Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

CrankyHaus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You say that hit attitudes change as a result of them. 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 changeso it's grand.

Actually I'd say it's the opposite. If you gave posters here a vote in removing a slaver's statue a month ago they'd say yes. Who supports slavery after all?
But when you present it as a choice between supporting mob rule or the statue staying they might favour the latter and, as the divide on the issue deepens, they'd develop arguments defending the statue that they'd never have come to otherwise.
It's a microcosm of how all this may simply shore up support for the right from floating voters.

El_Duderino 09

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Actually I'd say it's the opposite. If you gave posters here a vote in removing a slaver's statue a month ago they'd say yes. Who supports slavery after all?
But when you present it as a choice between supporting mob rule or the statue staying they might favour the latter and, as the divide on the issue deepens, they'd develop arguments defending the statue that they'd never have come to otherwise.
It's a microcosm of how all this may simply shore up support for the right from floating voters.

Absolutely not true. Look at some of the posters who claim they support taking down the statue and look at their usual attitude to these issues. There's absolutely no way they'd have supported it a month ago. They'd have been arguing it's erasing history, whitewashing the past, reference to 1984. Be serious.

Calhoun

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Well in this case i think its more of a direct attack on SF, cute hoor opportunism but we shall see.

CrankyHaus

Calhoun wrote: »

Well in this case i think its more of a direct attack on SF, cute hoor opportunism but we shall see.

If so it's a bit stupid by FG; don't play the Fascist connections game when it can be played back at you.
FF could have a bit of fun with it, maybe.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You say that but attitudes change as a result of conversation.

They can do.

Unfortunately, a lot of so called "conversations" aren't aimed at that outcome however. They're, all too often, simply about destroying an opponent and pursuing a "win" of some description.

Tony EH

Calhoun wrote: »

Well in this case i think its more of a direct attack on SF, cute hoor opportunism but we shall see.

Well, I was speaking generally. But, yes, in the case of Leo trying to get one up on SF by jumping on the Statues thing, then sure, it's cheap opportunism.

If he tries to chase it further, he might regret it.

Calhoun

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, I was speaking generally. But, yes, in the case of Leo trying to get one up on SF by jumping on the Statues thing, then sure, it's cheap opportunism.

If he tries to chase it further, he might regret it.

In the article i linked i talks of a county councilor liking a blueshirt doing a nazi salute.

Things are falling apart fast for them on that front.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Actually you will not find any civilization who has a similar story

Careful now with those thoughts, you might end up radicalised and saying stuff like 'all wealth is built on exploitation', you're beginning to sound like a filthy Marxist.

Edgware

Calhoun wrote: »

Well in this case i think its more of a direct attack on SF, cute hoor opportunism but we shall see.

Of course it is cute hoorism and opportunism but it will be great fun to see McDonald trying
to defend one of her heroes who died on a Nazi U Boat.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote: »

They can do.

Unfortunately, a lot of so called "conversations" aren't aimed at that outcome however. They're, all too often, simply about destroying an opponent and pursuing a "win" of some description.

Yeah but so what? I notice it with my FIL. We disagree on loads of things and we chat and argue loads. It's easier for me to admit I didn't know things because he's the older guy with more experience. I've often had him totally oppose things I've said only to have him tell me about it 6 months, a year or 5 years later. Attitudes change but deeply held beliefs rarely in the moment and even less frequently they involve someone admitting they were wrong for a long time.

That's just the way people work. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological phenomenon. An example is someone who opposes BLM and any of that stuff, but also opposes slavery (obviously). So their solution to the statue issue is to say they support the statue coming down BUT they don't support the way BLM did it. The problem is largely solved by that. Evidence is that they continue to almost exclusively oppose whatever BLM does from here on, for whatever reason

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but so what?

No. This matters. It isn't something to be dismissed with a "so what".

If all some people are interested in is destroying an opponent, then the point of an actual conversation is lost. It just becomes a ridiculous battleground where sides are seeking to gain points.

Nobody comes out of that well.

Least of all the people who might be interested in having their minds changed.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote: »

No. This matters. It isn't something to be dismissed with a "so what".

If all some people are interested in is destroying an opponent, then the point of an actual conversation is lost. It just becomes a ridiculous battleground where sides are seeking to gain points.

Nobody comes out of that well.

Least of all the people who might be interested in having their minds changed.

Yeah but minds do change regardless. That style of conversation isn't as effective as others but that all have the effect of changing attitudes to a greater od lesser degree. Conversation and exposure to new ideas changes attitudes.

