Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Nermal

joe40 wrote: »

inherent evil

What's it like, living at the apex of moral philosophy?

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While people are getting worked up defending why we need to protect the statues of slave traders etc etc because 'history', and all that happened in the past anyway but whatabout modern slavery and bad things now, in Australia a mining company has been given permission to blow up 40 - 86 significant Aboriginal sites. Not statues made afterward - actual archaeological sites.

Not that I would be in favour of what BHP proposes but at least you should make sure your language is correct.

“built structures … believed to be potential archaeological sites”.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Your credibility is gone out the window. You've just justified destroying genuinely significant parts of history.

I said at least a justification can be advanced. I won't pretend I know enough about the sites to make any other comment.

'I think man bad' is not a justification.

joe40

Nermal wrote: »

What's it like, living at the apex of moral philosophy?

I have no idea. Why would you ask me?

Mitch Connor

Nermal wrote: »

I said at least a justification can be advanced. I won't pretend I know enough about the sites to make any other comment.

'I think man bad' is not a justification.

But 'I think money good' is.

FVP3

One of the interesting things about this is how the UK ( and apparently Ireland) are dealing with our colonial past. All the statues are under threat.

In the US the situation is different. There are two types of protest. The actual blacks on the black lives matter protests with legitimate grievances, and the whites also on these protests tearing down statues. That in itself is ok, but limited.

The British are attacking their colonial history, the latter are not attacking their colonial present. It's easy to attack confederate statues, but what about the rest? Washington, and Jefferson. Lincoln even. And where are the protests against the existing colonial practices of the empire, or its recent past. Where is the defacing of the vietnam memorial? Or the museums for George Bush, for Obama, whatever there is of Clinton. Where are the anti-war protests? Why is Britain attacking its former empire but the US not attacking its present day empire.

I don't think history will be too kind to these people.

ancapailldorcha

FVP3 wrote: »

That in itself is ok, but limited.

I don't see how. The American right has gone full on fascist IMO. Celebrating slave owners just demonstrates how racist these people are.

FVP3 wrote: »

The British are attacking their colonial history, the latter are not attacking their colonial present. It's easy to attack confederate statues, but what about the rest? Washington, and Jefferson. Lincoln even. And where are the protests against the existing colonial practices of the empire, or its recent past. Where is the defacing of the vietnam memorial? Or the museums for George Bush, for Obama, whatever there is of Clinton.

I don't think history will be too kind to these people.

This is what happens when meaningful discussion and growth are suppressed by malevolent people concerned with nothing more than their own self interest and agendas.

One side is agitating for change while the other moans on social media and message boards. If you object to statues being removed then do something about it.

FVP3

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. The American right has gone full on fascist IMO. Celebrating slave owners just demonstrates how racist these people are.

The US celebrates slave owners and white supremacists ( and American supremacists) over the country.

Mostly the statues being attacked are the confederacy. This is merely the history of victors. In the UK they have at defaced some of the statues of Empire like Victoria but the memorial to the Vietnam imperialists in Washington remains undefaced. The Washington monument still stands. The Jefferson memorial is left alone.

One side is agitating for change while the other moans on social media and message boards.

I don't think you read a bit of what I wrote. The side agitating for change in the US isn't attacking US imperialism. Or tearing down the statues of white supremacists who are founders of the US, not losers of the confederacy. Logic dictates they should.

Can't say plainer. Attacking the distant past is easy.

If you object to statues being removed then do something about it.

Er, I don't. I said "That in itself is ok, but limited." Not enough of it.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the US left. Kneeling in front of the descendents of slaves is fine but it doesn't stop Yemeni children starving because of US imperialism.

Edgware

Calhoun wrote: »

I got to say for a protest and pulling down statues the music is great. Seems to be real chill, i think thats maybe why they had that accident.

What statues does Leo want to pull down here? Apparently there is a statue of an IRA member that he wants gone.

Well the local Shinners did destroy the memorial to Kevin O Higgins murdered in 1927

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I don't know what you mean in the first paragraph. Slavery was evil and it was an accepted part of the culture. Those two statements are both true, they're not contradictory.

Before the emancipation of the slaves, slavery wasn't considered evil, except by a variety of religious groups and activists. Widespread disapproval of slavery didn't manifest until well into the civil war when the Union forces began to run their PR campaign. You seem to forget that slavery existed in the North too, for the factories.

Some slaves supported their owners? I'm not doubting that but doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of slavery.

