Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Christy42

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

He certainly broke the treaty of versaille. Though not sure whether that counts as illegal. It gets fuzzy when countries do bad things.

c.p.w.g.w

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

I'm sure Killing people was illegal...The Nazi's were convicted of war crimes...Laws can't be retrospective

Kermit.de.frog

buried

lol

MisterAnarchy

Its all getting ludicrous now,people need to grow some balls.

Chart-topping US pop group Lady Antebellum have changed their name to Lady A because Antebellum has connotations with the slavery era.
The Nashville trio have won five Grammys and had seven US top 10 albums, including three number ones.
The word antebellum is used to refer to the period and architecture in the US South before the Civil War.
They say they took the name from the architectural style, but are "deeply sorry for the hurt this has caused".
In a statement on Twitter, they said their eyes had been opened to "the injustices, inequality and biases black women and men have always faced" and "blindspots we didn't even know existed".

y0ssar1an22

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Under non circumstances should lawmakers should not be making laws about what kind of statues can be made. Anyway such guidelines would be:

1. Must be in living memory of a lost person.
2. No. Colston isn't a shrine. It would have to be a shrine to groups with who commit terrorism.
3. Statues are erected by local authorities. Up to them to decide if who to erect a statue too.

About 15 years ago Waterford city moved a statue of Luke Wadding and replaced it with a statue of Thomas Francis Meagher, the first governor of Montana. He was popular for his influence in the origin of the Irish tricolour. There a media push to erect the statue in the local media but they made no mention of his role in founding the Montana Territory Volunteer Militia to punish the local Blackfoot Indians. I have always been a passionate advocate for indigenous people, and I felt this side of him wasn't being discussed. However the statue has long settled into the local landscape and it doesn't upset anyone. Blackfoot Indians are not seeing it everyday getting offended. His dubious role in the Indian wars doesn't cause offence to anyone really and it is not a shrine to anyone bar the odd peaceful Irish Republican. So I wouldn't campaign for it to be removed. I was against the erection of the statue but I would obstruct any attempt at its removal today.

1. Must be in living memory of a lost person: so as a generation dies, you can remove the offending statue?

2. what is a shrine?

3. i presented a hypothetical situation. if one should not be removed why (if it were standing) should the other be removed?
i know if a statue of hitler should be removed, but given that stance (or principle), i cant object to any other statue being removed.

thats interesting about waterford!

Blackfoot Indians are not seeing it everyday getting offended: if 1 got upset 1 day, would you support its removal?

Yellow_Fern

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

Well a lot of the anti semitism was technically legal, but I think the Holocaust was technically illegal but I am not sure. Jews had their citizenship revoked at this stage so I don't know their legal status. Remember of course the Holocaust was done in secret. I dont think it went through the courts.

y0ssar1an22

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'm sure Killing people was illegal...The Nazi's were convicted of war crimes...Laws can't be retrospective

when did that become illegal? all European colonisers did the same thing - killing the people they invaded.

fly_agaric

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is total emotional bull. Genghis Khan is a hero in Mongolia. Some sources he killed 2 civilians million in the siege of Baghdad alone. Mongolia is not Mars. We have a Mongolian Consulate in Dublin. I know Mongolians living in Ireland. It is easy to protest.

I don't think anyone should be protesting about Genghis Khan tbh... If Mongolians want to view him as a national hero/founding father type figure (?) that is up to them.

It does show how the objective "worthiness"/morality of such figures to be (literally) put on a pedestal can be lower in importance than the measure of "did they do good stuff/bring home the bacon for my people/the nation".

Especially if the evil deeds are very far away in space or time so there's no-one about to be offended and hurt by them (and so wish to push then off their plinths).

Yellow_Fern

They are coming for the statues William Gladstone now, a great friend of Ireland, who supported Home rule and disestablished the Church of Ireland, his father once owned slaves and because he once sought compensation for slave owners, even though he supported abolition. Liverpool University revealed it is renaming a halls of residence that bears the name. Why are they giving into to these morons.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53007083

Dangerous times.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

when did that become illegal? all European colonisers did the same thing - killing the people they invaded.

