Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Bannasidhe

Gradius wrote: »

You are point blank lying by now.

Yes I brought up the issue of those feet washers. That does not mean you can therefore assign whatever angle you like when it suits. .

And yet that is exactly what you are doing.
In addition to telling me what I think.

You posted about it.
You came up with this 'Europeans' and 'Africans' guff.
That was the angle that suited you.

Gradius

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet that is exactly what you are doing.
In addition to telling me what I think.

You posted about it.
You came up with this 'Europeans' and 'Africans' guff.
That was the angle that suited you.

Ah yes, I forgot you couldn't tell a European from an African. What a confusing world you live in.

If you were robbed by a "person of features commonly found in a certain part of the world that sounds like aflica", what would you describe to police? "he could have been from anywhere, sorry, no clues."

Yup outta that

A liar calls the accuser a liar. End of story as there's nowhere left to go.

Bannasidhe

Gradius wrote: »

Ah yes, I forgot you couldn't tell a European from an African. What a confusing world you live in.

If you were robbed by a "person of features commonly found in a certain part of the world that sounds like aflica", what would you describe to police? "he could have been from anywhere, sorry, no clues."

Yup outta that

A liar calls the accuser a liar. End of story as there's nowhere left to go.

Is Thierry Henry a European or an African?
What about Phil Lynott?
Paul Magrath?
Ruud Gullit?
Francois Pienaar?
Joost van der Westhuizen?
Simon Zebo?

FVP3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is Thierry Henry a European or an African?
What about Phil Lynott?
Paul Magrath?
Ruud Gullit?
Francois Pienaar?
Joost van der Westhuizen?
Simon Zebo?

Non Caucasian. Except the Joost lad, who I had to search.

FVP3

Anyway. One of the good things about the statue panic in blighty is that it probably cant really spread over here, unless people want to have a go at the famine statues for not being diverse enough.

Or the 1916 boys for wanting to set up a white ethno state. ButI think we are a generation away from that. In the meantime, grab me some popcorn....

Gradius

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is Thierry Henry a European or an African?
What about Phil Lynott?
Paul Magrath?
Ruud Gullit?
Francois Pienaar?
Joost van der Westhuizen?
Simon Zebo?

The contention was about recognition.

Those protesters sure are able to recognise each other, and to group each other, and then act on those groupings.

You won't. So that makes you racist, or them racist. Or rather, it's all a pile of convenient shoite, whatever fits the day that's in it.

So to answer your question, all of those people will have various bits of paper stating various things as to who they are and what they are.

In the real world a gang of neo nazi aren't going to check the papers of an African looking dude who they intend to beat to a pulp. Recognition is all that counts.

In the real world a gang of Africans looking to beat up some European looking woman aren't going to check her papers. They'll go after her based on recognition.

That Muslim (?) gang in the UK didn't check the papers of the European looking children they groomed into a sex ring. It was based on recognition.

These people selectively choose people based on what they look like, be it African, Asian, European, whatever.

And that selectivity is on display at these protests. No papers, no checking. How many African origin people do you imagine are in those protests simply by virtue of what they look like? Who's to say if a certain person or their family have ever been on the receiving end of anything unjust throughout history? It doesn't matter to them. Ditto for any other race of people doing anything based on races of people.

If you look it, you are it. Either everyone accepts that, or nobody. It's the selectivity that's no good.

I'm not celebrating such base behaviour, it's not nice. But anyone trying to tell me that the real world is all lovely and that they are (selectively) blind to it are quite annoying. If it were simple ignorance, it's disappointing, but it's often willful ignorance and that's a different kettle of fish.

Good night.

Junkyard Tom

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Many thousands of slaves were brutally killed in the Colosseum, it has to go.

Slippery slope fallacy. Learn your fallacies, be better.

You'll note that people didn't want to destroy the statue they wanted it taken down from its sneering supremacist position.

FVP3

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy. Learn your fallacies, be better.

You'll note that people didn't want to destroy the statue they wanted it taken down from its sneering supremacist position.

Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy. In this case it is ( because buildings are not under threat and Italians are not a guilt culture) but it's hard to see why thousands of statues wont fall. There is a slippery slope to Elizabeth getting her marble head chopped off, and the only thing that might stop that is fatigue.

