Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol
Options
Comments
-
How come the sizable Chinese community here never seem to have any issues or feel under threat here or in the UK or USA ??..or indeed the Indian or Pakistani communities ...
Maybe their too busy working ??..just saying0 -
Apparently BLM protest in London called off because far right groups and English nationalist are organising a counter protest.
There are a lot of people in the UK feeling they dont belong from white Black Asian in fact from all colours and races. I might be wrong but i dont see anyone trying to join unite them all.
Dead right to call off the March. They have loads of power right now while its about whether you agree with slave ststuea or not. If they let it become a right vs left fighting, then it breaks down into left vs right. The right and the football fans against terrorism, or whatever they call themselves, would love to break up the BLM momentum.
Good decision to call off that march0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »In no way, shape, or form did I say anything of the sort.
The people responsible were the people who were involved.
I also said I, personally, feel no guilt, even though I have a pretty good knowledge of the horrors of the slave trade. I acknowledge what was done were the most appalling crimes against humanity and Ireland was one of the countries that benefited. That in no way means that anyone alive now in Ireland is responsible for past actions, it simply means we, as a mature modern society, should admit they happened.
I said - and this is what the records show and I provided links - that there were people living in Ireland who owned slaves, that there were Irish people directly involved in the slave trade, that money from the slave trade was used in Ireland to fund capital works. I have provided evidence for each one of these.
I suggested that it might be an idea to have it noted on a plaque in Dublin that much of it's famous urban landscape was funded from the proceeds of the Triangular Slave Trade.
How you can possibly think that translates into "all Irish people were and are responsible" is completely beyond me.
You stated that Ireland was "one of the countries that benefited" from slavery.
I'm assuming we can agree that the capital works that were funded by the slave trade commenced and were completed whilst Ireland was under British Rule?
Ireland as a country had its history irrevocably changed by the intervention of the British, an awful lot of negative things can be associated with that period, we did however also inherit a lot of infrastructure from the British empire which still exists today.
In all situations where empires extend into other countries there will be people only too happy to sell out their own people and take the "Kings shilling", this doesn't suggest the nation at large are accountable for their actions, bad people exist everywhere and will happily engage in immoral activities to feather their own nests so to speak, these minorities do not represent the majority however.
Ireland today is not the same as Ireland in the time of the slave trade, mainly due to us now being an independent country, albeit one that has a history of being part of another country's empire.
To suggest that we have as a nation benefited from the slave trade because of what was left behind by the British in terms of infrastructure isn't a very honest interpretation of our history.
Should we apply this logic to every former colony of the British empire?
The money that was earned through the slave trade and spent on capital works on this island was only ever spent to benefit the British empire and nothing else. The suggestion that we are enjoying the fruits of the slave trade in the historical areas of our towns and cities is dishonest.Glazers Out!
0 -
Some people only give a **** about the plight of the black community, when its social applauded.0
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Dead right to call off the March. They have loads of power right now while its about whether you agree with slave ststuea or not. If they let it become a right vs left fighting, then it breaks down into left vs right. The right and the football fans against terrorism, or whatever they call themselves, would love to break up the BLM momentum.
Good decision to call off that march
Yes its a good call to call it off.
BLM does have a lot of air time at the moment and its a shame there message is so subjected to one race.0 -
Advertisement
-
Megan Most Octagon wrote: »So there hasn't been a revolution across the global, just in the last week or so, with various retractions across many various genres of media, and now boarding up of statues that have stood for centuries.
The media has ballparked them all as hate groups in they engage in any counter protest. Thus if the scouts, or historical preservation societies show up in any type of groupage (likely will), they easily tick the media's haters classification box.
Of course there are indeed some very vile groups in the mix also, and the newly formed (but laughable) titled DFLA does indicate a crowd of unorganised boozed up common holligans looking for a day out.
Can you point me to where people were demanding for the removal of the Fawlty Towers episode? And I'll repeat, most channels already omit the line.
In addition, any articles that refer to far right groups reference individuals such as Stephen Yaxley Lennon and the dlfa... Historical societies generally don't care about statues being moved to museums. So nope, the media have not done what you claimed they've done. They've explicitly mentioned who they're concerned about. You're pushing nonsense.
