Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Junkyard Tom

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Beyond that, I would remind you the 1798 Rebellion was largely headed up by members of the Anglo-Irish elite, who naturally would have had little inclination to enslave their peers, but that is more of an aside.

It was a counterfactual scenario I created and you've deftly missed the point.

I would leave you only with a quote from Larry Elder who described reparations aptly as; "the extraction of money from those who were never slave owners, to those who were never slaves."

Is anyone even taking libertarians seriously these days? They're a collection of frauds, shysters and idiots.

Anyhoo, enjoy.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It was a counterfactual scenario I created and you've deftly missed the point.

Is anyone even taking libertarians seriously these days? They're a collection of frauds, shysters and idiots.

Anyhoo, enjoy.

Yes I'm aware it was a counter factual, hence me mentioning it as an aside.

Still, good to think we might at least agree on the silliness of Libertarianism!

Tony EH

jackboy wrote: »

I never said they should consider themselves lucky. I was just saying how hard it is to fairly tot up bills and payments for historical events. It’s actually more than hard, it is practically impossible.

Maybe the brits should pay reparations, they can fund this by seeking reparations from Germany for WW2.

It was Britain that declared war on Germany though.

Donald Trump

There was a paper published about 8 years ago that said that there was evidence that Barack Obama (aka the Kenyan ) was a descendant of John Punch who was the first black person to be sentenced to servitude for life in Maryland. John Punch was an indentured servant who, along with two European (Dutch and Scottish) indentured servants, ran away. In punishment, Punch was sentenced to to servitude for life.


5 years later, in neighbouring Virgina, John Casor took a civil case against his "master" Anthony Johnson. Casor said he was a servant indentured to Johnson and that he went working for another man after his time was passed. Johnson then filed a case against the new "employer" basically saying he had stolen his servant. The court decided against Casor and declared him a slave.

What is it in the above stories that might add nuance to the simple "whitey needs to pay black reparations"? Well first of all, Omaba's potential ancestorial connection to Punch was not through his Kenyan ancestors, but through his white mother

And in the Johnson/Casor case, Johnson was a free black man from Angola who had worked off his own indenture and went on to become very wealthy in the new colony. That case also set in stone the rights of blacks to also own slaves.



To those advocating reparations, I would like to know where you think it starts and where it stops? Should all black people, even those who themselves, or their ancestors, have never left the continent of Africa receive them? Is it a one-shot thing? If all "white people" pay off now, should your children also be liable to pay off the next generation too? By the end of the century, the Worlds population will be in overall decline. There will be about 6 times as many Africans as Europeans by then. That's even ignoring the fact that many Europeans will be black by then. Will each of your great grandchildren be responsible for paying reparations to 6+ Africans? Nigeria is projected to be the fourth largest economy in the world by then.

Sand

Donald Trump wrote: »

To those advocating reparations, I would like to know where you think it starts and where it stops?

It never stops. In the 19th century, it was supposed to stop with emancipation. In the 20th century, it was supposed to stop with civil rights. In the 21st century, its BLM.

It will never stop. It's like a bully. Until you stand up to it, why should it stop?

nofiller69

Sand wrote: »

It never stops. In the 19th century, it was supposed to stop with emancipation. In the 20th century, it was supposed to stop with civil rights. In the 21st century, its BLM.

It will never stop. It's like a bully. Until you stand up to it, why should it stop?

Youre finally getting it, but its the other way around.

They freed the slaves on paper but still treated them like subhumans. Then they peacefully protest for rights and against police brutality. That didn't work. So what comes next?

You're now experiencing the 'stand up to it' part.

RWCNT

Sand wrote: »

It never stops. In the 19th century, it was supposed to stop with emancipation. In the 20th century, it was supposed to stop with civil rights. In the 21st century, its BLM.

It will never stop. It's like a bully. Until you stand up to it, why should it stop?

When do you reckon the "standing up" should have taken place exactly?

Edgware

Tony EH wrote: »

It was Britain that declared war on Germany though.

Those damm British again. Sticking their oar in when all the poor Gerries wanted was bigger gardens

Sand

Sand wrote: »

It never stops. In the 19th century, it was supposed to stop with emancipation. In the 20th century, it was supposed to stop with civil rights. In the 21st century, its BLM.

