Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

[Lanolin]

I meant as a population we stop celebrating. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to suggest you celebrate sale traders.

They are definitely on that protest. It's quite circular logic to say that the knowledgable people can't be on the protest because people on the protest can't be knowledgable. I really doubt the many who have been protesting Rhodes for years (Rhodes Must Fall has been going since 2015) at Universities aren't knowledgable about Rhodes.

The argument is not to scrub the past, the argument is to look at the past, challenge pre conceived notions of what a 'great' Briton is, and to remove statues celebrating those we no longer believe live up to the idea of what we want a 21st Century to be. Nations and identities are constantly evolving, and this is part of that.

And I completely get that in theory. But where do we draw the line? Personally my ideal for what I want the 21st century to be would mean people didn't eat meat. Does that mean that we should pull down the statues of anybody who ate meat? Do you see where the difficulty comes in with what you're saying? Where is this arbitrarily drawn line where a figure from the past's action can be deemed unworthy of recognition?

 

[mill]

To all those that totally agree with these actions to remove such things, how does it help? Where are the tangible benefits that stop racism seeing most people of sound mind and body know that the views and actions of people 40 years are not in keeping with today's values nevermind these people who lived hundreds of years ago.

Well people are talking about it for a start. It’s making people question and debate.
I don’t really care either way about the statue. But then it’s not offensive to me. However, I can see why it might be offensive to people of colour. I can see that entirely and the historical context is important. The slave trade had a huge impact on society including an impact on the economic inequality that we see today.
Do I think that it is right to tear it down and potentially replace it with something else more inclusive? Yes. I do. As think it’s an important signal to those it does offend (POC) that we are listening. That their voice is heard.
it would be silly for me to say that ‘it’s history, what’s the problem, it was a sign of the times’ because I’ve not been affected.
this is one of those things that, actually, we should listen to the people who are offended by it. To people of colour, slavery isn’t something confined to history. It continues to hsve an impact on their lives.

 

[dwightschrute]

FFS again, context. Why are you all incapable of applying it?

It was socially unacceptable to be a pedophile when he was alive and his deeds weren't known about when they were put up. Colston was very well established as a slave trader when he was alive, because it wasn't seen as wrong.

That's the context. They aren't the same thing. Neither is Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and so on.

You keep saying this but there was plenty of opposition and errr black people saw it as wrong. It was acceptable to the people in power who profited off it. It was wrong then and its wrong now. Just have a racist and slave trader museum for statues which all the people moaning online will never visit anyway

 

[kenada_blue]

I agree with this. The statue of Colson, among many others, was put up, in part, to push what was for many a socially acceptable and perhaps admired narrative of the time.

That time has long since passed and the frequent removal, relocation and replacement of statues is something that shouldn't be out of question. Berlin for example is able to confront it's recent past and educate without featuring monuments of Nazism in it's public places - but there's no way you could go there and not be aware of what happened.

The whole comparisons to Nazi Germany or Jimmy Savile stayed etc is always kneejerk reaction

Germany was not built on Nazisism. It was a modern historical regime that was defeated and monuments for that removed. It was an ideology.

Colson, for example, wasn't an ideology.

 

[Alan Whittle]

It's a well known fact that Nike used sweat shops and child labor in far east countries to make products certainly as recently as 2018 paying poverty wages in Bangladesh basically modern day slavery with like a penny a day thrown in so they can say look they are employed. So I have 2 questions.
1. would we not be better off using our energy to stop modern slavery rather than arguing over the past that nothing can be done about.
2. Hands up who had an Everton Jersey make by Nike a few years ago?
I did just had a look made in Thailand which is one of the countries in this article, it would appear that Everton and likely every PL club have profited from slave labour right everyone down to Finch farm and goodison let's rip them down.

Nike sweatshops: inside the scandal

Their brand celebrates humanity and all its potential, but Nike has a history of treating its workers as if they were not human at all. In 1991, American labour activist Jeffrey Ballinger published a report on Nike’s factory practices in Indonesia, exposing below-minimum wages, child labour and...

www.newidea.com.au

I noticed that one of the people involved in stamping on the statue of Colston once it had been pulled down was wearing a pair of Nike trainers.

 

[dead_soft]

And I completely get that in theory. But where do we draw the line? Personally my ideal for what I want the 21st century to be would mean people didn't eat meat. Does that mean that we should pull down the statues of anybody who ate meat? Do you see where the difficulty comes in with what you're saying? Where is this arbitrarily drawn line where a figure from the past's action can be deemed unworthy of recognition?

If, as a society, we had agreed that eating meat was barbaric and yet we had covered our nation with large and expensive monuments to men who had not just eaten meat but who had made their fortune off selling meat that came from animals that had been treated appallingly I'd say you'd be in with a good shout at getting rid of them.

