Black Lives Matter

Originally Posted by nomadking

What else would be the point of giving a nazi salute, other than to say, "you(ie the others) are bunch of nazis". Do other protesters never, ever, proclaim in one way or another that the other side is a X?



My point is that the person returning a salute of any kind, isn't necessarily supporting it.

Maybe they’re giving a Nazi salute because they’re Nazis, and they weren’t returning it to anyone - you’re not just grasping at straws here, you have a whole bale in your possession.

(Occam’s razor and all that...).

Good grief, can we move on from Nazi salutes, its getting way off topic now.

[tweetiepooh]

From experience in other countries - ex-pat Brits (usually English) form communities to isolate themselves from the locals and make a little England in the sun.

Other communities from centres to help people integrate as well as keeping some of their culture going and they usually welcome the wider community in to share that culture and build bridges and understanding. (Yes sometimes these can become little ghettos too.)

As a Christian I view all people as equally valuable and loved by God so should be loved by me also. Some are easier to love than others. And I'm not saying that we simply accept "bad" behaviour, we should speak up for those who are oppressed or being attacked.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

From experience in other countries - ex-pat Brits (usually English) form communities to isolate themselves from the locals and make a little England in the sun.

Other communities from centres to help people integrate as well as keeping some of their culture going and they usually welcome the wider community in to share that culture and build bridges and understanding. (Yes sometimes these can become little ghettos too.)

As a Christian I view all people as equally valuable and loved by God so should be loved by me also. Some are easier to love than others. And I'm not saying that we simply accept "bad" behaviour, we should speak up for those who are oppressed or being attacked.

I saw the colonial viewpoint as a child in Nigeria..Luckily it wasn't my parent's viewpoint and I had far more fun with my little Nigerian friends than I ever did with my white peers.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy

The problem now seems to be that we are arguing about statues and not about actually addressing the ways to deal with racial discrimination here and in THIS time.

This post summarises perfectly the current situation. The right are deliberately playing the emotive patriotism card:

the Prime Minister promises to fight "with every breath in his body" any attempt to remove the statue of Winston Churchill from Parliament Square

There is no mainstream campaign to remove Churchill's statue as far as I know. What this aims to do is to divert and water down any real discussion about racism in this country. The BLM inspired marches are not about tearing down statues, they are about the recognition of the real racism that black & asian people face in today's Britain. The fact that the Leave campaign, aided and abetted by the right wing MSM, played on these latent racist traits just adds to the problem.

Of course the Left never learn. While it was appropriate given the futile polite requests to remove the Colston statue over the years, that the statue was pulled down, it should have stopped there. Instead, the small in number militant Left chose to encourage a simplistic and childish approach to criticise any statue that had a link to slavery in the past. This naive thinking just plays into the hands of the right and allows them to misdirect anger & concern and escape the serious conversation they should be engaged in.

At the end of the day, statues are there to celebrate the life & achievements of the individual. If, in a modern context, that person has very little cause to be celebrated and moreover, is a visceral reminder of past evil deeds then there is a good case for it to be consigned to a museum.

Taking down a statue is not "whitewashing history". Many great men & women of history often have a dark side. This should be taken into consideration when put alongside the good. The judgement is, more often that not, nuanced and not the simplistic sloganing that the militant Left employ.

Take Churchill for example, he was, in his younger years a racist as were many of his peers. He was culpable in contributing to the causes of the Famine in Bengal in WWII. How much personal liability he had is very much debated by historians but he was involved. That said, you need to research and understand the history of the person and the period they lived in before you can make a serious judgment. Something the militant Left are incapable of doing it seems.

Going back to Colston, this quote from a letter to a newspaper sums up why his statue needed to be removed:

"I suggest Bristol replaces Edward Colston with a different statue every day to honour an individual whom Colston “shipped”. It would be 233 years before plinth became empty again. That is the enormity of the man’s inhumanity."

Originally Posted by ianch99

There is no mainstream campaign to remove Churchill's statue as far as I know.

Mainstream is a matter of opinion I guess, google 'Topple the Racists'

Originally Posted by ianch99

While it was appropriate given the futile polite requests to remove the Colston statue over the years, that the statue was pulled down, it should have stopped there.

Of course its not appropriate, its mob rule and vandalism.
You cant just go destoying statues you dont agree with becasue someone else disagrees with you or refuses.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Mainstream is a matter of opinion I guess, google 'Topple the Racists'


Of course its not appropriate, its mob rule and vandalism.
You cant just go destoying statues you dont agree with becasue someone else disagrees with you or refuses.

Maybe your definition of mainstream is different to mine. I don't Google an overloaded phrase to form my opinions.

There have been many events over the course of history when "breaking the law" has proved, in hindsight, to be validated. I suspect this will prove to be one of them. This article is interesting and can provide the context behind the removal:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/b...edward-4211771

"We don't have to condone vandalism to recognise cruelty and injustice," said Mr Ferguson in the hours after the statue was toppled.

"I now regret us not removing the Colston statue when I was Mayor to place it in Bristol Museum with full historical narrative - even though it would have been flying in the face of majority Bristol opinion," he added.

And Mr Ferguson was not wrong.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

The Guardian is facing calls to “shut down” for hypocrisy after backing BLM protests when it branded Abraham Lincoln “abhorrent” in the US Civil War.

Originally called the Manchester Guardian, the paper was founded in 1821 by John Edward Taylor using profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves.

After his death in 1844, the paper is said to have then demanded Manchester’s cotton workers be forced back into work.

Now with a growing backlash against statues linked to slavery and racism, hundreds have signed a petition taking aim at the Guardian's history.

The petition to shut the paper down has been organised by novelist Tony Parsons, who tweeted: “Shameful links to slave-owning Confederate south. Built on the profits of cotton fields. Shut down The Guardian Newspaper.”

During the US Civil War the paper had sided with the southern Confederates against President Lincoln who wanted to abolish slavery.

As yea sow, so shall yea reap.

If we take a closer look at the previous owners of some of our historic paper publications I'm pretty sure we would find some very dubious outlooks and opinions that are seen as being offensive in the modern age.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

As yea sow, so shall yea reap.

None of the people employed by the Guardian today expressed those opinions, and its owners are The Scott Trust which is named after the editor and owner who took the paper national and liberal over 100 years ago.

You can go back within living memory for plenty of other papers in the UK for some very abhorrent views and attitudes. There is a reason no-one in Liverpool buys The Sun to this day.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy

If we take a closer look at the previous owners of some of our historic paper publications I'm pretty sure we would find some very dubious outlooks and opinions that are seen as being offensive in the modern age.

I quite agree. The Guardian thing is another desperate attempt to divert discussion. You will find the House of Lords is stuffed with Peers who made their family wealth from dubious means e.g. slavery, etc. If you follow the Sun's logic, we need to go after them as well

It is not what the Guardian said 150 years ago, it is what is says today that matters. In contrast, Colston is the same vile human being today as he was all those years ago.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

None of the people employed by the Guardian today expressed those opinions, and its owners are The Scott Trust which is named after the editor and owner who took the paper national and liberal over 100 years ago.

You can go back within living memory for plenty of other papers in the UK for some very abhorrent views and attitudes. There is a reason no-one in Liverpool buys The Sun to this day.

Indeed. They tried giving it away once and that didn't go very well.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I quite agree. The Guardian thing is another desperate attempt to divert discussion. You will find the House of Lords is stuffed with Peers who made their family wealth from dubious means e.g. slavery, etc. If you follow the Sun's logic, we need to go after them as well

It is not what the Guardian said 150 years ago, it is what is says today that matters. In contrast, Colston is the same vile human being today as he was all those years ago.

He's dead and turned to dust.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

What you said was:
So when has ANYONE use a Nazi salute other than to indicate they themselves are Nazis or sympathise with that cause.

Just before the (supposed right wing) guy ended up on the floor, but was then picked up and carried to safety by a member of blm in London..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I quite agree. The Guardian thing is another desperate attempt to divert discussion. You will find the House of Lords is stuffed with Peers who made their family wealth from dubious means e.g. slavery, etc. If you follow the Sun's logic, we need to go after them as well

It is not what the Guardian said 150 years ago, it is what is says today that matters. In contrast, Colston is the same vile human being today as he was all those years ago.

As slavery was abolished in 1833, there are no peers who have 'made' their money through slavery. They are old, yes, but not that old!