Jump to content

Black Lives Matter


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I expect the protest will be in front of the U.S. Embassy in Douglas - otherwise an IOM protest about police brutality in Murrica makes no sense except as a virtue signalling snowstorm. In other

No, it’s acquired, through exposure to bigotry. In fact from bigots like you.

Nice post Max. I was asked in either this thread or another,  whether I was frightened by change.  I replied setting out the changes that you and I have seen over our lives.  Far more fundamental

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, Declan said:

That would be an absurdity. There's a clear distinction between removing a statue meant to glorify and honour an individual and tearing down a building that is still in use.

But then that's what people have been doing throughout this discussion. Taking a reasonable argument like removing slave owners statues and saying that's the same as razing Liverpool to the ground ... then producing a absurd example that isn't the same. People say George Floyd shouldn't have been killed and you say "what about..." and name some unrelated death; people say "you shouldn't say coloured" and you say "ahh what about people of colour". People say "the protest yesterday was peaceful" and people say "what about social distancing" so they say "we were socially distanced" and it's "what about people who can't go to funerals".  It's like people want to kill off anti-racist action by a thousand nitpicks and whatabouts. Who would want to do that?

The Coulston statue was put up to recognise his contribution to the betterment of Bristol.  Not to glorify slave trading.

The democratic point is a valid one.  Do you think a few masked wankers should be able to go and topple Nelson's Column if they don't agree with what Nelson did?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

So you'll be objecting to them demolishing any buildings whatsoever will you?

Things change all the time.  Statues are removed or re-sited all the time.  As I pointed out last night, the Colston statue wasn't some ancient relic from his time, but late Victorian.  The Daily Mail is making a fuss today about removal of a statue in Docklands that had been there all the way back to 1997 (it had been in storage since the Docks were bombed in the War).  If you find certain things so significant that they are untouchable you need to  explain why they are so much more important than everything else.

Of course not. There is a process. It's the rule of the mob I object to, as should everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Declan said:

That would be an absurdity. There's a clear distinction between removing a statue meant to glorify and honour an individual and tearing down a building that is still in use.

But then that's what people have been doing throughout this discussion. Taking a reasonable argument like removing slave owners statues and saying that's the same as razing Liverpool to the ground ... then producing a absurd example that isn't the same. People say George Floyd shouldn't have been killed and you say "what about..." and name some unrelated death; people say "you shouldn't say coloured" and you say "ahh what about people of colour". People say "the protest yesterday was peaceful" and people say "what about social distancing" so they say "we were socially distanced" and it's "what about people who can't go to funerals".  It's like people want to kill off anti-racist action by a thousand nitpicks and whatabouts. Who would want to do that?

The rule of the mob is not reasonable action. There is a process. The coloured vs people of colour debate is an affront to anyone with a brain.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

I don't think pulling down as part of a protest is the right thing to do either, I'd agree it should be done through proper democratic channels.  I'm certainly not going to lose my shit over it though either.

Well, neither would I in isolation, but it's the thin end of the wedge. We got away with tearing that down, they're shit scared to stop us, what next?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The Coulston statue was put up to recognise his contribution to the betterment of Bristol.  Not to glorify slave trading.

The democratic point is a valid one.  Do you think a few masked wankers should be able to go and topple Nelson's Column if they don't agree with what Nelson did?

Well if they're Spaniards, I'm sure they're within their rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a fair amount of consensus in this thread.  I get the impression that most agree that having a statue glorifying a slaver is not necessarily a good thing, despite his other good characteristics, and that removing it by democratic means and perhaps displaying it in a museum instead would be the right thing to do.  I also get the impression most agree having it torn down by a mob was not right.

Is that about right? Anybody disagree much, or at all, with that perspective?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

The benefit of who's hindsight exactly?

Your words not mine

apologies, chef's words not yours

Edited by Neil Down
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The Coulston statue was put up to recognise his contribution to the betterment of Bristol.  Not to glorify slave trading.

The democratic point is a valid one.  Do you think a few masked wankers should be able to go and topple Nelson's Column if they don't agree with what Nelson did?

I have said elsewhere the removal should be by democratic channels.

You're right that the Victorians were honouring his philanthropy but they were turning a blind eye to slave trading. That's re-writing history.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

I think there's a massive difference between a portrait in a museum (or a statue in a museum for that matter) compared to a statue in a public place.

How so?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

There's a fair amount of consensus in this thread.  I get the impression that most agree that having a statue glorifying a slaver is not necessarily a good thing, despite his other good characteristics, and that removing it by democratic means and perhaps displaying it in a museum instead would be the right thing to do.  I also get the impression most agree having it torn down by a mob was not right.

Is that about right? Anybody disagree much, or at all, with that perspective?

I mainly agree with that.  I'm afraid we just cannot have the Police condoning blatant acts of vandalism ( which would ordinarily see you arrested) and standing by as people start to act as judge jury and executioner. 

As far as the Bristol situation is concerned what's to stop that applying to Nelson's Column?

It's a shame someone wasn't killed pulling that statue down.  It would have been interesting to see the fall out then.  Most of these people qctually couldn't care less about the history of the statue or the person it portrays.  They are really just criminals with fuck all better to do.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...