Also the average historical society does not care about statues being moved into a museum. You know that's continuing to preserve history?0 -
Megan Most Octagon wrote: »So there hasn't been a revolution across the global, just in the last week or so, with various retractions across many various genres of media, and now boarding up of statues that have stood for centuries.
IMHO there has been an awful lot of Corporations issuing statements and taking actions such as this as PR. They see a bandwagon and are jumping on it.
A good example is Aramark who did a black lives matter tweet and it was pointed out that they make millions from direct provision in Ireland and have been the subject of some serious questions about the sub-standard accommodation and food they provide.
An awful lot of universities, art galleries, museums etc also hopped on and it was quickly pointed out how they, themselves, had done things like fail to acknowledge the work of black academic, artists, curators. Or in some cases even their existence. As members of staff.
And this whole 'no longer acceptable' thing isn't new. There is a 1965 film named 'Ten Little Indians' based on an Agatha Christie book called And then there were None, but that wasn't the original name of Christie's book. It wasn't 10 little 'Indians' she named the book after in 1939.0 -
The problem with this staue is that the fact we now live in a multicultural society we are going to get people who object.
A few years ago a Polish guy i worked with said he read up on this guy and was disgusted we could have a statue of someone who may of had sympathizes with the natzis.
I tried to explain who this guy was, and some of the Irish Uk history. i was informed who what the Natzis was and how they killed millions in Poland, the death camp stories i was told was dreadful.
I think it should stay so more people can google read up find out who he was. If we take him down he will be forgotten. But i will respect what the locals and elected officials decide.
Like with Churchill in the UK or Colston, one of the things this statue brings into question is do the ends justify the means.
Was this guy really a Nazi? Or was he a republican who would do a deal with the devil so his side would win. Considering when he died as well allot of the atrocities of WW2 were not known at the time.0 -
Some people only give a **** about the plight of the black community, when its social applauded.
The police brutality actions and manner is not predominantly againt the black community, its its has always been predominantly againt the poorist in society.
The police, Garda law enforcement in general are here to protect the rich and poweful.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Firstly, It is up to each individual country how it wishes to deal with it's own past.
Correct, so do we have to follow the US or the UK in some sort of collective grovelling and self-masochism?Ireland included. We like to think of ourselves as the oppressed but gloss over the involvement of Irish people in oppressing others.
And? Like how am I or you, or my neighbor responsible for some random Irish guy who went off and worked for the East India company or similar?
The Irish nation had no self-determination up to 100 years ago.Irish history, just like every other history, is nuanced. It isn't as cut and dried as 'we were colonised'. Yes we were. And Irish people aided that colonisation, profited from that colonisation, participated in the colonisation of other places.
The descendents of colonists fought against British rule, founded Irish republicanism, and are nationalist heros today.
Again, history is nuanced. No ****! I agree. Yet I remember you being against the commemoration of the RIC. Hmmm, do as I say, not as I do?As an example - as the Tudor war machine rolled across the island of Ireland violently obliterating Gaelic culture helping them do so was the O'Brien earl of Thomond and the O'Neill Earl of Tyrone. Completely opposed to them were the Burkes of Mayo - descendants of Anglo-Normans, they fought for 30 years against Elizabeth's forces. When O'Neill switched sides his ally O'Donnell attacked the Burkes - who in turn switched sides as they didn't trust O'Donnell.
Every Fitzgerald, Burke/Bourke, Darcy, Walsh, etc in this country is a descendent of colonisers. An awful lot of people with those names fought against British rule.
As I said, it's nuanced.
Again, we agree. History is nuanced. Knucklehead RA types often get mad when I point out that the Normans (aka in their eye da Brits) were 'invited' here by Diarmait Mac Murchada. Real Game of Thrones stuff! No No No, 800 years of oppression, blah blah blah. Yes, history is nuanced, but it's going the other way now.Don't you think we are mature enough to deal with that?
If one wants to have a discussion on history warts and all, I am up for that. But this carry on, the stuff being presented and sold as a 'debate' or a discussion? Get the **** out of it. It is just a rabble and a mob, and many are afraid to question it in cause they get outed or canceled by the mob on Twitter. Some mon gathering some place to illegal tear down or vandalise a statue is not a debate, nor a discussion, it's just a mob.Would you prefer it was all reduced to some ladybird book of acceptable Irish history that doesn't make anyone pause for thought and never ever contradicts 'what every knows' even when that isn't correct?
