Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Think you are getting confused. Where did anyone say that people who stand under things that are about to fall on them have to be listened to?

People who stand under falling objects are stupid.
People in power who don't listen to their population as they are getting angrier and angrier at the attitude and actions of the people in power are stupid
People in power whose only response to an angry population is to ignore them are stupid.

So what are you suggesting?

Every offensive statue in the world should have been immediately removed after the incident in Bristol?

How quickly do you expect these things to happen?


How can you say these people have been ignored? Do governments need to remove statues as the only means of keeping stupid people from pulling them down on themselves in some sort of righteous harikari?

joe40

nullzero wrote: »

So people who are too stupid to stand back from a falling statue need to have their every whim pandered to immediately or else?

I would have no problem with Confederate statues been taken down. Those Men fought to keep slavery they should absolutely be remembered and not forgotten. They should not be glorified.

The really insidious thing about slavery at that time was they were largely Christian sometimes devout and believed in that all men were created equal.
(Bill of rights I think someone might correct me there)

Therefore the only way to justify slavery was because black people were less than human. Having slaves was like having livestock.

It was worse than people they simply didn't care about, that could not be justified.
But a subhuman todo your work, that was their justification. Their moral way out.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Yes. They need to bow to a group of rioting thugs...that’s what society needs..

Versus the police in the US who have done everything from running over protesters, pushing elderly men over, pepper spraying crowds. Tear gassing non violent protesters? That's specific to the US obviously but I can completely understand why it's hit this point.

Also your exact same statement could have been used against suffragettes.

lawrencesummers

walshb wrote: »

Yes. They need to bow to a group of rioting thugs...that’s what society needs..

You should inform yourself better on the Erection of this statue in the first place. There were plenty of objections to it, and only a tiny amount of support.
It shouldn’t have been there in the first place.



https://twitter.com/KateWilliamsme/status/1270717429820190728?s=20

It makes me laugh now thinking of the hyperbole surrounding Joan Burton's car being blocked by demonstrators a few years ago.

Remember all the clutching of pearls about how violent and menacing it all was, despite not a scratch being laid on her or the car.

I guess the same people would agree with 30 Met police injuries in London being a "largely peaceful" protest as the BBC put it.

nullzero

joe40 wrote: »

I would have no problem with Confederate statues been taken down. Those Men fought to keep slavery they should absolutely be remembered and not forgotten. They should not be glorified.

The really insidious thing about slavery at that time was they were largely Christian sometimes devout and believed in that all men were created equal.
(Bill of rights I think someone might correct me there)

Therefore the only way to justify slavery was because black people were less than human. Having slaves was like having livestock.

It was worse than people they simply didn't care about, that could not be justified.
But a subhuman todo your work, that was their justification. Their moral way out.

We all know that the southern states were hot beds of racism and slavery. The morality of that situation isn't something anyone here is arguing about.

My point is that it takes time to remove every offensive statue and the triumphalism that followed the Bristol situation was always going to lead to a less organised mob removing a statue in a less safe manner.

How quickly should all these statues be removed? Should everybody rush out to remove them and disregard their own personal safety?

biko

I suppose it's like the fall of Communism when the people torn down statues of Stalin and Lenin.

Mad_maxx

biko wrote: »

I suppose it's like the fall of Communism when the people torn down statues of Stalin and Lenin.

don't think they did for the most part, both still well regarded ,especially uncle Joe

biko

There is a statue of Lenin in Seattle.
That should go too.

osarusan

Statue was retrived from the water at 5am this morning, will have the mud washed off it, but the spray paint and ropes used to topple it will be left on for now, as they decide what to do with it - headed for a museum apparently.

joe40

nullzero wrote: »

We all know that the southern states were hot beds of racism and slavery. The morality of that situation isn't something anyone here is arguing about.

My point is that it takes time to remove every offensive statue and the triumphalism that followed the Bristol situation was always going to lead to a less organised mob removing a statue in a less safe manner.

How quickly should all these statues be removed? Should everybody rush out to remove them and disregard their own personal safety?

These statues have been talked about for years, how much time is needed.

If the political will existed in those states to take them down, the statues and monuments would be down by now.

They're literally monuments to slavery. Not some historical slavery, only a few generations ago.

I'm far from a snowflake getting offended to easily but if I was a black person living there with monuments glorifying that past I would be angry. So would you.

It not only the black community that want them down plenty of whites do not want that history commemorated.
Remembered, absolutely that's vital but not celebrated.

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

We all know that the southern states were hot beds of racism and slavery. The morality of that situation isn't something anyone here is arguing about.

My point is that it takes time to remove every offensive statue and the triumphalism that followed the Bristol situation was always going to lead to a less organised mob removing a statue in a less safe manner.

How quickly should all these statues be removed? Should everybody rush out to remove them and disregard their own personal safety?

Yes it takes time to resolve these things, but an easy way to reduce the anger of people who feel they are not being listened to is to tell them that you are listening, and then to actually listen.

You don't calm down angry people by sticking your fingers in your ears and firing tear gas at them.

nullzero

joe40 wrote: »

These statues have been talked about for years, how much time is needed.

If the political will existed in those states to take them down, the statues and monuments would be down by now.

They're literally monuments to slavery. Not some historical slavery, only a few generations ago.

I'm far from a snowflake getting offended to easily but if I was a black person living there with monuments glorifying that past I would be angry. So would you.

It not only the black community that want them down plenty of whites do not want that history commemorated.
Remembered, absolutely that's vital but not celebrated.

I already stated that the morality is crystal clear, I agree they should be removed. However, mobs of people who have the potential to injure themselves whilst removing these statues need to take some time to consider the inherent danger (to themselves and others) of their actions.

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Yes it takes time to resolve these things, but an easy way to reduce the anger of people who feel they are not being listened to is to tell them that you are listening, and then to actually listen.

You don't calm down angry people by sticking your fingers in your ears and firing tear gas at them.

What are you prattling on about exactly?

Are you suggesting that telling these people that they are being listened to will stop them pulling statues down?

The problem with angry mobs is that they tend to not be particularly open to listening to reason. They do however have the ability to pull statues down on top of themselves.

FrancieBrady

osarusan wrote: »

Statue was retrived from the water at 5am this morning, will have the mud washed off it, but the spray paint and ropes used to topple it will be left on for now, as they decide what to do with it - headed for a museum apparently.

Good stuff...it is now an important historical artefact as it will become the symbol of the start point of Britain's confrontation with the reality of it's empire. An 'enlightenment' so to speak.

joe40

nullzero wrote: »

I already stated that the morality is crystal clear, I agree they should be removed. However, mobs of people who have the potential to injure themselves whilst removing these statues need to take some time to consider the inherent danger (to themselves and others) of their actions.

I agree, but out protesting, even peaceful protests has been shown to have an inherent danger in the US. Just ask the journalist who was blinded in one eye by a rubber bullet.

I also agree protestors pulling down statues is not ideal, absolutely not, but where is the political leadership to deal with this. They just pander to the far right every time.

There have been countless campaigns to get these issues sorted.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I also agree protestors pulling down statues is not ideal, absolutely not, but where is the political leadership to deal with this. They just pander to the far right every time.

There have been countless campaigns to get these issues sorted.

And the US media (aside from Fox News) pander to the far left. CNN having serious discussions about defunding the police. That's the problem. There is no middle ground.

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting that telling these people that they are being listened to will stop them pulling statues down?

Erm, yes.

If the powers that be said that they understood the issues and would be urgently looking at if the statues should remain then that would diffuse the situation, or as is happening with statues in the UK various ones are being moved fairly quickly.

Instead in the US you have the people in power saying that there is no problem and that the statues are all heroes and totally ignoring that people are rightly upset with the way they are being treated. Now the statues are not their main problem, it's bejng killed by the police that they have issues with, but they have been ignored on that and told by those in power that there isn't a problem. So in response to that the easiest target to show their anger against is a bunch of statues of racists and slave owners.

They were ignored about the issues of police brutality, and now the only thing they can hit back at is also being ignored. Going back in against these protestor with more violence against them and continuing to ignore their issues isn't going to make them go away.

titan18

nullzero wrote: »

We all know that the southern states were hot beds of racism and slavery. The morality of that situation isn't something anyone here is arguing about.

My point is that it takes time to remove every offensive statue and the triumphalism that followed the Bristol situation was always going to lead to a less organised mob removing a statue in a less safe manner.

How quickly should all these statues be removed? Should everybody rush out to remove them and disregard their own personal safety?

Not all people who fought for the Confederate were racists either though. You can't tar all of them as racists and use them as being Confederates as reasons to take down their statues. Like reading this morning, Jefferson Davis statue was taken down, which as the leader of the Confederates is probably fair enough, but then they're also saying they'll take down General Lee's statues who whilst had some issues, they were mainly a product of his time rather than anything strong. He mainly fought and lead the South as that was his home state. Outside of the Confederacy, he was a directed army veteran before that.

If they want to remove all slave owner statues too, there'd be nothing left from pre 1800. Blow up Mount Rushmore too as Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. I think Adams is the only of the early presidents to not have owned slaves and the White House was built with slaves.

robinph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good stuff...it is now an important historical artefact as it will become the symbol of the start point of Britain's confrontation with the reality of it's empire. An 'enlightenment' so to speak.

Last week it was just an unwanted statue in Bristol. Monday morning it was a side note in the BLM protests going on worldwide. Now it is becoming a much more important artefact by the day as some countries listen to their population and make changes, whilst unfortunately other countries continue to ignore their people and make things worse.

Edward Colston is most definitely not getting written out of history anytime soon as some people were claiming would happen earlier in the week.

silverharp

PSA when pulling down statues get out of the way lol

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1270896048236630018

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Erm, yes.

If the powers that be said that they understood the issues and would be urgently looking at if the statues should remain then that would diffuse the situation, or as is happening with statues in the UK various ones are being moved fairly quickly.

Instead in the US you have the people in power saying that there is no problem and that the statues are all heroes and totally ignoring that people are rightly upset with the way they are being treated. Now the statues are not their main problem, it's bejng killed by the police that they have issues with, but they have been ignored on that and told by those in power that there isn't a problem. So in response to that the easiest target to show their anger against is a bunch of statues of racists and slave owners.

They were ignored about the issues of police brutality, and now the only thing they can hit back at is also being ignored. Going back in against these protestor with more violence against them and continuing to ignore their issues isn't going to make them go away.

You quoted one part of my post and didn't address the rest of it. At you talk about people sticking their fingers in their ears.

Yellow_Fern

joe40 wrote: »

I agree, but out protesting, even peaceful protests has been shown to have an inherent danger in the US. Just ask the journalist who was blinded in one eye by a rubber bullet.

I also agree protestors pulling down statues is not ideal, absolutely not, but where is the political leadership to deal with this. They just pander to the far right every time.

There have been countless campaigns to get these issues sorted.

Trump is rarely anything near far right. Poverty is far harder to solve than you imply.

joe40

titan18 wrote: »

Not all people who fought for the Confederate were racists either though. You can't tar all of them as racists and use them as being Confederates as reasons to take down their statues. Like reading this morning, Jefferson Davis statue was taken down, which as the leader of the Confederates is probably fair enough, but then they're also saying they'll take down General Lee's statues who whilst had some issues, they were mainly a product of his time rather than anything strong. He mainly fought and lead the South as that was his home state. Outside of the Confederacy, he was a directed army veteran before that

The war was because of slavery.
The Confederate states opposed the abolition of slavery, that's why they fought. They literally wanted to keep slavery.
Racism doesn't come close to describing the barbarity of slavery.

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

You quoted one part of my post and didn't address the rest of it. At you talk about people sticking their fingers in their ears.

Well I ignored the accusation of prattling on, and think I covered the bit about listening to people tending to actually be useful for defusing situations.

titan18

joe40 wrote: »

The war was because of slavery.
The Confederate states opposed the abolition of slavery, that's why they fought. They literally wanted to keep slavery.
Racism doesn't come close to describing the barbarity of slavery.

Yes, that doesn't mean everyone who fought was for slavery. Some people fought as they were fighting for the state that raised them. Like, just as a hypothetical example, if the EU enacted some rule outlawing something that we did here, and we decided to fight for it along with other EU countries and we got invaded. Would you fight for Ireland or not? Whether you agree with the viewpoint of the rest of the country on it, I think most would.

Slavery was obviously wrong, and fact it still happens today is criminal, but you can't paint everyone who fought for their country as being pro something. Much like not all Germans who fought in WW2 were actually Nazis. Not all Confederates were racists.

Kermit.de.frog

Might as well just get rid of all statues since no one is perfect.

thequarefellow

In the 1800s you were very unlikely to be informed that the availability of sugar or cotton in Europe was the result of slavery. Today we are reliably informed that textiles, coffee, chocolate, fishing etc are industries that are riddled with cases of horrible exploitation and slavery in many cases. But we turn a blind eye. Shouldn't we deal with that as a priority? Because there are people, children, right now, enslaved so that we can buy a pair of jeans in Penneys for a fiver.

Primark and exploitation

textile industry

Global slavery index

'Mars, Nestlé, and Hershey Won't Promise Chocolate is Free from Child Labor'

slavery in fishing industry

coffee

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

Yes, that doesn't mean everyone who fought was for slavery. Some people fought as they were fighting for the state that raised them. Like, just as a hypothetical example, if the EU enacted some rule outlawing something that we did here, and we decided to fight for it along with other EU countries and we got invaded. Would you fight for Ireland or not? Whether you agree with the viewpoint of the rest of the country on it, I think most would.

Slavery was obviously wrong, and fact it still happens today is criminal, but you can't paint everyone who fought for their country as being pro something. Much like not all Germans who fought in WW2 were actually Nazis. Not all Confederates were racists.

The General Lee and many confederate statues were generally put up in early 20th century as Jim Crow laws were being enacted. They were a jab at black people. There was another spike of such statues being erected during the Civil Rights movement.

joe40

titan18 wrote: »

Yes, that doesn't mean everyone who fought was for slavery. Some people fought as they were fighting for the state that raised them. Like, just as a hypothetical example, if the EU enacted some rule outlawing something that we did here, and we decided to fight for it along with other EU countries and we got invaded. Would you fight for Ireland or not? Whether you agree with the viewpoint of the rest of the country on it, I think most would.

Slavery was obviously wrong, and fact it still happens today is criminal, but you can't paint everyone who fought for their country as being pro something. Much like not all Germans who fought in WW2 were actually Nazis. Not all Confederates were racists.

No one is talking about the rank and file soldiers, they don't have statues.
The leaders definitely knew what they were fighting for.

The Germany analogy is actually good. I can believe that not all the soldiers were hardcore Nazis, but all the leadership was.