Fleetwoodmac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

The change has been foisted upon people by those shoutest the loudest. Those who haven't commented for example in social media, have been publicly ridiculed, threatened with being "cancelled" or enforced to make grovelling public apologies for some perceived historical slight. its wonderfully idealistic that this will bring about some attitudinal change but frankly if people are inherently racist, in these current times then all the protests in the world are never going to change that. Do we really believe that all these celebrities apologising are doing it with any degree of authenticity? Hopefully most people have the critical thinking skills to look at a statue or other historic monument and make their own informed interpretation. I can stand in parliament square and determine that to me they represent in some cases Irish oppression, to someone else they are heroes. The ones who lack those critical thinking skills will follow the mass shouting the most, regardless of the message.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but minds do change regardless. That style of conversation isn't as effective as others but that all have the effect of changing attitudes to a greater od lesser degree. Conversation and exposure to new ideas changes attitudes.

More often than not they just become entrenched in a position, however, because the opposite side feels they are under attack and nothing is furthered.

Nobody wants to be battered in a verbal fight, where the only outcome that's desired is the destruction of an opponent. It doesn't help anyone and very few, if any, go away with their minds changed after such.

El_Duderino 09

Fleetwoodmac wrote: »

The change has been foisted upon people by those shoutest the loudest. Those who haven't commented for example in social media, have been publicly ridiculed, threatened with being "cancelled" or enforced to make grovelling public apologies for some perceived historical slight. its wonderfully idealistic that this will bring about some attitudinal change but frankly if people are inherently racist, in these current times then all the protests in the world are never going to change that. Do we really believe that all these celebrities apologising are doing it with any degree of authenticity? Hopefully most people have the critical thinking skills to look at a statue or other historic monument and make their own informed interpretation. I can stand in parliament square and determine that to me they represent in some cases Irish oppression, to someone else they are heroes. The ones who lack those critical thinking skills will follow the mass shouting the most, regardless of the message.

Yeah I think with any movement that has this momentum it will also go wrong in some instances. That's just the way these things work. If someone is looking for reasons to oppose it because they already oppose it to begin with, they can look for reasons. Some people will say they oppose it because of the few thugs amongst them. Or as you've done above, say the change is being forced upon people.

Attitude change is complex. In this case the social norm is coming first - people having to apologise for blackface whether thy mean it or not. But the attitudes from here on is that blackface isn't OK anymore. That's just the ways that attitudes change

Similar with statues venerating slavers. Last week it was fine to have a statue venerating a slavery. Now it's no longer fine. The only thing that changed in the week was public pressure. Attitudes take longer than a week to change. But the attitudes will change in time thanks to the events of this week.

titan18

mick087 wrote: »

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 mean, they're free to not come to our country if our history offends them. Shouldn't be taking things down or removing things cos .01% or whatever of the population are offended.

Calhoun

Edgware wrote: »

Of course it is cute hoorism and opportunism but it will be great fun to see McDonald trying
to defend one of her heroes who died on a Nazi U Boat.

Did that make him a Nazi or was he using them as a tool to meet his republican goals.

Consider the history and how Churchill had plans at one point to invade Ireland you can imagine things were a bit different.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

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.

Nobody said that. You don't build an empire by going around giving other countries/people stuff - you build it by extracting resources, imposing 'free' trade, and keeping the natives cowed.

I'd recommend this video in particular to develop the ideas above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPHFN5LikuU

Edgware

Calhoun wrote: »

Did that make him a Nazi or was he using them as a tool to meet his republican goals.

Consider the history and how Churchill had plans at one point to invade Ireland you can imagine things were a bit different.

And on another occasion (probably when pissed) Churchill contacted De Valera and put an United Ireland on the table if Britain could have access to the ports.
If one good thing from an Irish view came out of this it would be a more balanced view of our history from 1922 to 1972. There is so little knowledge of the post Civil War years, the Sinn Fein splits, Republican Congress, Spanish Civil War support on both sides, Neutrality etc

CrankyHaus

Calhoun wrote: »

Did that make him a Nazi or was he using them as a tool to meet his republican goals.

Consider the history and how Churchill had plans at one point to invade Ireland you can imagine things were a bit different.