Who decides which bits are acceptable?
Isn't that what is happening now? A ladybird version/revision of history and a rewrite that is every bit as dumb and stupid? This guy bad, that guy bad...
Some guy 300 years ago benefited indirectly from slavery, built some building or arch in Dublin..... so we have to have along with a winded discussion about that and how we feeeeel about it.
Its nothing but a quasi-religious attempt at a sermon to browbeat people into a line of thinking.Someone whose job is education would like to see people educated. Gosh. That's hardly a shocker is it Mark?
Education or re-education?Interesting that you think someone advocating people should educate themselves by looking at historical sources, reading the work of professional historians, and generally trying as best they can to familiarise themselves with how events unfolded and the people involved is akin to a missionary trying to get people to believe things on faith alone.
Seems to me they are the complete opposite. But then I am biased in that regard and not ashamed to say so.
So in this issue, you are not a historian then, so quit acting like one and saying, 'Oh I am an actual historian, listen to me for the truth', when you admit you are biased.The rest of your comment is just a dig as the 'real' truth as you categorise it was my sharing the work of other historians and journalists. But sure - call it all a cult if you wish. There's thousands of us you know. Spreading our message via credible sources.
And there you go again. Wearing the 'I am a historian' hat, while openly admitting of your bias. You may as well say you are a doctor, but reject science. There is a name for them too, quacks. In other words, you can call yourself what you want, but I am not buying nor drinking the quasi-religious pandering to what is going on.0 -
Advertisement
-
" A lot of the attrocities of WW2 were not known at the time" The Kristallnacht was known as was the occupation of Poland, Low Countries and France. The Shinners are grasping at straws on this one. If it was O Duffy that was dealing with the Nazis Mary Lou would be the first to be jumping up and down.Like with Churchill in the UK or Colston, one of the things this statue brings into question is do the ends justify the means.
Was this guy really a Nazi? Or was he a republican who would do a deal with the devil so his side would win. Considering when he died as well allot of the atrocities of WW2 were not known at the time.0 -
You stated that Ireland was "one of the countries that benefited" from slavery.
I'm assuming we can agree that the capital works that were funded by the slave trade commenced and were completed whilst Ireland was under British Rule?
Ireland as a country had its history irrevocably changed by the intervention of the British, an awful lot of negative things can be associated with that period, we did however also inherit a lot of infrastructure from the British empire which still exists today.
In all situations where empires extend into other countries there will be people only too happy to sell out their own people and take the "Kings shilling", this doesn't suggest the nation at large are accountable for their actions, bad people exist everywhere and will happily engage in immoral activities to feather their own nests so to speak, these minorities do not represent the majority however.
Ireland today is not the same as Ireland in the time of the slave trade, mainly due to us now being an independent country, albeit one that has a history of being part of another country's empire.
To suggest that we have as a nation benefited from the slave trade because of what was left behind by the British in terms of infrastructure isn't a very honest interpretation of our history.
Should we apply this logic to every former colony of the British empire?
The money that was earned through the slave trade and spent on capital works on this island was only ever spent to benefit the British empire and nothing else. The suggestion that we are enjoying the fruits of the slave trade in the historical areas of our towns and cities is dishonest.
Yes, we were part of the British Empire but I don't suppose it matters to you that at the time a lot of the funds were pouring in from the Slave Trade we had our own parliament in Dublin?
It even sat in a building build from revenue from the Slave Trade.
That building is still there.
It became the Bank of Ireland.
So, yes. We, as a nation, benefited even though we 'inherited' it.
In 1922 the entire population of 26 counties wasn't replaced with people who were Irish but had no links to those who lived under British rule. We are their descendents, and we benefit from what they left behind regardless of who built things or how they were funded.
Trinity has educated a hell of a lot of Irish people - it was founded in the reign of Elizabeth I - do we not benefit from that?
How about UCC? NUIG? UCD? All originally Queen's Colleges and founded in Victoria's reign. Do we not benefit from those?
The original sewage systems.
The roads.
Hospitals.
