Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
2112

Black Lives Matter

Recommended Posts

On a visit to Agincourt some years ago I did apologise to the very nice lady in the local museum, as I’m very fond of France. I don’t know if Henry V’s Welsh archers had the odd Manxie lined up alongside them but you can’t be too careful. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, quilp said:

And how far does it extend..? 

 

20200701_132224.jpg

 

The notion also fails to take into account the different parties involved at the time relative to the parties that exist today. For example, the slave trade between the British Isles and North America only accounted for about 10% of worldwide slave trade. Likewise, in the US, only 2% of the population in Confederate states owned slaves, which means less than 1% of the entire US population. Add to this the fact so many of the “white” population of the US migrated there decades after slavery had already been abolished. Most of the Germans, Italians, Irish, Jews, Russians, and Poles arrived in mass waves in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Whatever ancestry they may have from prior to the abolition of slavery, most white people in America today have majority-German ancestry which arrived here after abolition. Also, it’s wrong to assume that all black people arrived to the US as slaves. Many arrived as immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. And another thing: a significant portion of the US population, while not themselves Native Americans, do have at least a small amount of Native American ancestry. There’s also the divide between the Union and Confederate states. 

The simplistic ideology of the left being pushed on us at the moment soon starts unravelling when you just stop to think for five minutes and use reason and logic instead of emotion.
Why do we only ever hear about the US and UK? Because the other 90% isn’t politically expedient for the far left ideology and the demographic groups they’re aligned with such as a certain peaceful religion whose founder was in fact a total racist and a slave trader. Just like the fact that there is slavery going in the world today, at a scale apparently even greater than at the peak of the transatlantic slave trade. 

And with their obsession over identity politics, how do we break it down by gender or sex? They can’t even agree on how many genders or sexes exist. What role did women play in the whole “white patriarchy”? Were they victims or active participants? Or both? According to some crackpot leftist academics, even the suffragettes like Emmeline Pankurst, daughter of our own Sophia Goulden, were “racists” and white supremacists for a number of contrived reasons (just google if you want a laugh). How about gender non-binary people? Or social class? And what about the plantation slaves vs the plantation house servants? How about we break it down by ability vs disability too? 

Identity politics is intended to divide people and exploit division to push for socialism. It’s all about directing people into sub-collectives so eventually they’ll re-integrate them back into a bigger collective under the state. They’re Marxists, plain and simple and should be called out as such. 
 

35 minutes ago, HeliX said:

what back and forths? Who's (seriously) asking uninvolved people to apologise?

Referring to the question of blame for things that happened in history. If we were consistent with the blame game, there would be no end to it. We wouldn't limit ourselves to the Occident but would also include the Orient. And we wouldn't have such a selective narrow focus on specific countries during a very specific time period. We'd be totally open to exploring all the injustice and inequality around the whole world perpetrated by every society in every era, including today. 

It's fairly obvious the real agenda is not about a truthful approach to history but a selective assault on western civilisation to undermine its institutions, particularly the so-called "Anglo-Saxon" (US/UK) model of individualism which was the basis for the classical liberal tradition, the Enlightenment, the whole idea of individual rights which are ultimately what led to the abolition of slavery. We're seeing the foundations of western civilisation being attacked because this enables them to unravel the products of western civilisation, namely the tradition of rights, representative democracy, the idea that we're all born equal, rule of law, free market economics, the concept of the nation-state, and individual freedom. As these things are removed, there will no longer be any institutions or a population capable of opposing the implementation of totalitarian world government. 

This all boils down to an ideological battle between individualism and collectivism. By dividing us on race, collectivism wins. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

There's some more information, including the full inscription, on this piece from when it was cleaned a few years back.

The history of slavery in St Helena is fascinating in itself because of the very mixed nature of the population.  There were attempts to mitigate it in various ways, but actual abolition didn't take place till 1834 with the rest of the British colonies.

Thank you, I often wondered at th ethnic origins of St Helenians.  The website also has a uniquely St Helenian feel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, FDR said:

Identity politics is intended to divide people and exploit division to push for socialism. It’s all about directing people into sub-collectives so eventually they’ll re-integrate them back into a bigger collective under the state. They’re Marxists, plain and simple and should be called out as such. 

Modern socialism isn't much in favour of state control.

 

Quote

Referring to the question of blame for things that happened in history. If we were consistent with the blame game, there would be no end to it. We wouldn't limit ourselves to the Occident but would also include the Orient. And we wouldn't have such a selective narrow focus on specific countries during a very specific time period. We'd be totally open to exploring all the injustice and inequality around the whole world perpetrated by every society in every era, including today. 

It's fairly obvious the real agenda is not about a truthful approach to history but a selective assault on western civilisation to undermine its institutions, particularly the so-called "Anglo-Saxon" (US/UK) model of individualism which was the basis for the classical liberal tradition, the Enlightenment, the whole idea of individual rights which are ultimately what led to the abolition of slavery. We're seeing the foundations of western civilisation being attacked because this enables them to unravel the products of western civilisation, namely the tradition of rights, representative democracy, the idea that we're all born equal, rule of law, free market economics, the concept of the nation-state, and individual freedom. As these things are removed, there will no longer be any institutions or a population capable of opposing the implementation of totalitarian world government. 

This all boils down to an ideological battle between individualism and collectivism. By dividing us on race, collectivism wins. 

Or perhaps, given that the focus of BLM is the mistreatment of black people, it's not surprising that the current focus is on things like the slave trade.