It will never stop. It's like a bully. Until you stand up to it, why should it stop?

Those pesky black people bullying us into them being treated equally. You just described the civil rights movement as bullying which is possibly more telling of your own views.

Eric Cartman

Donald Trump wrote: »

I have a black US friend who was adamant that she should be paid reparations. (I lived in the US for a time)

She has a job paying a 6-figure salary.

I always found the concept interesting and so I asked her who should pay it and she said "white people".

So of course, I asked her who did that mean. And she basically said anyone that she considered to be white. so the I tried to get a definition of where that boundary lay - did it include recent poor immigrants from the likes of Albania? Post WWII Polish immigrants to the US who fled after their country had been decimated by the Germans? Recent Syrians who were fleeing destruction of their lives. The answer to the above was all "yes" they were white people with "white privilege" and therefore they owed her reparations. It didn't matter how much was in their bank balance - they still had "white privilege" because they looked white.

Oh, btw, her parents were also relatively well educated when they immigrated to the US. The girl was born there but (I think) her older sister wasn't. Her parents split up after that and I gather she had a poor enough upbringing, but as I said, she'd be earning in excess of 6-figure dollars per year in a tech-related field. That said, they immigrated from Trinidad so they could have been descended from slaves. But we probably all are if we go back far enough!

The element of BLM and other groups asking for reperations have to be the most misguided self entitled ones of them all. The slave owners are all dead and their relatives who were slaves are long gone too.

Reperations is just a lazy greedy ideology that should be shot down

mick087

Monumental after colston bbc News 13.30 15.30 17.30

Will the toppling of the statue of a slave trader in Bristol change the lives of black people in the city? Musician, activist and Bristolian Ngaio Anyia explores inequality in her home city and meets people on a mission to dismantle it.

Looking forward to a bothsides of the story documentry. Will will get facts from bothsides of the coin.

Nermal

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The principle argument I've made to support reparations is a moral one.

Vae victis, Tom. Life is struggle, and we should not apologise for winning.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Those pesky black people bullying us into them being treated equally. You just described the civil rights movement as bullying which is possibly more telling of your own views.

Civil rights and reparations are not the same thing

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Civil rights and reparations are not the same thing

I'm responding to a poster who seems to view all of that history as black people bullying for rights...

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're scrabbling in the dirt looking for excuses. The billions of GBP extracted from generations of torturous labour, along with billions more that compensated slavers, went a long way to developing Britain's infrastructure, institutions and corporations. Tough shit if Britain has to pay its bills for the central role it played in one of the worst crimes against humanity in world history.

Why is the idea of reparations so painful for you? What's wrong?

So if the U.K. used its wealth for overseas development, that would help? Maybe it should set aside a certain percentage of GDP for that very purpose?

1800_Ladladlad

I thought this footage was striking

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1284287895356837889

Tony EH

Edgware wrote: »

Those damm British again. Sticking their oar in when all the poor Gerries wanted was bigger gardens

You missed the point spectacularly there didn't ya.

robinph

So the artist who put up the temporary statue is paying for the removal of it, and was always intending to anyway.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/artist-blm-sculpture-colstons-plinth-4347511

And totally, definitely, 100% not racist in the slightest Britain First sent 3600 emails to the Bristol Mayor in the 24 hours that the statue was up for. They don't mention the contents of the emails, but I'm absolutely certain that they will have been beautiful composed English and contained no racist ranting in the slightest or any suggestions that the mayor go back to where he came from.

Quantum Erasure

Looks like theres going to be a review of artwork in the uk parliament's collection, with explainers added to portraits and more prominence given to those of BAME figures

Portraits of former prime ministers could soon be accompanied by plaques making clear their links to the slave trade after Parliament on Wednesday launched an audit of its art collection in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Parliament will for the first time undertake a “systematic review” of its entire collection in order to address the chequered histories of some of its most distinguished members. The review, which will be led by a cross-party group of MPs who advise the Speaker, will also assess whether greater prominence should be given to BAME figures and those who helped to abolish the slave trade in 1807.

