many centuries. For some reason only the British & Americans are expected to pay reparations and be forced to understand African suffering.

Probably because the Arabs, Portuguese Spanish, Italians and Greeks told them to get stuffed"

By the way owning and buying of slaves was totally legal in the laws of the time in almost every country.

I suspect there would be outrage but more understanding.

Colston was a merchant he bought & sold legal commodities. Revolting now but revisionism is judging by modern times.

Do we now pull down statues of Brunel because his workers didn't have hard hats or a pension?

[xoggoth]

Even a poll in the right wing Daily Express thought Colston's statue should not be on prominent display. No justification for the toppling though, we shouldn't destroy history or heritage. Move it to a museum.

It's also daft when some obsess about a minor flaw in a great character and ignore the real achievements. Churchill may have had some racist views but he helped to save us all from Adolph. Would Africans really have been better off if he had won and taken over the nations still in the empire?

[malvolio]

Where do you get the data that only 100 people supported removing the statue, and most Bristolians thought he was a major benefactor?

TV reports of how many people were in that particular demonstration and living here for around 40 years?

Where do you get the data that I am wrong?

[d000hg]

But it is very rarely a population. Nearly the whole of Iraq wanted Saddam gone. About 100 idiot students wanted the Colston statue gone, ignoring inter alia that without him there wouldn't have been a a lot of schools and charitable institutions in Bristol and most Bristolians thought of him (if they thought of him at all) as a major benefactor to the city. Renaming Colston Hall was not necessary nor popular and has been ignored by most locals anyway.

Don't confuse mob rule, or mob hysteria, with majority support.

Where do you get the data that only 100 people supported removing the statue, and most Bristolians thought he was a major benefactor?

[Whorty]

Nice to see the 'like minded' having a friendly agreeable chat in this one thread.

[malvolio]

While I agree, there IS a time and place for spontaneity. Many of the big (positive) changes came about, or were sparked not by committees giving careful consideration but some flashpoint when a person or some people just decided it was time to act.

For instance those iconic images of Saddam's statue being toppled.

Even when towns do thoughtfully consider and come to a decision e.g. "let's rename our school or sport stadium" they still get accused of "pandering to the woke". If a population want to ditch some past figure as an icon, surely that's their choice.

But it is very rarely a population. Nearly the whole of Iraq wanted Saddam gone. About 100 idiot students wanted the Colston statue gone, ignoring inter alia that without him there wouldn't have been a a lot of schools and charitable institutions in Bristol and most Bristolians thought of him (if they thought of him at all) as a major benefactor to the city. Renaming Colston Hall was not necessary nor popular and has been ignored by most locals anyway.

Don't confuse mob rule, or mob hysteria, with majority support.

[d000hg]

Indeed what Trevor Phillips is saying is that it needs to be done with thought & planning not mob rule.

If the local council decides after careful consideration Jimmy Savile's statue needs to come down then I am perfectly fine with that.

While I agree, there IS a time and place for spontaneity. Many of the big (positive) changes came about, or were sparked not by committees giving careful consideration but some flashpoint when a person or some people just decided it was time to act.

For instance those iconic images of Saddam's statue being toppled.

Even when towns do thoughtfully consider and come to a decision e.g. "let's rename our school or sport stadium" they still get accused of "pandering to the woke". If a population want to ditch some past figure as an icon, surely that's their choice.

[malvolio]

Unfortunately if the country learned more about Wilberforce & Wedgewood, they'd be offended by the campaign figure of a slave kneeling.

Yep, totally agreed. Some people are too dangerous to be allowed to think...

[WTFH]

This with bells on! Also a bit more how Britain Unilaterally decided to abolish slavery and then policed the seven seas preventing others.

Unfortunately if the country learned more about Wilberforce & Wedgewood, they'd be offended by the campaign figure of a slave kneeling.

[vetran]

Rewriting and "not celebrating" certain aspects of history are quite different though. If there was a statue of Jimmy Savile somewhere when his true past was exposed, is it 'rewriting' history to remove it?

Some things are very simple, but that doesn't mean what you do about it is.

PS: no I'm not advocating we tear down all the statues, especially not by mob-decision

Indeed what Trevor Phillips is saying is that it needs to be done with thought & planning not mob rule.

If the local council decides after careful consideration Jimmy Savile's statue needs to come down then I am perfectly fine with that.

Though maybe we should pull down statues of convicted terrorists like Nelson Mandela?

What about Bomber Harris or anyone who legally traded in slaves?

[Gibbon]

look at where slavery still exists today. That might at least be of some practical benefit.

But that might be too difficult for their tiny minds, and they wouldn't get to parade around pretending to have the answers.

This with bells on! Also a bit more how Britain Unilaterally decided to abolish slavery and then policed the seven seas preventing others.