It wasn't illegal. There wasn't any kind of international law in place which governed countries. One could argue that morality had shifted but there's a lot of double standards when it comes to the Allied nations vs Germany or Soviet Russia. Less than a generation previously, France and Britain had their own sordid past deeds, which nobody objected to. Nah. Few countries did more than posture when Japan invaded China, and committed atrocities. It was the scale/efficiency of the genocide/ethnic cleansing by Germany that shook people, along with the advances in technology which could show what Germany had done. Past misbehavior by the Empires were hidden more easily.

In any case, the Holocaust/WW2 changed western perception regarding any such similar behavior.

da_miser

As a Irishman i know Cromwell was a evil son of a bitch.
We have documented facts that he sold White Irish people as slaves to the Caribbean and to Iceland.
The woke crowd turn a blind eye to white folk as slaves.
Where is the woke outrage over the Cromwell Irish slave trade?
Where is the woke outrage over the Sevastopol slave trade?
Where is the woke outrage over the Sack of Baltimore?
Why no woke outrage in Europe about white folk who suffered slavery?

da_miser

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its all getting ludicrous now,people need to grow some balls.

The medias agenda at work
Push this PC/Woke BS hard
generate plenty of ad clicks
be there to document the backlash to PC/Woke
Generate plenty of ad clicks

the media is the Fúckíng problem, stirring up shít
i have traveled the world, racism only infects 1% of people,
as a "white aryan" man where do these white aryan master race people congregate as i have never met one?

Strazdas

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

The Final Solution was definitely 100% illegal under German constitutional law - which is why it had to be conducted in secret and Hitler could not sign any document authorising it.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

IBM and Ford too but what's your point exactly? There are no statues that venerate these people.

Von Braun should have been at least jailed for a long time.

Oh really?



We are living in a world of Reductio ad absurdum.
Science is racist, space ships are racist, vaccines are racist and so on.

I would have thought Covid-19 would have put a reset button on a lot of absurd stuff that was going on before, but now it's like before but on crack.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sean Russell a traitor or collaborator have pretty dumb anglocentric views as we weren't at war with Germany and had been at war with Britain less than 20 years previously.

He sided with a brutal regime that committed genocide all over Europe. In this new age of cleaning the house, if a statue being taken down of some guy who was alive 300 years ago is fair game, then surely a statue of Sean Russell would be first on the chopping block.

You said it yourself. "statues tend to do that" 'That' being promoting the person's virtue.
Then we can look at the statue of Fr. Matthew and renaming Cathal Burgha barracks.

This is the whirlwind the idiots have sown.

*For the record, I am against the idiocracy of taking down statues because its all of a sudden fashionable because everyone, everything, and every atom is now racist.

paul71

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

The murder of several million Jews and Gypsies would always have been considered illegal I should think.

lawrencesummers

markodaly wrote: »

Oh really?



We are living in a world of Reductio ad absurdum.
Science is racist, space ships are racist, vaccines are racist and so on.

I would have thought Covid-19 would have put a reset button on a lot of absurd stuff that was going on before, but now it's like before but on crack.

Nobody (except you) is saying those things.

lawrencesummers

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The point is...

There are plenty people in History who have done terrible things/been associated with terrible things but aren't addressed because if we did the ability to fly and use smart phones would likely be greatly diminished...

The current wave is fairly selective to appease certain people...

If the Statue of Sean Russell is removed in Dublin...Leo should be taken out and shot against a wall

If the statue is removed and Leo is shot, wouldn’t shooting him just be an act designed to appease certain people?

titan18

paul71 wrote: »

The murder of several million Jews and Gypsies would always have been considered illegal I should think.

That wouldn't have been known about at the time Sean Russell was there tbf. The holocaust proper didn't kick off until midway through the war

Even the daily mail is poisoned

"It comes amid fears of a clash between Black Lives Matters activists and far-right thugs in the capital city"

Got it?

BLM = activists (the people wanting to destroy public property)
The other side = "thugs" (the ones wanting to protect damage to public property)

We are truly living in clown world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8412967/Workers-BOARD-Cenotaph-Winston-Churchills-statue-protect-them.html

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even the daily mail is poisoned

"It comes amid fears of a clash between Black Lives Matters activists and far-right thugs in the capital city"

Got it?

BLM = activists (the people wanting to destroy public property)
The other side = "thugs" (the ones wanting to protect damage to public property)

We are truly living in clown world.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8412967/Workers-BOARD-Cenotaph-Winston-Churchills-statue-protect-them.html

I'm pretty sure you'd have been calling Suffragettes "thugs" back in the day.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you'd have been calling Suffragettes "thugs" back in the day.

You know how absurd it is since you have to concoct a nonsense hypothetical.

paul71

titan18 wrote: »

That wouldn't have been known about at the time Sean Russell was there tbf. The holocaust proper didn't kick off until midway through the war

That was not the point I was making, the person I replied questioned whether the acts of murder committed by the Nazis were at the time actually crimes. They were clearly criminal acts.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know how absurd it is since you have to concoct a nonsense hypothetical.

The Suffragettes were not one hundred percent peaceful(they damaged public property and engaged in plenty of violence) . Both
protesting legitimate injustices. They are both activists or "thugs" for those who disagree.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

The Suffragettes were not one hundred percent peaceful(they damaged public property and engaged in plenty of violence) . Both
protesting legitimate injustices. They are both activists or "thugs" for those who disagree.

Their campaigns were far more broad ranging than just damaging property. That's the easy part anyway, the hard part is getting to an inevitably slow dialogue on what can and should happen. For the world of instant gratification we live in it's far less proof of achievement but far more important.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

Their campaigns were far more broad ranging than just damaging property. That's the easy part anyway, the hard part is getting to an inevitably slow dialogue on what can and should happen. For the world of instant gratification we live in it's far less proof of achievement but far more important.

And BLM is far from simply damaging property which has even been pointed out by the likes of James Mattis who isn't exactly a Lefty... The general consensus is that it's now generating a global conversation. And it does look likely to effect change. In fact, the statue stuff alone has resulted in policy shifts.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Suffragettes were not one hundred percent peaceful(they damaged public property and engaged in plenty of violence) . Both
protesting legitimate injustices. They are both activists or "thugs" for those who disagree.

Anyone who engages in thuggish behaviour deserves the term thugs.

People who wish to preserve public property do not.

Niallof9

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nobody (except you) is saying those things.

Are you sure about that? There is some scientists like Richard Dawkins, for example who are now considered in that vein. Its not a far leap to get to a stage where say forcing people to get vaccines, such as the orthodox Jewish community in New York will be seen as racist etc. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/9/18068036/measles-new-york-orthodox-jewish-community-vaccines

Peterson, Hitchens, Dawkins for example (no matter the personal views on them) all these videos online talking about a certain religion. Dawkins was already cancelled on some circuits. Whatever you think about him, he is a man of science and facts who is equal opportunity atheist. To be anti religion, well i should say only anti-islam is now racist. Despite the religion being against everything the young people marching for BLM stand for. They stone gays, punish women, abuse children and on and on.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/richard-dawkins-allahu-akhbar-church-bells-criticism-religion-a8451141.html

https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/your-dinner-guest-makes-islamophobic-comment-how-do-you-respond


Its quite clear if you've been paying attention this is the route we are heading down. As far back as 2013. So yeah he's completely correct in what he saids and far from the only person saying it.

The cancel culture which is basically what he has shorthanded has been going strong for years. And much of it is anti-science and anti critical thinking. Its just the race part of the cancel culture has taken a back seat to women rights, Islamophobia, etc. Now it is the race relations turn. Rightly or wrongly, but this is what he means i presume.

The theory of a clash of civilisations is even older.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

And BLM is far from simply damaging property which has even been pointed out by the likes of James Mattis who isn't exactly a Lefty... The general consensus is that it's now generating a global conversation. And it does look likely to effect change. In fact, the statue stuff alone has resulted in policy shifts.

I think it's generating a lot of very angry noise at present, most of it not terribly focused. Building defacement and strident demands to change imagery is really not a useful long term approach to anything. Dialogue is a two way thing.