Black Lives Matter

Originally Posted by Carth

Funny that, cos most of what I'm seeing are 'famous' people and those in official positions bowing down and touching their forelocks in case they get called racist for not complying

That might be your perception, rather that actuality...

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Seems like an anarchistic majority to me. No self respecting person can righteously extend George FGloyd's murder into a movement in the UK that demand we eradicate parts of our history.


---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------


Er, remind me - when was this?

Again, not "eradication", its expansion - showing the fuller picture, not just the PR bit...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No self respecting person can righteously extend George FGloyd's murder into a movement in the UK that demand we eradicate parts of our history.

Placing it in a museum isn't eradicating history.

Originally Posted by Rexz

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/...ng-up-22167457

"The difference there is these white characters are an empowered group, so it's actually OK to make a comment on them."

Blackface is different because of the particular historical connotation it brings up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was an American form of entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music performances that depicted people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by white people in make-up or blackface for the purpose of playing the role of black people. There were also some African-American performers and all-black minstrel groups that formed and toured under the direction of white people. Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

In the U.K the history is slightly different complicating the issue but that historical connection from America remains powerful, especially since they were doing the above during a time of slavery.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That might be your perception, rather that actuality...

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Again, not "eradication", its expansion - showing the fuller picture, not just the PR bit...

Oh dear. An apologist for what's going on.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Placing it in a museum isn't eradicating history.



Blackface is different because of the particular historical connotation it brings up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show



In the U.K the history is slightly different complicating the issue but that historical connection from America remains powerful, especially since they were doing the above during a time of slavery.

Chucking it in the estuary is eradicating history - or at least an attempt.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Seems like an anarchistic majority to me. No self respecting person can righteously extend George FGloyd's murder into a movement in the UK that demand we eradicate parts of our history.


---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------


Er, remind me - when was this?

1) An anarchistic majority? Please provide some evidence to back that up.
2) Does the passing of time lessen the severity? in a 100yrs time would you look back and say 'oh Fred & Rose, bless them' ?

Its funny really that some people who seem to think that this is somehow acceptable because 'thats just the way it was' are the first to decry other cultures practices that they don't agree with.

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Oh dear. An apologist for what's going on.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------



Chucking it in the estuary is eradicating history - or at least an attempt.

No, it's eradicating the statue. The telling of history is not dependent on the statues existence. The statue was a celebration of a man who really shouldn't be celebrated.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

1) An anarchistic majority? Please provide some evidence to back that up.
2) Does the passing of time lessen the severity? in a 100yrs time would you look back and say 'oh Fred & Rose, bless them' ?

Its funny really that some people who seem to think that this is somehow acceptable because 'thats just the way it was' are the first to decry other cultures practices that they don't agree with.

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------




No, it's eradicating the statue. The telling of history is not dependent on the statues existence. The statue was a celebration of a man who really shouldn't be celebrated.

An anarchistic majority? Please provide some evidence to back that up.

I don't need to and nor should you need to ask. The TV screen backs me up.

Does the passing of time lessen the severity? in a 100yrs time would you look back and say 'oh Fred & Rose, bless them' ?

Now you're being silly. An American is murdered by US police. Suddenly a 200 (not 100) years of faded past, that concerns nobody in the UK, becomes the central point of your argument. Shouldn't your central point focus on what some of our police might be doing wrong rather than this slavery tosh?

By your logic, we should should be all over Germany for what happened 80 years ago.

And don't forget, it was the past slavery etc that resulted to some extent on the immigration to the UK that led to the births in the UK of the current generation who might otherwise, one way or another, still be in Africa.

Think.

No, it's eradicating the statue. The telling of history is not dependent on the statues existence. The statue was a celebration of a man who really shouldn't be celebrated.

We can agree there. It may be that the anarchy on the streets that BLM has brought to parts of the UK will result in institutionalised change to memorials of that type. But these anarchists want Churchill branded as a racist. It goes too far and you should not be justifying their actions.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't need to and nor should you need to ask. The TV screen backs me up.



Now you're being silly. An American is murdered by US police. Suddenly a 200 (not 100) years of faded past, that concerns nobody in the UK, becomes the central point of your argument. Shouldn't your central point focus on what some of our police might be doing wrong rather than this slavery tosh?

By your logic, we should should be all over Germany for what happened 80 years ago.

And don't forget, it was the past slavery etc that resulted to some extent on the immigration to the UK that led to the births in the UK of the current generation who might otherwise, one way or another, still be in Africa.

Think.



We can agree there. It may be that the anarchy on the streets that BLM has brought to parts of the UK will result in institutionalised change to memorials of that type. But these anarchists want Churchill branded as a racist. It goes too far and you should not be justifying their actions.