National Schools.
No lasting benefit?
What about the fact that we are conversing in English? Is that of no benefit either?
1922 did not wipe the slate clean. It created a new chapter in a very long book.
We did not tear down the infrastructure of the old Empire (although we did blow up the documents left from Gaelic Ireland so make of that what you will)- we took it as our own.
As a people who were colonised, who lost our native culture, laws, and language is it really too much to ask that we could recognise that some of what we benefit from was left behind was build using money earned from the sweat and blood of other people also oppressed by that same empire?
How other former colonies deal with their history is their own business. They don't need Ireland telling them what they should and should not do - and we wouldn't take kindly to say, India, telling us.0 -
" A lot of the attrocities of WW2 were not known at the time" The Kristallnacht was known as was the occupation of Poland, Low Countries and France. The Shinners are grasping at straws on this one. If it was O Duffy that was dealing with the Nazis Mary Lou would be the first to be jumping up and down.
Eoin O'Duffy and the Blueshirts actually went to bat for the fascists in Spain however.
It's not quite the same as Russell securing arms from Germany to fight an occupation of his home country.
And all this nonsense about what was "known" at the time and who by is highly subjective.0 -
Yes its a good call to call it off.
BLM does have a lot of air time at the moment and its a shame there message is so subjected to one race.
What does that mean? "its a shame there message is so subjected to one race".
I just think it was a good idea to call off the match to avoid it becoming a straight left/right issue or a brawl between BLM and the football hooligans.0 -
Correct, so do we have to follow the US or the UK in some sort of collective grovelling and self-masochism?
And? Like how am I or you, or my neighbor responsible for some random Irish guy who went off and worked for the East India company or similar?
The Irish nation had no self-determination up to 100 years ago.
Again, history is nuanced. No ****! I agree. Yet I remember you being against the commemoration of the RIC. Hmmm, do as I say, not as I do?
Again, we agree. History is nuanced. Knucklehead RA types often get mad when I point out that the Normans (aka in their eye da Brits) were 'invited' here by Diarmait Mac Murchada. Real Game of Thrones stuff! No No No, 800 years of oppression, blah blah blah. Yes, history is nuanced, but it's going the other way now.
If one wants to have a discussion on history warts and all, I am up for that. But this carry on, the stuff being presented and sold as a 'debate' or a discussion? Get the **** out of it. It is just a rabble and a mob, and many are afraid to question it in cause they get outed or canceled by the mob on Twitter. Some mon gathering some place to illegal tear down or vandalise a statue is not a debate, nor a discussion, it's just a mob.
Isn't that what is happening now? A ladybird version/revision of history and a rewrite that is every bit as dumb and stupid? This guy bad, that guy bad...
Some guy 300 years ago benefited indirectly from slavery, built some building or arch in Dublin..... so we have to have along with a winded discussion about that and how we feeeeel about it.
Its nothing but a quasi-religious attempt at a sermon to browbeat people into a line of thinking.
Education or re-education?
So in this issue, you are not a historian then, so quit acting like one and saying, 'Oh I am an actual historian, listen to me for the truth', when you admit you are biased.
And there you go again. Wearing the 'I am a historian' hat, while openly admitting of your bias. You may as well say you are a doctor, but reject science. There is a name for them too, quacks. In other words, you can call yourself what you want, but I am not buying nor drinking the quasi-religious pandering to what is going on.
Masterclass in selective reading.
My bias is that I do not consider an academic discipline based on credible sources to be the same as a religion based on faith. Ya got me there.
You and I have been on this same merry-go-round many times mark and I stated before that if you have to resort to continual personal attacks such as highlighted or expect me to read expletive riddled rants (***** indeed) you are very much mistaken.
If you can post links demonstrating that a single historical fact I posted is incorrect, and do so without invective then perhaps we can continue to have a discussion.
Although a look at your usual responses to me as laid out in your posting history would lead me to feel that won't happen anytime soon.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Yes, we were part of the British Empire but I don't suppose it matters to you that at the time a lot of the funds were pouring in from the Slave Trade we had our own parliament in Dublin?
It even sat in a building build from revenue from the Slave Trade.
That building is still there.
It became the Bank of Ireland.