And let's remember, these people didn't just do a bit of stuff that might be deemed unsavoury, they bought, sold, and tortured humans.

 

[davek]

Have we thought yet what the implications are for the world of music?

Brown sugar - The Stones
Black Magic Woman - Fleetwood Mac
Woman is the n*g*er of the world - John Lennon
China Girl - David Bowie

 

[Tipp blue]

You keep saying this but there was plenty of opposition and errr black people saw it as wrong. It was acceptable to the people in power who profited off it. It was wrong then and its wrong now. Just have a racist and slave trader museum for statues which all the people moaning online will never visit anyway

There was more white European slaves than there were black slaves, the ottoman empire had millions of white slaves, a fact that's almost forgotten to history, which is what could very well happen to the history of black slavery if the tear it down mob have their way.

 

[dead_soft]

It's a well known fact that Nike used sweat shops and child labor in far east countries to make products certainly as recently as 2018 paying poverty wages in Bangladesh basically modern day slavery with like a penny a day thrown in so they can say look they are employed. So I have 2 questions.
1. would we not be better off using our energy to stop modern slavery rather than arguing over the past that nothing can be done about.
2. Hands up who had an Everton Jersey make by Nike a few years ago?
I did just had a look made in Thailand which is one of the countries in this article, it would appear that Everton and likely every PL club have profited from slave labour right everyone down to Finch farm and goodison let's rip them down.

Nike sweatshops: inside the scandal

Their brand celebrates humanity and all its potential, but Nike has a history of treating its workers as if they were not human at all. In 1991, American labour activist Jeffrey Ballinger published a report on Nike’s factory practices in Indonesia, exposing below-minimum wages, child labour and...

www.newidea.com.au

You're right, mate, if anyone has ever been a hypocrite they can't say anything and we'll just keep on as we are.

And we literally are ripping Goodison Park down. Maybe we should keep it so it can teach future generations about Mark Pembridge.

 

[dead_soft]

There was more white European slaves than there were black slaves, the ottoman empire had millions of white slaves, a fact that's almost forgotten to history, which is what could very well happen to the history of black slavery if the tear it down mob have their way.

The 'I actually want to save black history' argument is one of the best.

 

[Lanolin]

If, as a society, we had agreed that eating meat was barbaric and yet we had covered our nation with large and expensive monuments to men who had not just eaten meat but who had made their fortune off selling meat that came from animals that had been treated appallingly I'd say you'd be in with a good shout at getting rid of them.

And let's remember, these people didn't just do a bit of stuff that might be deemed unsavoury, they bought, sold, and tortured humans.

I didn't say we shouldn't pull down statues of slavers though did I? I said where do you draw the line. And you haven't answered me, I assume because you have no idea. If thousands of people believe that meat eaters shouldn't be recognised is that enough? Does it have to be millions? At what point can we say that 'we' no longer believe somebody is worth celebrating?

 

[Tipp blue]

You're right, mate, if anyone has ever been a hypocrite they can't say anything and we'll just keep on as we are.

And we literally are ripping Goodison Park down. Maybe we should keep it so it can teach future generations about Mark Pembridge.

Oh dear sarcasm has gotten involved, a bit close to home maybe..you must have had a Nike jersey you slavery sponsoring scumbag. (Also sarcasm)

 

[Tipp blue]

The 'I actually want to save black history' argument is one of the best.

I'm saying it should be saved like all history.

 

[mill]

Have we thought yet what the implications are for the world of music?

Brown sugar - The Stones
Black Magic Woman - Fleetwood Mac
Woman is the n*g*er of the world - John Lennon
China Girl - David Bowie

I had this conversation with someone the other week as we were talking about female representation in rock etc. How there are very few female artists in the genre and a lack of space.
The whole thing is very much through the male gaze and we were talking about music that we love but has some questionable lyrics.
I spoke about brown sugar (and money for nothing).
It’s something I’ve not really made my mind up about yet. Can you compartmentalise the art from the artist.
Same with Eminem or NWA etc. Extremely questionable lyrics but is it possible to appreciate the art even if it’s against your value system.
I’m not sure what side I’ve come down on yet to be honest.

by the way I’m not saying it should be censored. More my view on whether I’d want to listen to it/give money to the artist etc.

 

[dead_soft]

I didn't say we shouldn't pull down statues of slavers though did I? I said where do you draw the line. And you haven't answered me, I assume because you have no idea. If thousands of people believe that meat eaters shouldn't be recognised is that enough? Does it have to be millions? At what point can we say that 'we' no longer believe somebody is worth celebrating?

I didn't say you said that.

There isn't a set line, and there doesn't have to be. These things are part of a changing conversation that happens, and that's okay. They'd already got to that point with Colston, through democratic means.