The TV screen backs you up ONLY if it shows ALL coverage of every event. It's not doing so, so it doesn't

The past perhaps is faded to you but not to others. My central point can vary wherever i want it to take me, if the discussion moves to that of statues being pulled down being acceptable then i can debate that also. I'm multi faceted, just as you are

Here's the scoop, Churchill had proclivity to make racist statements. Of that there's no argument. If that's usurped by his actions against Nazi Germany ? Personally I would say it was, BUT i can listen to the viewpoint of those who would suggest it weighs differently.

Again, remind me anywhere where i have justified their actions?

I'll ask you the same as I have asked others. What are you fearful of?

Perhaps unlike others you'll answer.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The TV screen backs you up ONLY if it shows ALL coverage of every event. It's not doing so, so it doesn't

The past perhaps is faded to you but not to others. My central point can vary wherever i want it to take me, if the discussion moves to that of statues being pulled down being acceptable then i can debate that also. I'm multi faceted, just as you are

Here's the scoop, Churchill had proclivity to make racist statements. Of that there's no argument. If that's usurped by his actions against Nazi Germany ? Personally I would say it was, BUT i can listen to the viewpoint of those who would suggest it weighs differently.

Again, remind me anywhere where i have justified their actions?

I'll ask you the same as I have asked others. What are you fearful of?

Perhaps unlike others you'll answer.

I'm fearful of woke people dominating what we can say and what we can't; woke people deciding which statues can stand, who is racist and whom we are allowed to parody.

As to Churchill, remember people are influenced by their environment of the time. His pronouncements of 120 years ago are insignificant when compared with his effort in winning the war against Germany. These anarchists should not be dragging his name into the mud.

[1andrew1]

I see Nigel Farage has left LBC with immediate effect. His comparison of Black Lives Matter to the Taliban probably didn't help his cause.
Link here

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I see Nigel Farage has left LBC with immediate effect. His comparison of Black Lives Matter to the Taliban probably didn't help his cause.
Link here

Damn. He should have kept that to himself. I really enjoyed his approach to radio phone ins.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm fearful of woke people dominating what we can say and what we can't; woke people deciding which statues can stand, who is racist and whom we are allowed to parody.

As to Churchill, remember people are influenced by their environment of the time. His pronouncements of 120 years ago are insignificant when compared with his effort in winning the war against Germany. These anarchists should not be dragging his name into the mud.

First of all thank you for answering. The whole point of this is honest and painful discussion.

To take your comments

1) Who is saying what you can and can't say, I don't remember at any point BLM saying that you were only allowed to say certain things.

2) Why shouldn't 'woke' people be allowed to have a say? They're not attempting to dictate (well, the majority aren't)

3) Why can't people state if they believe someone to be racist? Surely they have as much right to say they are as you do to say they are not.

4) Nobody in BLM has forced anyone Netflix etc. to take content down. That's the providers own doing. Various celebs have said that looking back they wouldnt have produced that content now and that they don't think it's suitable.

5) I don't think anyone would disagree that people are shaped by their environments. But that doesn't mean what happened was acceptable. It certainly doesn't mean it should be celebrated. Child marriage for example existed in the same period as slavery. Would you dismiss that as acceptable due to previous times?

BLM are asking people to pause, think, consider the past, educate themselves, and for us to progress as a society so that things such as 'white privilege' are recognised, if possible removed, if not possible accounted for.

I don't consider myself 'woke' for one moment. I just consider myself as someone who needs to educate myself continuously about the world in which we live.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I see Nigel Farage has left LBC with immediate effect. His comparison of Black Lives Matter to the Taliban probably didn't help his cause.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Damn. He should have kept that to himself. I really enjoyed his approach to radio phone ins.

Oh dear, I guess that's the statue out of the frame then


edit: . . . and what the jumping billy bob is 'woke' when it's at home? Is it a new name for people who have an axe to grind?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Carth

Oh dear, I guess that's the statue out of the frame then


edit: . . . and what the jumping billy bob is 'woke' when it's at home? Is it a new name for people who have an axe to grind?

You could consider it the opposite to a gammon. In which case you would have gammon vs woke.

Personally I'd rather have Nigellas Gammon in Coke.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You could consider it the opposite to a gammon. In which case you would have gammon vs woke.

Personally I'd rather have Nigellas Gammon in Coke.

nope, still no clearer to me . .

2/10 must try harder

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Carth

nope, still no clearer to me . .

2/10 must try harder

You know this thing called the World Wide Web?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Carth

nope, still no clearer to me . .

2/10 must try harder

Gammon = pale, red faced Englander with bigoted opinions
Woke = crazy guardian leftist who wants to purify all offensive to protected categories