So, yes. We, as a nation, benefited even though we 'inherited' it.
In 1922 the entire population of 26 counties wasn't replaced with people who were Irish but had no links to those who lived under British rule. We are their descendents, and we benefit from what they left behind regardless of who built things or how they were funded.
Trinity has educated a hell of a lot of Irish people - it was founded in the reign of Elizabeth I - do we not benefit from that?
How about UCC? NUIG? UCD? All originally Queen's Colleges and founded in Victoria's reign. Do we not benefit from those?
The original sewage systems.
The roads.
Hospitals.
National Schools.
No lasting benefit?
What about the fact that we are conversing in English? Is that of no benefit either?
1922 did not wipe the slate clean. It created a new chapter in a very long book.
We did not tear down the infrastructure of the old Empire (although we did blow up the documents left from Gaelic Ireland so make of that what you will)- we took it as our own.
As a people who were colonised, who lost our native culture, laws, and language is it really too much to ask that we could recognise that some of what we benefit from was left behind was build using money earned from the sweat and blood of other people also oppressed by that same empire?
How other former colonies deal with their history is their own business. They don't need Ireland telling them what they should and should not do - and we wouldn't take kindly to say, India, telling us.
So our language and culture and way of life was replaced with something "better" so we need to be thankful that happened because we now can converse in English and decided to not destroy all the infrastructure left behind by the British?
Let's also not mention the devastating effect on our population of the great famine, an event often falsely described as a genocide, when in actual fact it was even worse than a planned eradication in as much that dealing with the problem of the mass starvation and death of Irish people wasn't deemed worthy of any reasonable level of attention.
We have in your opinion had a net gain from British rule and we all therefore have benefited from all the negative actions of the British empire committed on this island.
In reality we have paid the price for every piece of infrastructure you listed in your post, often paid in the blood of our people, the destructive nature of British rule in this country is something you seem happy to gloss over, we got a few universities and a reasonable level of left over infrastructure, paid in part by involvement in slavery by the very people who were colonising out country.
So we have to forget everything negative about British rule in Ireland and look at leftover infrastructure that was built to benefit the British empire and accept that by not destroying it all when we gained independence we then took on the moral responsibility for the crimes of our own oppressors?
You must be joking right?
Surely in the modern parlance what you are engaging in is victim blaming?Glazers Out!
0 -
These protests have nothing to do with context, context is irrelevant.
There are sone already calling for Roger Casements monument to be torn down due to his time in Africa
Any excuse to burn it all to the ground and start their utopia, and when that doesn't happen they'll turn on the people, on each other, same story again.
Oh on the list of statues they want to get rid of in Britain includes Columbus, Cook, Raleigh, Drake.
Yes Cook is there because he discovered Australia and New Zealand and thus it is all his fault what happened afterwards to the native inhabitants.
Anyone thought of blaming the Maoris for colonising the place in the 1300s?
And actually it was someone from the Dutch East India company that was the first documented person to find Australia.
So the morons should go off and try find statue of Willem Janszoon.
There now seem to be generations, particularly in Western English speaking countries, that are going full on retard.
Again I use that term for stupid eejits not some poor devil born with intellectual disability.
And what is worse a lot of them are the supposed educated, the ones that are in future meant to lead those countries.
Our educational establishments are going down the drain with the dross they are now spewing out from certain departments.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Oh on the list of statues they want to get rid of in Britain includes Columbus, Cook, Raleigh, Drake.
Yes Cook is there because he discovered Australia and New Zealand and thus it is all his fault what happened afterwards to the native inhabitants.
Anyone thought of blaming the Maoris for colonising the place in the 1300s?
And actually it was someone from the Dutch East India company that was the first documented person to find Australia.
So the morons should go off and try find statue of Willem Janszoon.
There now seem to be generations, particularly in Western English speaking countries, that are going full on retard.
Again I use that term for stupid eejits not some poor devil born with intellectual disability.
And what is worse a lot of them are the supposed educated, the ones that are in future meant to lead those countries.
Our educational establishments are going down the drain with the dross they are now spewing out from certain departments.
Who are "they"
I'm genuinely curious where these calls are coming from and do they have any influence0 -
So our language and culture and way of life was replaced with something "better" so we need to be thankful that happened because we now can converse in English and decided to not destroy all the infrastructure left behind by the British?