Initial research has already identified 232 out of 9,500 works of art which have links to the transatlantic slave trade, including 189 which depict 24 people who either had ties to slavery or profited from it. Among those listed as having “financial or family interests in the slave trade” are Tory prime ministers Robert Peel, who served two terms between 1834-35 and 1841-1846, Lord Liverpool, who served from 1812-1827, and the Liberal William Gladstone, who served as prime minister for 12 years over four terms between 1868 and 1894. The inclusion of all three is likely to stir debate among historians. Peel, although the son of a cotton trader, campaigned for the abolition of slavery, while both Lord Liverpool and Gladstone’s views evolved over time.

It comes after this newspaper revealed earlier this month that Parliamentary staff were being encouraged to profess their “privilege” on an online confessional platform set up following Black Lives Matter protests.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/30/parliament-launches-review-art-collection-address-links-slavery/


Should we do the same here, who would be considered 'problematic', who should we promote?

robinph

Was worried that the new post to this thread was going to be someone having noticed the awful new name they had come up with for the concert venue that used to bear the name of Colston. Great that his name has been removed, but Bristol Beacon seems like some kind of therapy group.

Re the art being updated with new descriptions. Sounds like a great move to me. No need to erase history, and by giving more context and information about the people and the times they lived in is only a good thing. With a bit of that happening previously there might have still been a statue standing on the plinth in the middle of Bristol.

El_Duderino 09

robinph wrote: »

Was worried that the new post to this thread was going to be someone having noticed the awful new name they had come up with for the concert venue that used to bear the name of Colston. Great that his name has been removed, but Bristol Beacon seems like some kind of therapy group.

Re the art being updated with new descriptions. Sounds like a great move to me. No need to erase history, and by giving more context and information about the people and the times they lived in is only a good thing. With a bit of that happening previously there might have still been a statue standing on the plinth in the middle of Bristol.

Yeah they're being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards adding the information to the plinths. The Colston statue offers a great glimpse at the process. Those opposed to anti racists have had the opportunity to amend the plinth and add information for decades, but they refused and then muddied the waters to the point of whitewashing it.

Now AFTER the statue was toppled and removed, AFTER the protests and AFTER so many people expressed a a desire to stop unbridled veneration of these historical figures, they agree to add some additional information.

It's a great demonstration of the power of protest. Lots of people just don't like change but they get used to it.

Yellow_Fern

Is there an implication here that if you were not involved in slavery then you were an ok guy? While probably 100% of these politicians were complicit with persecutions of Irish people, catholics, then native Americans and later Indians many others.

Yellow_Fern

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah they're being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards adding the information to the plinths. The Colston statue offers a great glimpse at the process. Those opposed to anti racists have had the opportunity to amend the plinth and add information for decades, but they refused and then muddied the waters to the point of whitewashing it.

Now AFTER the statue was toppled and removed, AFTER the protests and AFTER so many people expressed a a desire to stop unbridled veneration of these historical figures, they agree to add some additional information.

It's a great demonstration of the power of protest. Lots of people just don't like change but they get used to it.

That is ridiculous. Is the portrait of Aherne in Leinster House unbridled veneration? Your language is so manipulative. "those opposed to anti-racists" what a joke? I hope no ever lets you near Irish heritage.

ProfessorPlum

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Looks like theres going to be a review of artwork in the uk parliament's collection, with explainers added to portraits and more prominence given to those of BAME figures



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/30/parliament-launches-review-art-collection-address-links-slavery/


Should we do the same here, who would be considered 'problematic', who should we promote?

Is it just the Transatlantic slave trade that’s problematic? How about the colonial oppression of indigenous people across the continents?
In which case it should probably be more like 9,499 works of art that might need plaques or ‘explainers’.

El_Duderino 09

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Is there an implication here that if you were not involved in slavery then you were an ok guy? While probably 100% of these politicians were complicit with persecutions of Irish people, catholics, then native Americans and later Indians many others.

Well, anti racism (particular anti-black racism) have been the most vocal activists. So those opposed to anti-racism have made the least possible concession by adding information on connections to black slavery.

If you want to campaign to add information the other issues you mentioned, you've seen what it takes to achieve it as BLM has paved the way for you.

ProfessorPlum

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, anti racism (particular anti-black racism) have been the most vocal activists. So those opposed to anti-racism have made the least possible concession by adding information on connections to black slavery.

If you want to campaign to add information the other issues you mentioned, you've seen what it takes to achieve it as BLM has paved the way for you.