The suggestion that individualism ended slavery is an interesting one. If Western culture was effectively individualistic we wouldn't have needed the suffragettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FDR said:

Likewise, in the US, only 2% of the population in Confederate states owned slaves, which means less than 1% of the entire US population. 

This doesn't seem to be the case

Quote

[...] the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned enslaved people. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Modern socialism isn't much in favour of state control.

 

Or perhaps, given that the focus of BLM is the mistreatment of black people, it's not surprising that the current focus is on things like the slave trade.

The BLM movement is but part of a bigger picture. There's a bit more to it than just the mistreatment of Black people and historical slavery. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like some trumpian Q style fear mongering conspiracy shit going on in this thread today.

FEAR THE RADICAL LEFTISTS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Modern socialism isn't much in favour of state control.

 

Or perhaps, given that the focus of BLM is the mistreatment of black people, it's not surprising that the current focus is on things like the slave trade.

The suggestion that individualism ended slavery is an interesting one. If Western culture was effectively individualistic we wouldn't have needed the suffragettes.

You're very naive if you think that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neil Down said:

You're very naive if you think that

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken to reading 'The Camp of the Saints' a work of fiction by french author Jean Raspail, written in 1973. Bought in a stingy little bookshop off Charing Cross early eighties, and only because it was a first edition hardback of the English translation. For resale, which I never got around to doing. Can't help drawing some parallels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

This doesn't seem to be the case

 

  Quote

[...] the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned enslaved people. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas).

Are you really citing the website of a TV channel whose broadcasts include claims that space aliens built the pyramids? And their source is Slate, a website well known for its left-wing bias, and Slate's source is a dead link to another website. 

It should be obvious that these percentages have been manipulated. For starters, there is no such thing as "family" ownership of property. How do they define "family"? We'll never know because the link is dead. Individuals own property, not families. When you've got large "families" of three generations with kids, grandkids, in an era when people had over half a dozen kids, it doesn't take much to see how conflating ever member of a family as an "owner" of a slave would skew the percentages.

I repeat: the figure of ownership averaged 2%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Interesting.

on point 

1, Although Irish were not enslaved, all male Irish arrivals at Ellis island were sent directly to the front line to fight the confederacy. That is enslavement.

2, The south seceded over taxes imposed by Washington DC, in particular land taxes. 

3, It is true that only a small percentage of people owned slaves. They were expensive and just like today only the very rich could afford them.

4, This is actually correct.

5, This is also correct. However, when the unionist attacked plantations, the enslaved people fought against them. They were fighting for their home, their livelihoods and often their lives. 

At the end of the war, the south had incredibly lost. General Robert Lees house and property was confiscated from him in payment for land tax arrears. His house, Arlington House still stands. Fantastic house. The rest of the property is where the USA bury their military, Arlington Cemetery.

Share this post


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

Are you really citing the website of a TV channel whose broadcasts include claims that space aliens built the pyramids? And their source is Slate, a website well known for its left-wing bias, and Slate's source is a dead link to another website. 

It should be obvious that these percentages have been manipulated. For starters, there is no such thing as "family" ownership of property. How do they define "family"? We'll never know because the link is dead. Individuals own property, not families. When you've got large "families" of three generations with kids, grandkids, in an era when people had over half a dozen kids, it doesn't take much to see how conflating ever member of a family as an "owner" of a slave would skew the percentages.

I repeat: the figure of ownership averaged 2%.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it has started several commentators are refusing to wear the BLM badge that they were asked to wear by Sky.    People are realising what this organisations are.  This will be the summer of discontent because a lot of people have too much time on their hands. One luvvie actor will not wear his medal , still keeping the Sir bit though I expect it helps him to get preferential treatment on the planes, because the figure on it has its foot on a black man’s neck,  some years ago apparently the black man had been changed to a white man without any help fro BLM. this is according to the Daily Mail so it must be right :whistling:.    The footballers were instructed to take the knee apparently.   So if people are doing this because they feel obliged or made to it rather takes the point away from the purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Modern socialism isn't much in favour of state control.

 

Or perhaps, given that the focus of BLM is the mistreatment of black people, it's not surprising that the current focus is on things like the slave trade.

The suggestion that individualism ended slavery is an interesting one. If Western culture was effectively individualistic we wouldn't have needed the suffragettes.

Socialism is all about state control. Literally everything they want to do involves adding more government, and doing away with free enterprise. 

I didn't say individualism ended slavery. I said western civilisation and its progressive development culminated in the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the development of the entire underlying concept of RIGHTS. There's an obvious history of progress towards "modernity" and ideas of equality and broadening the scope of democratic representation. If you nuked Europe off the planet in circa 1500, none of that progress would exist in the world today. 

Black Lives Matter is a brand name of a group of Marxists affiliated with the DNC. I support any measures that will help black people to not be subject to prejudice, racism or systemic disadvantage. But did it occur to you that far left agitators  (most of them white people, I should add) going around causing deliberate mayhem and division is not going to solve that? No. All it's doing is causing racial division which will in turn lead to more inequality, not less. It'll increase racial segregation, not help racial harmony. Trump's done more for the black community than BLM has done. Trump has reversed the horrible criminal laws introduced by the Democrats in the 90s under Clinton (and Senator Biden) which disproportionately harmed black people and black neighborhoods. But the media inverts reality and gives us a fictional narrative where the opposite of the truth is a lie and the lie is the truth. 

They wouldn't get away with it if people were less gullible. When are you going to wake up and realise that media outlets owned by international corporations do not give a toss about ordinary people, white or black? They have their own agenda and they'll even exploit marxists and socialists to push for it. It's all about POWER and control.

Edited by FDR

Share this post


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...