Not to mention the devastating effect on our population of the great famine, an event often falsely described as a genocide, when in actual fact it was even worse than a planned eradication in as much that dealing with the problem of the mass starvation and death of Irish people wasn't deemed worthy of any reasonable level of attention.
We have in your opinion had a net gain from British rule and we all therefore have benefited from all the negative actions of the British empire committed on this island.
In reality we have paid the price for every piece of infrastructure you listed in your post, often paid in the blood of our people, the destructive nature of British rule in this country is something you seem happy to gloss over, we got a few universities and a reasonable level of left over infrastructure, paid in part by involvement in slavery by the very people who were colonising out country.
So we have to forget everything negative about British rule in Ireland and look at leftover infrastructure that was built to benefit the British empire and accept that by not destroying it all when we gained independence we then took on the moral responsibility for the crimes of our own oppressors?
You must be joking right?
Enough.
I said absolutely none of these things.
If you, and others like you, have only what you imagine you think I might possibly believe as a basis for what could only loosely be called 'discussing' then I'm finished in here.
I posted facts backed up by credible sources.
I answered questions put to me honestly.
I am not here to be subjected to false accusations because some people can't handle the truth about Irish people in the past being involved in the slave trade.
I will return to my Ivory Tower and re-join my colleagues in their amusement at people getting so worked up about a statue being pulled down. And read all the links to sources (no statues) they are sharing about Irish involvement in the Slave Trade.
Enjoy your echo chamber.0 -
Eoin O'Duffy and the Blueshirts actually went to bat for the fascists in Spain however.
It's not quite the same as Russell securing arms from Germany to fight an occupation of his home country.
And all this nonsense about what was "known" at the time and who by is highly subjective.
I think the fairest way to look at it is that they've both got a stain on their history; in Fg's case that includes Oliver Flanagan's statements about running the Jews out of Ireland.
I wouldn't like to see the statue taken down, but those protecting it would sing a very different song if it had been a "blueshirt" cooperating with the Nazis. The hypocrisy's on both sides too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Enough.
I said absolutely none of these things.
If you, and others like you, have only what you imagine you think I might possibly believe as a basis for what could only loosely be called 'discussing' then I'm finished in here.
I posted facts backed up by credible sources.
I answered questions put to me honestly.
I am not here to be subjected to false accusations because some people can't handle the truth about Irish people in the past being involved in the slave trade.
I will return to my Ivory Tower and re-join my colleagues in their amusement at people getting so worked up about a statue being pulled down. And read all the links to sources (no statues) they are sharing about Irish involvement in the Slave Trade.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Hang on a minute pal.
I quoted things YOU said.
Here's a selection ; "In 1922 the entire population of 26 counties wasn't replaced with people who were Irish but had no links to those who lived under British rule. We are their descendents, and we benefit from what they left behind regardless of who built things or how they were funded.
Trinity has educated a hell of a lot of Irish people - it was founded in the reign of Elizabeth I - do we not benefit from that?
How about UCC? NUIG? UCD? All originally Queen's Colleges and founded in Victoria's reign. Do we not benefit from those?
The original sewage systems.
The roads.
Hospitals.
National Schools.
No lasting benefit?
What about the fact that we are conversing in English? Is that of no benefit either?
1922 did not wipe the slate clean. It created a new chapter in a very long book.
We did not tear down the infrastructure of the old Empire (although we did blow up the documents left from Gaelic Ireland so make of that what you will)- we took it as our own."
Every point I made in the post you just quoted was directly referencing things you wrote in your previous post.
There are no false accusations being made here.
I'm sick and tired of you posting about how you are only posting facts backed up by credible sources when you are also putting your own spin on things and failing to recognise it. I take no issue with your having an opinion, I'm just perplexed that you see you opinion as fact that is beyond reproach.
You are attempting to take the moral high ground whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that you are injecting your own opinion into the debate.
I never mentioned ivory towers or whatever other bizarre things you wish to invoke.
You want the discussion to work in your favour, any uncomfortable truths shall simply be labelled as false accusations, the discussion itself will then be described as "discussion" because it no longer suits you to grandstand when your opinion is being questioned.