And maybe says you, good riddance. Popcorn, says I.

Bannasidhe

Gradius wrote: »

Ah yes, I forgot you couldn't tell a European from an African. What a confusing world you live in.

If you were robbed by a "person of features commonly found in a certain part of the world that sounds like aflica", what would you describe to police? "he could have been from anywhere, sorry, no clues."

Yup outta that

A liar calls the accuser a liar. End of story as there's nowhere left to go.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is Thierry Henry a European or an African?
What about Phil Lynott?
Paul Magrath?
Ruud Gullit?
Francois Pienaar?
Joost van der Westhuizen?
Simon Zebo?

FVP3 wrote: »

Non Caucasian. Except the Joost lad, who I had to search.

Going by the poster I was responding to all those who would be a "person of features commonly found in a certain part of the world that sounds like aflica" so Henry, Lynott, Mcgrath, Gullit, Zebo = all 'African' - but the two white South Africans wouldn't be as they have 'features commonly found in a certain part of the world that sounds like Hourpe'.

I am trying to find out if this poster really believes that white = European and black = African regardless of where you were born and how long your family lived there. And that black can never = European or white = African.

El_Duderino 09

Franz Litz wrote: »

Anyone else wish they were Italian or something and not trapped in this stupid anglo-sphere guilt trip world?

Who's asking you to feel guilty? I don't feel guilty. I haven't been a big character in the racism scene.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy. Learn your fallacies, be better.

You'll note that people didn't want to destroy the statue they wanted it taken down from its sneering supremacist position.

If they didn't want to destroy it why did they throw it into the water?

Bannasidhe

Franz Litz wrote: »

Not true. They wanted white women especially since they fetched the highest prices in the slave markets.

Yes - and most of them ended up in the Harems of very wealthy men where sub-Saharan women served them, and some of those white women gave birth to sons who attained very high rank. But the few who ever made it back to Europe were shunned - as were the men.

How does that make what I said untrue?

White women having a high value does not mean black women were not also enslaved. They were. As I said "The Barbary Slavers took slaves of all colours and races - they were equal opportunity exploiters of human misery."

Barbary Slavery wasn't based on race - it was based on being unlucky enough to get caught or live in coastal village they raided. In that they were like the Romans.

The difference in the 16th - 19th centuries European/American version of slavery only black people were enslaved plus they only came from sub-Saharan Africa or they were born outside Africa to a slave.

Junkyard Tom

FVP3 wrote: »

There is a slippery slope to Elizabeth getting her marble head chopped off, and the only thing that might stop that is fatigue.

In the north there was a 'big fuck' you monument to George Walker on the Walls of Derry looking down over the Bogside. It was blown to pieces and yet not one person has ever called for the destruction of the Derry Walls themselves.



I'm fairly confident that had Unionists been asked to remove it back in the day they'd have made the same 'where does it stop' arguments but not because they were worried about the Walls coming down but because they want to prevent them pesky Fenians getting their way.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

If they didn't want to destroy it why did they throw it into the water?

Because fifty years of campaigning to remove it had failed... And tbh, there's a fair bit of symbolism to a slave trader ending up in the river. They can retrieve it and throw it in a museum and nobody would have any problem with that.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because fifty years of campaigning to remove it had failed... And tbh, there's a fair bit of symbolism to a slave trader ending up in the river. They can retrieve it and throw it in a museum and nobody would have any problem with that.

That's fine apart from the money the retrieval will cost.

Bannasidhe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who's asking you to feel guilty? I don't feel guilty. I haven't been a big character in the racism scene.

I don't feel a shred of guilt.
I know a bit more than the average poster here about the various slave trades and what was done to whom by whom as it's my job, but I don't feel guilty about it.

I acknowledge what happened was utter exploitation and some people got very rich but even more people died.

completedit

I'm telling you now, future prediction is churches across Europe being bulldozed to the ground. In the past, it seemed intelligent people were atheists, now it's becoming mainstream and I can see a huge backlash in certain countries, especially if this trend of reversing the past becomes more prevalent.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

If they didn't want to destroy it why did they throw it into the water?

Symbolism? I mean, water takes a long time to destroy a copper statue. Fair to assume the council will fish it out in the next few weeks and it'll be mostly fine.

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Symbolism? I mean, water takes a long time to destroy a copper statue. Fair to assume the council will fish it out in the next few weeks and it'll be mostly fine.

I'm sure rolling it down the road and the impact of the statue hitting the bottom after it was dropped in will have damaged it to some extent.

I would assume that the cost of fixing this statue up will be greater than just removing it and placing it in a museum.

El_Duderino 09

completedit wrote: »

I'm telling you now, future prediction is churches across Europe being bulldozed to the ground.

That's a really panicky prediction.

Bannasidhe

completedit wrote: »

I'm telling you now, future prediction is churches across Europe being bulldozed to the ground.

Again?

Well, at least Hal Tudor already took care of the monasteries in England, Wales, and a lot of Ireland
The Calvinist iconoclasts did a fairly good job in parts of Switzerland.
Ditto the Anabaptists in parts of Germany.
French Revolution went to town a bit in France...

It's not as big a job as it could have been.

Can I call dibs on the fonts? I have an idea for bird baths.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sure rolling it down the road and the impact of the statue hitting the bottom after it was dropped in will have damaged it to some extent.

I would assume that the cost of fixing this statue up will be greater than just removing it and placing it in a museum.

OK. So what? You asked why they threw it in water if they didn't want to destroy it. Did you expect them to bubble wrap it to transport it and dump it in the harbour?

I really don't think putting it in water is a good way to destroy it

El_Duderino 09

Nullzero, you said you thought this statue should have been taken down. Not by a mob but by the council. Are you happy now that lots of other similar statues are being taken down in the UK by the councils today?

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nullzero, you said you thought this statue should have been taken down. Not by a mob but by the council. Are you happy now that lots of other similar statues are being taken down in the UK by the councils today?

Seems like a reasonable response.

Danzy

This new generation of activists are taking yo back to the 1950s, puritanical control freaks.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

Seems like a reasonable response.

Do you agree with taking them down because of the racist behaviour of the people the venerate?

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you agree with taking them down because of the racist behaviour of the people the venerate?

Yes.

I have stated repeatedly that I have no issue with removing statues for that reason.

I do have a problem with mobs pulling them down.

I have been consistent in saying this. Some people here seem intent on painting everyone who disagrees with any facet of what they say as a racist, it's not surprising, just disappointing.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

Yes.

I have stated repeatedly that I have no issue with removing statues for that reason.

I do have a problem with mobs pulling them down.

I have been consistent in saying this. Some people here seem intent on painting everyone who disagrees with any facet of what they say as a racist, it's not surprising, just disappointing.

I'll be honest and say I' surprised. We'll both be happy as i think there's plenty more of this to come as this progresses. Plenty more statues to be taken down. And the great thing is that it was caused by taking down one single statue by force and loads more will be taken down by choice.

Christy42

Gradius wrote: »

My point was this. If an aboriginal started talking about the rights of their people to Australia, would you start questioning them about what "aboriginal" means?

Would you deflect their claims by talking about genetics and how they really aren't a properly defined group etc etc?

Have you ever questioned such a thing of any other group of people besides Europeans?

Oh that. Aboriginal is a much better defined group of people. They will be aboriginals wherever they go and their descendents will be descendant from Aboriginals. Their descendents may or may not be Australian though if they move.

I am not denying the existence of aboriginal people. I am saying referring to most of the people in Australia as European is ridiculous. European decent if you like? We seem to not have a great catch all term for all the ethnic groups that originated in Europe but I guess that comes from never being nearly wiped out or made a minority in Europe.

European defines people from a given location. It isn't limited to a specific set of ethnic groups. Aboriginal defines people from a specific ethnic group (well a group of them I believe). I mean you could just say white and it will be clear what you mean whereas European is ambiguous.

markodaly

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I see a New York Times opt ed by Chris Saunders argues that if your loves ones are not donating to black lives matters charities then cut ties, at least tempiraily.

Mao would be very very proud. He did similarly but a bit more extreme during the cultural revolution, where children would oust and publicly humiliate their parents.