Is that attitude not racist itself though?
Having realised the racism inherent in the black slave trade, and having decided to investigate further, we just ignore other acts of racism? Surely a proper ‘review’ of 9,500 works of art will turn up other incidents of racism that shouldn’t be ignored. Or is it only racism when groups protest about it?
How about groups who were/are still victims and have no voice - those people get to be ignored?

El_Duderino 09

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Is that attitude not racist itself though?
Having realised the racism inherent in the black slave trade, and having decided to investigate further, we just ignore other acts of racism? Surely a proper ‘review’ of 9,500 works of art will turn up other incidents of racism that shouldn’t be ignored. Or is it only racism when groups protest about it?
How about groups who were/are still victims and have no voice - those people get to be ignored?

What the review finds will depend on what they're looking for. What would you like them to look for?

Yes, the sad fact is that quite often, people without a voice get ignored. That can't be news to you. It's the whole basis of mass protest like the BLM protests where people pool their power. Do you support that kind of thing? Did you support the BLM protests?

El_Duderino 09

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Is the portrait of Aherne in Leinster House unbridled veneration? Your language is so manipulative. "those opposed to anti-racists" what a joke? I hope no ever lets you near Irish heritage.

I love Irish heritage. That's why I'm not afraid of losing Irish heritage. Knowing the facts about history can't hurt me because I don't mind if the history isn't black and white (hint: history is never black and white - it's much more interesting than that). I find that those most afraid of "erasing" history due to other cultures expressing their own culture (as if it were possible to erase history) are the least informed on history and culture.

The English who oppose the anti-racists are undoubtedly the least informed on the issues. Most didn't know about Colston and only became fans of Colston when they heard anti-racists were opposed to him. (Full disclosure: I didn't know about Colston myself until his statue was toppled)

ProfessorPlum

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What the review finds will depend on what they're looking for. What would you like them to look for?

Yes, the sad fact is that quite often, people without a voice get ignored. That can't be news to you. It's the whole basis of mass protest like the BLM protests where people pool their power. Do you support that kind of thing? Did you support the BLM protests?

Honestly? Regarding the art collection in the British parliament? I would imagine that anybody who finds themselves confronted with those portraits of British prime ministers will be well aware of the former British empire, and its colonial history. But the idea of selecting some portraits of some leaders who were involved in a particular type of racism (slave trading) strikes me as a little hypocritical. So if they are going to open that Pandora’s box, well then I would like them to look for all racism.

There are many groups of oppressed people who can’t ‘pool their power’, so again, those that shout the loudest get heard, even though, in this instance, we are well aware of the oppression. That is in my mind anti equality.

Re BLM, I support the ideals behind the protests, but having seen first hand what the protests have done to some American cities, no, I don’t support the violent protests. But that’s probably better discussed elsewhere.

El_Duderino 09

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Honestly? Regarding the art collection in the British parliament? I would imagine that anybody who finds themselves confronted with those portraits of British prime ministers will be well aware of the former British empire, and its colonial history. But the idea of selecting some portraits of some leaders who were involved in a particular type of racism (slave trading) strikes me as a little hypocritical. So if they are going to open that Pandora’s box, well then I would like them to look for all racism.

There are many groups of oppressed people who can’t ‘pool their power’, so again, those that shout the loudest get heard, even though, in this instance, we are well aware of the oppression. That is in my mind anti equality.

Re BLM, I support the ideals behind the protests, but having seen first hand what the protests have done to some American cities, no, I don’t support the violent protests. But that’s probably better discussed elsewhere.

Well, the status quo was to not even look at the historical figures or be curious about whether there was any unflattering history and certainly not to publicise any of that information. As a result of the summer of protests, they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to review some figures.

It's too easy to overlook the cause of them even looking at the figures and complain that they're not looking for all kinds of wrongdoing, but that would be a mistake. The reason they're looking at these figures at all is not because they're curious about the figures in question and genuinely want to know about them. They're doing it because of the pressure put on them directly be the protests. They're doing the minimum possible to placate the protesters.

So it's fine to complain that they're not looking for anti-irish (or whatever discrimination you want), but that doesn't take from the achievement of other protests.

So in practice, you don't support BLM. But I don't think you can deny the success of the BLM protests. This review of these figures is a direct impact.