I never subjected you to false accusations, I replied to things you said.
As for me enjoying my echo chamber, I think you'll find you are getting an awful lot more support here (your posts attract thanks much more than mine) than I am receiving,so what exactly are you getting at when you say that?Glazers Out!
0 -
" A lot of the attrocities of WW2 were not known at the time" The Kristallnacht was known as was the occupation of Poland, Low Countries and France. The Shinners are grasping at straws on this one. If it was O Duffy that was dealing with the Nazis Mary Lou would be the first to be jumping up and down.
Things look allot different back then from an occupational force, it wasn't to long since the map had been redrawn after WW1.
I am not a huge fan of SF either but i wouldn't call them Nazi's and as i said they saw it as a means to an end.
Meanwhile FG had actual Nazi sympathizers come out of their fold.
Its a lesson two fold on how for some fights the ends do justify the means for some people and also how dirty Irish politics can be.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »What does that mean? "its a shame there message is so subjected to one race".
I just think it was a good idea to call off the match to avoid it becoming a straight left/right issue or a brawl between BLM and the football hooligans.
BLM
Black Lives Matter is subjected to Black lives0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »
My bias is that I do not consider an academic discipline based on credible sources to be the same as a religion based on faith. Ya got me there.
You and I have been on this same merry-go-round many times mark and I stated before that if you have to resort to continual personal attacks such as highlighted or expect me to read expletive riddled rants (***** indeed) you are very much mistaken.
If you can post links demonstrating that a single historical fact I posted is incorrect, and do so without invective then perhaps we can continue to have a discussion.
Although a look at your usual responses to me as laid out in your posting history would lead me to feel that won't happen anytime soon.
I see you are back wearing your, "I am a historian, prove my facts wrong' fedora.
We all know, people can change the narrative by using selective facts and omitting other facts, background, and context. This is not a new game.
The alternative facts so you will.
You appear to be a master of this yourself, and I see it is not only I who has spotted you engaging in this type of posting which would be anathema to the discipline of history.
So, yes, some buildings were by built Anglo-Saxon families of means who benefited from the slave trade. We get it. I don't deny it and I do not see others denying it either. And your point is what exactly?
You will not find a European city that has a similar story. Actually you will not find any civilization who has a similar story, from the ancient Mayans, Chinese, Greeks, Egyptians, Ottomans, and so on, that people have not done bad **** to.
And the point? People did and do bad stuff.
Wow, earth-shattering stuff.
As I said, reducto absurdum.0 -
Like with Churchill in the UK or Colston, one of the things this statue brings into question is do the ends justify the means.
Was this guy really a Nazi? Or was he a republican who would do a deal with the devil so his side would win. Considering when he died as well allot of the atrocities of WW2 were not known at the time.
Myself no i dont think he was a natzi. Do i think he was a Republican? Yes. Do i think he was doing what he thought was best for Irish independence? Absolutely yes.
Roll on 20 years in Ireland, will the kids from parents migrated to Ireland think this? Will that statue be an insult to them?0 -
Myself no i dont think he was a natzi. Do i think he was a Republican? Yes. Do i think he was doing what he thought was best for Irish independence? Absolutely yes.
Roll on 20 years in Ireland, will the kids from parents migrated to Ireland think this? Will that statue be an insult to them?
I dont really care either way if it stays or goes but the conversation it will provoke will be interesting.0 -
-
I dont really care either way if it stays or goes but the conversation it will provoke will be interesting.
The problem is though, is that all too often these so called "conversations" are usually just shitshows with the aim of achieving a moral high ground and little of any value us actually gained for anyone in the end.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The problem is though, is that all too often these so called "conversations" are usually just shitshows with the aim of achieving a moral high ground and little of any value us actually gained for anyone in the end.
You say that but attitudes change as a result of conversation. Most people will never admit they ever held a different attitude or that they ever changed their mind, but minds do change as a result of conversation and events.
We both see all the posters who SAY they support the Colston statue coming down, do you really think they would have supported it if they were told about it a month ago? I'd say loads of those same posters would have called it PC bullshyte if they were asked about it a month ago.
So yes, attitudes definitely do change far more often than people acknowledge them changing. The objective is the attitude change so it's grand.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement