My only complaint about "Come Fly With Me" was that there wasn't another series.
I hope the violence in London today gets the same coverage as the protests from last week and the same attention from the government. Even seen a picture of one of the idiots relieving himself against a statue - I thought they claimed they were protecting statues, not washing them with urine!
DailyMail said:Violence explodes at Nelson's Column as riot police clash with far-right mob and BLM activists hurl smoke bombs - as Priti Patel slams 'unacceptable thuggery' while protests take off in 14 UK towns
I hope the violence in London today gets the same coverage as the protests from last week and the same attention from the government. Even seen a picture of one of the idiots relieving himself against a statue - I thought they claimed they were protecting statues, not washing them with urine!
Once we no longer need their dinosaur juice, we'll finally be able to condemn the conduct of the elites from that part of the world...And Arab involvement in the slave trade ?
It’s clear they are just there because they want a fight - urinating by statues, Nazi salutes and attacking police. Yeah, true patriots!
It’s clear they are just there because they want a fight - urinating by statues, Nazi salutes and attacking police. Yeah, true patriots!
Indeed - one of the reasons (not the main one btw) for weaning ourselves of oil and going carbon free -or net zero. Nice and steady program of rail electrification and electric cars.Once we no longer need their dinosaur juice, we'll finally be able to condemn the conduct of the elites from that part of the world...
I respect your view but personally I'm struggling to show empathy for someone who just wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight?It just proves that both sides have issues given the reason they were there in the first place. I have empathy for both sides even if both sides have questionable motives
I respect your view but personally I'm struggling to show empathy for someone who just wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight?
The BLM folk are wanting a more fair society whilst the so-called Patriots seem wholly confused beyond the fight they are out to having? There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for fighting seems more aligned to those wanting to defend racism imho.
I think your assumption of me may be misjudged Geezertronic. There are always 'undesirables' in any mass gathering as you correctly point out but showing each side as like-for-like is unhelpful imho. I'm trying to step back to the bigger picture not letting said undesirables cloud my vision.Your issue is that you seem to be assuming that all BLM people are peaceful protesters and that all of the other side are racists who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" which is far from the case. One could suggest that given what we have seen, the peaceful protests of BLM have been hijacked by people who "wants to go out, get blind drunk and enjoy the fight" or at the very least the looting, rioting, and destruction aspects, and if those aspects were not present then a response would not be provoked. Like you say, There is bad behaviour on both sides but the desire for wanton violence and destruction appears to be started by the rogue aspects of those who claim to support BLM - CHAZ proves that
One side wants more fairness for those who don't have white skin whilst the other side seem to want to play victim with our history and maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change? The point I was making was simply that for me, only one side deserves empathy.
Thanks for your thoughts on my response to Geezertronic. These are very valid and I do appreciate the fear of the unknown wrt BLM. It is quite natural to fear something new and little understood. For me I see lots of latent and underhand Racism that many don't acknowledge as such. For anyone who is 'white' and fearing what threat the 'black' person may pose, should acknowledge that they as Black & ethnic people have historically and still now have much more to fear than they do of them. I also acknowledge that playing unfairly on the notion of race, colour and culture can undermine the underlying cause, absolutely.With respect, I think you are massively misrepresenting the majority of those who feel uneasy about the BLM movement there.
Let's agree for now that, in this discussion, we are ignoring the people on both sides who are intent on violence and hooliganism (And recognising that most, but not all, of that violence has been on the far right), and focus on the people who are demonstrating peacefully or who are expressing their views on either side:
Personally, I would say that both sides have valid points, and both sides deserve empathy.
- On one side, people believe they want more fairness for those who don't have white skin.
- On the other side, people generally agree that there has been much discrimination and prejudice in the past and that some discrimination still exists and needs to be tackled. But there's also a belief that BLM are exaggerating the extent of that discrimination today, are showing intolerance towards those who disagree with them (for example by too readily accusing people of racism), and that the practical impact of some of BLM's agenda would include needlessly destroying parts of our historical heritage, creating divisions in society, and emphasising a culture of victimhood - none of which would actually help ethnic minorities.
Somewhat ironically, to my mind, the way you misrepresent one side as wanting to 'maintain their position of supremacy being fearful of change' instead of seeking to understand that side's point of view exactly illustrates the intolerance that many fear the BLM movement is generating.
Remember that BLM started in the US as a result of several high-profile incidents making clear the massive difference in the way that black and Latino people are treated by the police as compared to white.In terms of BLM agenda, I'm still trying to work out what that might be beyond just wanting people to be more respectful and less prejudiced and biased.
Oriel College Oxford has announced it is to remove its statue of Cecil Rhodes.
There's no hypocrisy. There are other people who have founded scholarships who don't have statues.But no doubt not the scholarships he endowed, of which Black students have been recipients....ludicrous hypocrisy.
It's morphed into a wider movement to basically, as you said, try and eliminate racism generally such that people are treated basically the same regardless of race.
Nope. That statement "I don't see colour" comes from a good place but is - if it was strictly applied - almost as bad as being racist since it dismisses that fact that there are differences between races. Most black BLM protesters are proud of the history and contribution that black people have made to modern society and want to be justly recognised as both black and equal to any other race or ethnicity.It's pretty much directly telling you that if you treat all people the same regardless of race, then that makes you a racist - which is of course utter nonsense.
Thanks for your thoughts on my response to Geezertronic. These are very valid and I do appreciate the fear of the unknown wrt BLM. It is quite natural to fear something new and little understood.
There's no hypocrisy. There are other people who have founded scholarships who don't have statues.
What is dangerously close to hypocrisy is to imply that somehow the fact that some recipients of the scholarships have been black somehow makes up for the fact that he was a massive racist and misogynist).
But surely he was "A Man of His Time" and not particularly worse than his contemporaries with regards to his racist behaviour. Not sure where misogyny comes into it.
Good Lord the man started with nothing and ended up having a Country named after him.
If you are looking for the most racist and barbarous Rhodesian Leader of all time one Robert Mugabe springs to mind, compared to him Rhodes was a Saint.
Sure, he probably was a man of his time. Although I don't think everyone was racist even then, but it appears it was a majority viewpoint that white people were believed superior. Perhaps if he was around now, he wouldn't hold those views. But keeping a statue up of him does look like we a still celebrating him and his imperialistic views - I think its time the statue was put in a museum where it can be learnt about objectively (hopefully this statue will be kept somewhere rather than hidden away or destroyed).
I'm not sure many would disagree with you about how vile and tyrannical Mugabe was. If we had any statues of him, i'm sure people would want to remove those!
If Oriel College Oxford feels that badly about it's association with Cecil Rhodes perhaps they should return the money he endowed to his descendants ?
He specifically excluded women from receiving Rhodes scholarships over the protestations of many. Hence the existence of the Marshall scholarships.Not sure where misogyny comes into it.
What matters more is not what you achieved, but the manner by which they were accomplished. There's a reason that there aren't many statues of Rhodes in Zimbabwe...Good Lord the man started with nothing and ended up having a Country named after him.
Nope. That statement "I don't see colour" comes from a good place but is - if it was strictly applied - almost as bad as being racist since it dismisses that fact that there are differences between races. Most black BLM protesters are proud of the history and contribution that black people have made to modern society and want to be justly recognised as both black and equal to any other race or ethnicity.
As a parallel "I don't see Northerner or Southerner, we're all English" might not go down well with some Yorkshiremen or Devonians.
What the person who says "I don't see colour" really means most of the time is actually something more like "I look past colour and see the person".
That's not to say that there aren't some nutters in with the BLM movement, but what most people want is equality of opportunity and equal protection under (and by) the law.
We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.
We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.