Yeah but he allied with the Nazi cause.
And as the IRA believed that they held the true authority to represent Ireland he therefore believed it was alright to ally Ireland with the Nazi cause.
The S Plan acheived nothing for this country, beyond further alternating the British over a bunch of innocent people killed in terrorist bombings during their time of greatest peril.
The most generous words to describe his actions would be "naive" and "poorly judged".

mick087

titan18 wrote: »

I mean, they're free to not come to our country if our history offends them. Shouldn't be taking things down or removing things cos .01% or whatever of the population are offended.

Its not the immigrants complaint protest over a statue that will be listened to. It will be there children who was born in this country that will be.

Tony EH

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Yeah but he allied with the Nazi cause.
And as the IRA believed that they held the true authority to represent Ireland he therefore believed it was alright to ally Ireland with the Nazi cause.

That's a really, really, huge stretch you trying to make there.

Using a pathway to secure arms so you can fight an enemy that's occupying your country is nowhere near to offering allegiance to a particular nation or ideology.

jackboy

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The most generous words to describe his actions would be "naive" and "poorly judged".

The same could be said about many leaders from that period of time. Terrible atrocities were also intentionally carried out by the allies. Does that mean that all allied war monuments should be torn down.

Once you go down the rabbit hole of tearing down old monuments everything is on the table.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nobody said that. You don't build an empire by going around giving other countries/people stuff - you build it by extracting resources, imposing 'free' trade, and keeping the natives cowed.

I'd recommend this video in particular to develop the ideas above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPHFN5LikuU

The person I was responding to did say that.

Fleetwoodmac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think with any movement that has this momentum it will also go wrong in some instances. That's just the way these things work. If someone is looking for reasons to oppose it because they already oppose it to begin with, they can look for reasons. Some people will say they oppose it because of the few thugs amongst them. Or as you've done above, say the change is being forced upon people.



Attitude change is complex. In this case the social norm is coming first - people having to apologise for blackface whether thy mean it or not. But the attitudes from here on is that blackface isn't OK anymore. That's just the ways that attitudes change

Similar with statues venerating slavers. Last week it was fine to have a statue venerating a slavery. Now it's no longer fine. The only thing that changed in the week was public pressure. Attitudes take longer than a week to change. But the attitudes will change in time thanks to the events of this week.

An observation, albeit from this side of the world, seems that that momentum is becoming more about republicans versus democratics as opposed to it's initial purpose and maybe this is inevitable in the lead up to November. Seattle mayor is more interested in supporting CHAZ to antagonize Trump it seems, as just one example.
Blackfacing is thankfully not the norm and once we know it's historical context it becomes even more abhorrent. I'm not disputing that. It's the apologies and handwringing from celebs that lacks authenticity and it is driven solely by following the likes.
There is the risk, people will look back at this time as society becoming even more divisive and more deeply entrenched, given the manner change has been imposed.

walshb

What is happening in the world?

We are slowly descending into madness.

The world and its history, is just that, its history. The good, the bad and the ugly..

Why are so many morons trying to erase it? Or thinking they can by ripping down and removing ancient statues?

Nobody is forcing anyone to have to worship or respect these statues and buildings, but they cannot be denied. They are part of why we are here.

People always paint imperialism as bad. But forget that without it, we’d be still in caves. We are all imperialists at heart. It’s what people do. Build, expand, move, fight, oppress, conquer, love, procreate..

Hearing absolute scutter debate now about the likes of Christopher Columbus. A man who lived 600 fooking years ago..And people today giving out about his statue... wtf...

mick087

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nobody said that. You don't build an empire by going around giving other countries/people stuff - you build it by extracting resources, imposing 'free' trade, and keeping the natives cowed.

I'd recommend this video in particular to develop the ideas above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPHFN5LikuU

But has anything changed?
Diferernt flags but are bankers and rich businessman still pulling the strings, not only in the middle east but through out the world?

Junkyard Tom

mick087 wrote: »

But has anything changed?
Diferernt flags but are bankers and rich businessman still pulling the strings, not only in the middle east but through out the world?

Well we don't work 14 hour days, 6 days a week, and we have healthcare and stuff I suppose. But the systems of power are largely similar I'd say.

I remember they were predicting people in the 21st Century would be working a couple of days a week and living lives of leisure but somehow we got to a position where you need two people working 80+ hours a week combined to get a mortgage.

Something ain't right.

1800_Ladladlad

The "burning of the books" will now commence soon..........

https://twitter.com/RHUL_Library/status/1271414239018844160

joe40

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The "burning of the books" will now commence soon..........

https://twitter.com/RHUL_Library/status/1271414239018844160

What are you talking about, nobody is burning books