It's not supposed to...

I am dealing with facts, slavery was evil. How is that tugging on heart strings it is a simple fact.

No... that's not a fact. Do some research about slavery before it was abolished. Get some facts.

FVP3

FVP3 wrote: »

The US celebrates slave owners and white supremacists ( and American supremacists) over the country.

Mostly the statues being attacked are the confederacy. This is merely the history of victors. In the UK they have at defaced some of the statues of Empire like Victoria but the memorial to the Vietnam imperialists in Washington remains undefaced. The Washington monument still stands. The Jefferson memorial is left alone.



I don't think you read a bit of what I wrote. The side agitating for change in the US isn't attacking US imperialism. Or tearing down the statues of white supremacists who are founders of the US, not losers of the confederacy. Logic dictates they should.

Can't say plainer. Attacking the distant past is easy.




Er, I don't. I said "That in itself is ok, but limited." Not enough of it.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the US left. Kneeling in front of the descendents of slaves is fine but it doesn't stop Yemeni children starving because of US imperialism.

The Vietnam War memorial(the wall) is far from a celebration of war or imperialism. It's intentionally designed in that way. It focuses entirely on those who died or who were never found. People who didn't necessarily even wish to be a part of the war and it's often interpreted as anti war. So vandalising it which wouldn't even make sense in this case would be more akin to vandalising a graveyard.

jmayo

Christy42 wrote: »

Rommel largely got away with his reputation due to the (false) accusation that he was part of the plot to kill Hitler. It was why he was killed and endeared him to the allies.


Also even with a piece of propoganda in his favour he still doesn't have a statue of him up that I am aware of. I know there is a bust in a museum somewhere.

Rommel was an unusual example.
He was linked to Hitler from 1937 when he was liasion officer between military and Hitler Youth although that didn't last long because he fell out with them.
He was close to Hitler but then again he didn't carry out some of his decrees in North Africa that all those so called non Nazi Wehrmacht generals on the Eastern Front and Balkans were only too willing to carry out.
The Wehrmacht at all levels in the East knew what the fook was happening to Jews and communists.

Rommel probably had knowledge of what was happening to Jews to some extent as top general with high level access and the fact there was some planning for a proposed Einsatzgruppen Egypt.

Then again history is littered with complex individuals who can have done some bad as well as some good.
Most people are rarely black and white.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Plus half of a statue to William of Orange in Boyle. Plus King House next door to it.
We're gonna run out of Semtex soon enough with all of these changes.

Boyle and semtex, could be an improvement.

I can see why this statue should have gone, but as someone said on radio earlier where do we stop?
Do we rename everything named after Washington, Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Simon Bolivar who all owned slaves at some stage ?

And why do some people think that people today should atone for the sins of their ancestors ?
I mean if that is the case then Germans and Japanese should be on their knees day and night begging forgiveness.
The British, French, Spanish along with almost every other nation will be doing likewise, because I can't think of any group or state that hasn't at some stage perpetrated some bad somewhere and that includes people in Africa.

Should Zulus be going around apologising to people of other tribal clan backgrounds for things Shaka did?

People can regret what happened, can express remorse for what some of their ancestors did, but they are not guilty of it and should not be pilloried for it.

FVP3

Deleted User wrote: »

The Vietnam War memorial(the wall) is far from a celebration of war or imperialism. It's intentionally designed in that way. It focuses entirely on those who died or who were never found. People who didn't necessarily even wish to be a part of the war and it's often interpreted as anti war. So vandalising it which wouldn't even make sense in this case would be more akin to vandalising a graveyard.

It lists the American dead and makes no apology for the Vietnamese dead. Its an imperialist memorial.

lawrencesummers

titan18 wrote: »

Well, yes, but aren't we discussing removal of statues everywhere, not just in Ireland. That and our crowd of protesters are taking the ideas from the US protesters. Tbh, I see removal of statues for something that people disagree due to modern sensibilities to be one step on the slope of removing stuff out of museums. I can't see it stopping at statues

Your getting ahead of yourself and putting conspiracy and outrage into the mix.

There has been call in Ireland for the removal of something in Galway, and There hasn’t been any groundswell of support for it.

What has happened the museum in the US is dumb.
What has happened the Statue in the UK is because of ignoring the people.


Neither of those things happen here to the same degree. The erection of Statues And naming parks, streets and bridges etc have generally received the opinions Of the people and been open to consultation. Our neighbours can’t say the same thing.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Not that I would be in favour of what BHP proposes but at least you should make sure your language is correct.

Cherry picking there mark.

You ignored

BHP’s report in September 2019 identified 22 sites of artefacts scatters, culturally modified trees, rock shelters with painted rock art, stone arrangements, and 40 “built structures … believed to be potential archaeological sites”.

22 sites identified, and a further 40 potential sites identified.

But we'll never know if those potential sites are sites if they are erased now will we?

People were saying oooooh - it's the pyramids next - Machu Picchu - the Colosseum - well, here are 22 identified sites of archeological interest plus another possible 40 sites, which are also sacred to to the Banjima people who still live there, and it's not 'the mob' who are destroying them.

And some of those who criticised 'the mob' and decried the pulling down of a statue (which has since been retrieved from the water) are of the opinion that what is happening in WA is okay because money.
Ironically, money was also the reason slavery was okay at the time.

FVP3

jmayo wrote: »

Rommel was an unusual example.
He was linked to Hitler from 1937 when he was liasion officer between military and Hitler Youth although that didn't last long because he fell out with them.
He was close to Hitler but then again he didn't carry out some of his decrees in North Africa that all those so called non Nazi Wehrmacht generals on the Eastern Front and Balkans were only too willing to carry out.
The Wehrmacht at all levels in the East knew what the fook was happening to Jews and communists.

Rommel probably had knowledge of what was happening to Jews to some extent as top general with high level access and the fact there was some planning for a proposed Einsatzgruppen Egypt.

Then again history is littered with complex individuals who can have done some bad as well as some good.
Most people are rarely black and white.



Boyle and semtex, could be an improvement.

I can see why this statue should have gone, but as someone said on radio earlier where do we stop?
Do we rename everything named after Washington, Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Simon Bolivar who all owned slaves at some stage ?

And why do some people think that people today should atone for the sins of their ancestors ?
I mean if that is the case then Germans and Japanese should be on their knees day and night begging forgiveness.
The British, French, Spanish along with almost every other nation will be doing likewise, because I can't think of any group or state that hasn't at some stage perpetrated some bad somewhere and that includes people in Africa.

Should Zulus be going around apologising to people of other tribal clan backgrounds for things Shaka did?

People can regret what happened, can express remorse for what some of their ancestors did, but they are not guilty of it and should not be pilloried for it.

When it starts I can't see why it would stop. By and large, the Sean Russell statue aside, I can't see much problems over here. Rename A king Billy road? ok. Take down the columbus plinth. Mostly disinterest there.

However why would the british stop at Colston? There's no political figure in UK history from 17C-mid 20C who wasn't an white ( really Anglo) supremacist. As to why the Americans are concentrating on the confederacy, that's clear enough.

Edgware

FVP3 wrote: »

When it starts I can't see why it would stop. By and large, the Sean Russell statue aside, I can't see much problems over here. Rename A king Billy road? ok. Take down the columbus plinth. Mostly disinterest there.

However why would the british stop at Colston? There's no political figure in UK history from 17C-mid 20C who wasn't an white ( really Anglo) supremacist. As to why the Americans are concentrating on the confederacy, that's clear enough.

Now some gob****e wants the GAA to change the names of all The John Mitchell clubs.
Will the IRFU remove all the memorials to Imperial Wars in their clubs?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Edgware wrote: »

Now some gob****e wants the GAA to change the names of all The John Mitchell clubs.
Will the IRFU remove all the memorials to Imperial Wars in their clubs?

The BBC has just removed episodes of little Britain, the mighty boosh and more from their library. This isn’t about one statue. The mob are a ****ing disgrace.

FVP3

FVP3 wrote: »

It lists the American dead and makes no apology for the Vietnamese dead. Its an imperialist memorial.

It makes absolutely no comment on the war. Interpreting it as pro imperialism is a leap. Opposition to it called it a "black gash of shame" and it's often interpreted as anti war. So your interpretation of it is pretty reductionist tbh.

shaveAbullock

No matter how many times they vandalise the Churchill statues they will never knock it.

Paddygreen

ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »

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

It's hard not to laugh.

Only a NeoNazi thug would laugh at a principled anti-racism activist getting KOd and severely injured by a bronze racist. The iconoclasm is coming to a town near you Bruv and if you laugh at our activists as they modify the streetscape then you are nothing but a Nazi and a potential Hate criminal #breakdanceforjustice

jmayo

FVP3 wrote: »

It lists the American dead and makes no apology for the Vietnamese dead. Its an imperialist memorial.

WTF ?

Seriously are you a a kid or just a bit ...

Do you seriously expect a War Memorial in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh city to commerate the French, US or South Vietnamese dead ?

Do you expect to find a war memorial in China to commerate the Japanese dead or even the Nationalist dead?

Would you expect a memorial in the Killing Fields to mention the Khmer Rouge guards that died?

Or is it only certain sides that need to continously apologise and remember the dead on the other side ?

walshb

The world at the moment is just one big fooking facepalm!

SafeSurfer

Paddygreen wrote: »

Only a NeoNazi thug would laugh at a principled anti-racism activist getting KOd and severely injured by a bronze racist. The iconoclasm is coming to a town near you Bruv and if you laugh at our activists as they modify the streetscape then you are nothing but a Nazi and a potential Hate criminal #breakdanceforjustice

Be careful. Iconoclasm is complicated. Some would say Byzantine.

Christy42

Hunky Monster wrote: »

The BBC has just removed episodes of little Britain, the mighty boosh and more from their library. This isn’t about one statue. The mob are a ****ing disgrace.

Did they break in and delete them? I mean I am at a loss here. Would you like direct control of what the BBC does and doesn't remove?

Surely this decision was made by the higher ups in BBC and due to a protest? They may have done so in reaction but that seems to be their right.

Bannasidhe

Edgware wrote: »

Now some gob****e wants the GAA to change the names of all The John Mitchell clubs.
Will the IRFU remove all the memorials to Imperial Wars in their clubs?

They might be gob$$%%s but would a discussion on how a man who advocated for Irish freedom could also found a newspaper for the express purpose of defending slavery be a bad thing?

The aim of Mitchel's newspaper Southern Citizen was to promote "the value and virtue of slavery, both for negroes and white men".
He wanted the Triangular Trade restarted.
He considered Jefferson Davis a moderate.
His views were so extreme many Southerners complained he was playing into the hands of abolitionists.

Mitchel actually equated the Confederacy with Irish attempts to gain independence and he believed with equal passion in freedom for the Irish and enslavement for Africans.
https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/southern-citizen-john-mitchel-the-confederacy-and-slavery/

Compare him to his fellow Young Irelander, and friend, Thomas Meagher - who although he had some sympathy for the South due to the effects of Northern economic aggression nonetheless could not support slavery and so literally fought for the Union. He even founded the Irish Brigade.
There is a statue of Meagher in Waterford.

Whether or not the statue of Mitchel remains is a moot point - but let's be honest about the man it honours.

jmayo

The internet has a lot of good, but it has also allowed the stupider side of humanity express itself all too much.

I do despair that younger generations are getting more retarded as time goes on.
And yes I use that term to described stupidity rather than any inherited mental disability that someone has through no fault of their own.

seenitall

jmayo wrote: »

The internet has a lot of good, but it has also allowed the stupider side of humanity express itself all too much.

I do despair that younger generations are getting more retarded as time goes on.
And yes I use that term to described stupidity rather than any inherited mental disability that someone has through no fault of their own.

Isn't low IQ also something someone has through no fault of their own?

Bannasidhe

jmayo wrote: »

WTF ?

Seriously are you a a kid or just a bit ...

Do you seriously expect a War Memorial in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh city to commerate the French, US or South Vietnamese dead ?

Do you expect to find a war memorial in China to commerate the Japanese dead or even the Nationalist dead?

Would you expect a memorial in the Killing Fields to mention the Khmer Rouge guards that died?

Or is it only certain sides that need to continously apologise and remember the dead on the other side ?

In 1985 the Turkish authorities named the site of the landings at Gallipoli 'Anzac Cove' in memory of the Australian and New Zealand troops. In response the Australian govt erected a memorial to Ataturk with a garden that commemorates both sides directly opposite the Australian War Memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_Memorial,_Canberra


And didn't the Irish govt include the names of all who died in the War of Independence on a memorial wall...
https://www.thejournal.ie/1916-wall-aberration-2692975-Apr2016/

There is a memorial in Santander in Spain to both sides in the Civil War.

Memorial Day in the US is dedicated to the fallen of both sides in their Civil War.


So it's happened.

is_that_so

seenitall wrote: »

Isn't low IQ also something someone has through no fault of their own?

It's really about the dumbing down of what IQ they already have, often in voluminous confirmation biased echo chambers.