Black Lives Matter

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Well, the football isn't on yet, so the thugs have to do something to entertain themselves.

Exactly and no pubs open so no punch up's for 3 months now.

Originally Posted by downquark1

a) This is not new information, this is new perspective. If they had known about Saville in the 80s they would not have tolerated it. Everyone knew how these slavers made their money, it was not a secret. It was not exactly fondly looked upon at the time by everyone.

Plenty of people knew about Saville by the 1980s. It was tolerated, and his activities weren’t taken seriously, because of a combination of a cult of celebrity around him (a pernicious and ongoing problem especially within large media organisations like the BBC), and society in general not taking child abuse seriously.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Plenty of people knew about Saville by the 1980s. It was tolerated, and his activities weren’t taken seriously, because of a combination of a cult of celebrity around him (a pernicious and ongoing problem especially within large media organisations like the BBC), and society in general not taking child abuse seriously.

If it had been explicitly proven to the wider public they would not have tolerated it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is it possible that had we not evolved as a society through the slavery days to present day enlightenment that the people tearing down or defacing statues would not be here and they would now be living in Africa? Would Africa be doing better than it is now?

Another thing, the BBC and prolly the other main stations, spent a considerable amount of time broadcasting the George Floyd funeral live. This is pure woke bias for which there is little or no merit.

As to statues of slavers, some of whom were philanthropes towards their community, a suitably worded plaque could be added that is correctly in tune with sentiment.

The George Floyd funeral seems to have been judged by broadcasters an event of international significance and more newsworthy. Given the impact his death has made on the UK, that appears a good call to me. We live in an era of multi-channel and on-demand TV, so plenty of options for all.

Some slave-traders and plantation-owners did donate some of their ill-gotten gains to charity but this does not wipe their slates clean. In the case of Edward Colston, Hugh posted a link about the attempts to add a contextualised placque but these seemed to have been blocked by vested interests.

Originally Posted by downquark1

a) This is not new information, this is new perspective. If they had known about Saville in the 80s they would not have tolerated it. Everyone knew how these slavers made their money, it was not a secret. It was not exactly fondly looked upon at the time by everyone.

b) It is manifestly not true that this is providing a fuller picture. You are not providing more information about a film by removing it, or statues.

c) I work with these people. Here's another quote from Orwell:
This is entirely true in my experience. In fact they can't help themselves.

We can quote Orwell all day:

England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare's much-quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all its cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income.

Orwell wasn't someone who hated Britain but was also not shy about stating that it did bad things and in the above quote references how we were reluctant to discuss it.

It isn't hating Britain to want to account and talk about the bad as well as the good parts of our history. I think it gives you more credibility to be proud of, for example, defeating fascism in Europe if you also acknowledge the bad.

As I said I am ambivalent on the removal of the statue but I do think we shouldn't have statues glorifying people who were slave traders without adding that bit of context. Would you support keeping the statue and adding that context? Changing the inscriptions of such statues to show how their wealth was acquired, how the money that built these cities was acquired? There is also the idea of changing the statue to reflect it's being pulled down. That way both parts of the history are shown.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

We can quote Orwell all day:



Orwell wasn't someone who hated Britain but was also not shy about stating that it did bad things and in the above quote references how we were reluctant to discuss it.

It isn't hating Britain to want to account and talk about the bad as well as the good parts of our history. I think it gives you more credibility to be proud of, for example, defeating fascism in Europe if you also acknowledge the bad.

As I said I am ambivalent on the removal of the statue but I do think we shouldn't have statues glorifying people who were slave traders without adding that bit of context. Would you support keeping the statue and adding that context? Changing the inscriptions of such statues to show how their wealth was acquired, how the money that built these cities was acquired? There is also the idea of changing the statue to reflect it's being pulled down. That way both parts of the history are shown.

I am not an English chauvinist, half my family comes from Eastern Europe. I can criticise England all day long. I am warning you about iconoclasm and cultural revolution.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nobody seemed to mind when new information came out about some modern-day "heroes", which informed a different viewpoint (Saville & Harris) - don’t hear calls for memorials for their philanthropic work...

It’s not about "removing heroes", it’s about providing a fuller picture, rather than the sanitised version currently in place.

Originally Posted by downquark1

I am not an English chauvinist, half my family comes from Eastern Europe. I can criticise England all day long. I am warning you about iconoclasm and cultural revolution.

I didn't say you were. I was saying that the people who want to provoke this debate aren't, all, people who could be summed up by Orwell's quote about the left and institutions.

I don't think this is a cultural revolution. I think it's just one of those flashpoints that will abate rather soon, likely after people go too far. I.E The people who want to remain Gladstone hall in Liverpool because his family had slave holdings.

The statue of slaveholders will likely go. However, there seems to be wider support for that even if they disagree with the way it was done. I think the idea of putting them in museums where they can be seen alongside the additional context of how they got their money is a sensible idea and isn't destorying the statue.

So do we erase history.Ignore it?
After all the quote is those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.Is that why we fought not one but 2 world wars?

Surely there is a way for us to actually finally learn and keep learning without erasing the bad people from the history of the globe?We need ogres to remind us what can go wrong.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I didn't say you were. I was saying that the people who want to provoke this debate aren't, all, people who could be summed up by Orwell's quote about the left and institutions.

I don't think this is a cultural revolution. I think it's just one of those flashpoints that will abate rather soon, likely after people go too far. I.E The people who want to remain Gladstone hall in Liverpool because his family had slave holdings.

The statue of slaveholders will likely go. However, there seems to be wider support for that even if they disagree with the way it was done. I think the idea of putting them in museums where they can be seen alongside the additional context of how they got their money is a sensible idea and isn't destorying the statue.

Well I pray you are correct however I will remind you we are in a global crisis, a few weeks ago the prime minister almost died, Parliament cannot meet properly, the old cannot leave their houses without risk of dying and the most pressing issue was a civil servant who drove to Durham.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well I pray you are correct however I will remind you we are in a global crisis, a few weeks ago the prime minister almost died, Parliament cannot meet properly, the old cannot leave their houses without risk of dying and the most pressing issue was a civil servant who drove to Durham.

Spot on - plus the funeral in USA.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well I pray you are correct however I will remind you we are in a global crisis, a few weeks ago the prime minister almost died, Parliament cannot meet properly, the old cannot leave their houses without risk of dying and the most pressing issue was a civil servant who drove to Durham.

Things always seem chaotic at the time and eventually things just carry on. We've certainly seen worst violence at protests than we have with this BLM, G20 riots for one.

All this will pass and we'll be onto the next thing.

[Carth]

I feel sorry for the pigeons, years of crapping on statues . . . then all of a sudden your regular toilet is in a museum

Originally Posted by Carth

I feel sorry for the pigeons, years of crapping on statues . . . then all of a sudden your regular toilet is in a museum

Don't worry, they'll just use my car. They usually do.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Plenty of people knew about Saville by the 1980s. It was tolerated, and his activities weren’t taken seriously, because of a combination of a cult of celebrity around him (a pernicious and ongoing problem especially within large media organisations like the BBC), and society in general not taking child abuse seriously.

Spot on. In 1980 I worked at a radio station in Leeds. It was a very junior position but, nevertheless, I was told that if Saville was ever in the building I should never, ever leave him alone with any children, male or female.

If a junior employee knew about it, obviously those higher up the hierarchy did.