• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

George Floyd Death and the Wider Consequences

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
What has happened afterwards is an inevitable consequence of years of racism.
Even events in this country? and you are condoning the acts of violence and vandalism in the UK this weekend?! seriously?
Please don't let what has happened since that act of police brutality (and many other similar acts over the years) become the story.
How are violent acts not newsworthy?

Are you being serious?
Sounded a well-reasoned post to me; what part do you disagree with, and why?
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
I was having a night off but since a moderator decided to seek my views about a related matter outside of the forum, I wanted to add:

I haven't condoned acts of violence against any people whether police officers or ordinary citizens;

It is important to remember that most forum members are white. This includes several of the moderators who I've met in person. While we're all entitled to post our views, as white people we don't experience structural racism. It is therefore not for us to say that "things aren't that bad [for non-white people] in the UK" which I'm paraphrasing from various posts above.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I haven't condoned acts of violence against any people whether police officers or ordinary citizens;
That's not my interpretation of post #5; if you wish to make any amendments accordingly that would be most welcome.
It is important to remember that most forum members are white. This includes several of the moderators who I've met in person. While we're all entitled to post our views, as white people we don't experience structural racism. It is therefore not for us to say that "racism doesn't really exist" or "things aren't that bad [for non-white people] in the UK" which I'm paraphrasing from various posts above.
Racism does exist; I cannot believe any sensible person would deny that, and I don't believe anyone here has actually said that.

But violence and/or vandalism is not the way to reduce racism; would you agree?
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or the will to spend ages on the forum arguing.
DynamicSpirit is, I'm sure a very decent chap but like so many others he is using the same old trope that it's all' vague' 'questionable' 'anecdotal' 'rife in some right-wing groups' (not all?), 'rife 50 years ago' (what has changed?). Go out and do your own sample if you don't want to read the reports of Institutional Racism in many organisations within our society, speak to anyone in the BAME community and ask if they personally have ever been the victim of for example, a racial insult in their life. you may be surprised at the result.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
It looks like in London that most of the peaceful protesters have left. It seems to me that the ones who want to cause trouble are the ones that hang around and do not disperse when the police ask them to and they are very much a small minority of the original crowd.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
About the Edward Colston Statue being pulled down I heard this quote today. He was a philanthropist who's work benefited the people and City of Bristol. Jimmy Saville was a man who performed great charity work. Now we see a few problems in many eyes. There are probably many other examples.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or the will to spend ages on the forum arguing.
DynamicSpirit is, I'm sure a very decent chap but like so many others he is using the same old trope that it's all' vague' 'questionable' 'anecdotal' 'rife in some right-wing groups' (not all?), 'rife 50 years ago' (what has changed?). Go out and do your own sample if you don't want to read the reports of Institutional Racism in many organisations within our society, speak to anyone in the BAME community and ask if they personally have ever been the victim of for example, a racial insult in their life. you may be surprised at the result.

I appreciate that not everyone has the time to debate - I've probably spent far longer here than I should've done ;) But it makes no sense to expect me to go out and do the legwork in order to find evidence for something that you are claiming, but which you don't have time to produce any evidence for yourself. If you don't have time then that's fair enough and totally understandable - but in that case you can't reasonably expect other people to change their minds based on your assertions.

And asking someone to provide evidence for what they are saying is not 'using the same old trope' - it's being rational and - well, asking to see evidence.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
That's a vague claim that I keep seeing over and over again - usually in a context in which the speaker is clearly specifically talking about anti-black racism by whites. But I very rarely see any facts presented that back it up. Usually the 'facts' presented take the form of questionable statistics (for example, the oft-quoted stop-and-search stats that take no account of location, demographics, or the typical profile of offenders that police might reasonably be searching for), or anecdotal evidence of bad things happening to people who happen to be black and appear to be simply assuming that their being black is the reason for whatever happened - despite that bad things often happen to people of all ethnicities. I don't doubt that there is some anti-black racism in our society - or that it's rife in some parts of society (for example, the certain far right groups). And I don't doubt that it was rife 50 or so years ago. And of course, it is atrocious when it happens, and potentially horrendous for the victims. But if you want to claim that it's rife in the UK today, perhaps you could present some plausible evidence for that?

Every demographic has their own set of challenges they have to contend with that don't necessarily affect others. People from races, genders, social classes, sexual orientations, ages etc different to your own do face issues that don't affect you. Even those who can't, or won't present evidence to a standard acceptable to you.

Of course, there are people who do seek to blame their problems and failings on anything and everything but their own actions, or lack thereof. But some things that happen, racism plays a very large factor. Some people deal with it better than others.

I think if you were black, you wouldn't be saying the things you are.
 
Last edited:

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
I appreciate that not everyone has the time to debate - I've probably spent far longer here than I should've done ;) But it makes no sense to expect me to go out and do the legwork in order to find evidence for something that you are claiming, but which you don't have time to produce any evidence for yourself. If you don't have time then that's fair enough and totally understandable - but in that case you can't reasonably expect other people to change their minds based on your assertions.

And asking someone to provide evidence for what they are saying is not 'using the same old trope' - it's being rational and - well, asking to see evidence.

If you want evidence you can peruse the reports on the Equality and Human Rights sites which can be found here

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-research/reading-lists/race-reading-list

and the Runnymede Trust which can be found here https://www.runnymedetrust.org/companies/bycategory/1/276/Current-publications.html

Happy reading
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
If you want evidence you can peruse the reports on the Equality and Human Rights sites which can be found here

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-research/reading-lists/race-reading-list

and the Runnymede Trust which can be found here https://www.runnymedetrust.org/companies/bycategory/1/276/Current-publications.html

Happy reading

Thanks, at least that is a start. However, usually, the system on RailForums is that, when you post outside links, you give at least a summary of what the link is saying. You haven't done that - you have basically directed me to two lists of hundreds of different links to articles with titles such as 'social service provision to black elders' and 'retirement decisions among older black and ethnic minority people' - which for the most part (with some exceptions) don't seem to be massively relevant to the question we are discussing. Have you actually read many of those articles yourself and discovered amongst those articles evidence that racism is rife? If so, perhaps you could provide some quotes and direct us to the specific articles.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
I do what I can (and fortunately I am in a position to influence others).

I do not agree it is "rife". Things are getting better; more can be done but we have made great strides. But we need to continue to go about this in the right way.

Are you seriously condoning acts of violence and vandalism?! If so, my heart sinks further.

I wouldn't put violence and vandalism in the same category. I abhor violence. But pointing out that Churchill was absolutely a racist (as many of his writings and recorded statements attest)
That's not my interpretation of post #5; if you wish to make any amendments accordingly that would be most welcome.

Racism does exist; I cannot believe any sensible person would deny that, and I don't believe anyone here has actually said that.

But violence and/or vandalism is not the way to reduce racism; would you agree?

I don't think violence and vandalism should be placed in the same category, as if they were interchangeable in terms of seriousness and consequences.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
About the Edward Colston Statue being pulled down I heard this quote today. He was a philanthropist who's work benefited the people and City of Bristol. Jimmy Saville was a man who performed great charity work. Now we see a few problems in many eyes. There are probably many other examples.
I grew up in Bristol and Colston's name was and still is in widespread use on street names and schools as well as the city's main concert hall. His involvement in the slave trade was not illegal at the time and generally it was only his philanthropic work which was commemorated; Jimmy Saville's "other activities" were of course illegal and once they had come to light his name was quickly erased from public view. Campaigners have argued for years that Colston's connections with slavery mean his contribution to the city should be reassessed. It was decided in 2018 to change the the statue’s plaque to include mention of his slave-trading activities but a final wording was never agreed. The Colston Hall is apparently to have a new name but I don't know if a decision has been made.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I grew up in Bristol and Colston's name was and still is in widespread use on street names and schools as well as the city's main concert hall. His involvement in the slave trade was not illegal at the time and generally it was only his philanthropic work which was commemorated; Jimmy Saville's "other activities" were of course illegal and once they had come to light his name was quickly erased from public view. Campaigners have argued for years that Colston's connections with slavery mean his contribution to the city should be reassessed. It was decided in 2018 to change the the statue’s plaque to include mention of his slave-trading activities but a final wording was never agreed. The Colston Hall is apparently to have a new name but I don't know if a decision has been made.

I feel it is important to state why the final wording was never agreed.
Because the Merchant Venturers and other interested parties (cough some local Tories cough) watered down the wording to something that was pointless to bother with.
They changed it from being about him being heavily involved in the trafficking of slaves and him making his fortune off them, to just him being involved in their "transportation" with his wealth being made from investments in slave trading, sugar and other industries. Sure it says he was involved in the slave trade (which is the original plaque does not), but the emphasis is just wrong. The original wording for the second plaque which was never used was much more relevant and important, which is why the altered wording was rejected!
 
Last edited:

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
I grew up in Bristol and Colston's name was and still is in widespread use on street names and schools as well as the city's main concert hall. His involvement in the slave trade was not illegal at the time and generally it was only his philanthropic work which was commemorated; Jimmy Saville's "other activities" were of course illegal and once they had come to light his name was quickly erased from public view. Campaigners have argued for years that Colston's connections with slavery mean his contribution to the city should be reassessed. It was decided in 2018 to change the the statue’s plaque to include mention of his slave-trading activities but a final wording was never agreed. The Colston Hall is apparently to have a new name but I don't know if a decision has been made.
You are correct but just because it was legal it didn't make it right. I agree you cannot erase his work from public life especially if it has been there for many years, however the original point has to remain and as you have pointed out it was to mention his role in the slave trade and as Welshbluebird points out not to have it watered down. I think this could potentially have been a good solution to an emotive subject .
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Regarding the statue being pulled down, I recall that in Baghdad that the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down after the illegal invasion of Iraq buy the US and UK back in 2003.

Strange how that Hussein was both the UK and USA Governments best buddy during the Iran-Iraq conflict during the 1980s.

Also, would it be acceptable to pull down the statue of General Augusto Pinochet (USA Government's best buddy, when the CIA ousted the democratically elected president Salvadore Allende on 11 September 1973 and installed Pinochet) if there are any at all?
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down as US theatre. I would have no issue regarding your second point seeing it's widely accepted what a monster Pinochet was.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA, was a slave trader and owner on his plantations. He is thought to have fathered a child with a slave. He does not have a statue - he has a whole memorial!. I think we are in danger of going down a rabbit hole here.
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
3,199
Location
The West Country
You are correct but just because it was legal it didn't make it right. I agree you cannot erase his work from public life especially if it has been there for many years, however the original point has to remain and as you have pointed out it was to mention his role in the slave trade and as Welshbluebird points out not to have it watered down. I think this could potentially have been a good solution to an emotive subject .
I agree. We should not forget about the past but how society has learnt and moved on.
It is wrong to condemn the past as we had no control over it. If we had then we could jump into our TARDIS and tell Mr Colston where he was going wrong.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
I don't want to detract from the issues around Racism that dreadfully afflicts our country and/or US but does anyone recall the Police brutality from the 70s and 80s? A good friend of mine was a police constable at the time who was earning significant overtime being 'bussed' north to 'beat the s*** out of the protesting miners in Nottinghamshire' - his quote rather than mine. The Police serve the politics of the time rather than the ordinary people and I don't see that having changed.
When I was at uni in the 80s there was reputed to be a sergeant locally who would not hesitate to give lippy students who were caught drink driving a serious clip around the ear
At that time many people apparently " fell down the stairs" whilst in custody
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I don't think violence and vandalism should be placed in the same category, as if they were interchangeable in terms of seriousness and consequences.

Violence and vandalism go hand in hand, as we have seen both in the US and UK you don't seem to get one without the other. They are the same seriousness in nature IMO and the consequences for both should be heavily implemented. As should the idiots who thought that blocking traffic is a good idea.

Of course, this has nothing to do with peaceful protesting (of which there appears to have been only a select few instances) and detracts from the actual cause that should rightly get the airtime it deserves.
 

158747

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
330
Location
Trowbridge
After the destruction of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol the removal of other statues has now started, looks like the mob have won, a sad day for British history. Why not go all the way and re-write the history books and censor the parts of history that people don’t like?
 
Last edited:

UP13

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2018
Messages
373
After the destruction of Edward Colston’s statue the removal of other statues have now started, looks like the mob have won. Why not go all the way and re-write the history books and censor the parts of it that people don’t like?

Nobody is saying re-write history. They're just saying we shouldn't be publicly celebrating certain individuals.

Colston's statue said 'most virtuous son of Bristol' and made no mention of slavery. That isn't teaching history, that's propaganda. Of course people will be upset and I say people because it's not just BAME people who are upset about this nor will I say it'd jus young people. Plenty of white people and older people support BLM too and don't agree with the one-sided view of history we have in this country.

We should think about who we do publicly commemorate. There are more statues of goats and men called John than of non-Royal women ( https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/there-are-more-statues-of-goats-than-real-women-in/ ). Do people genuinely think goats and Johns are more important to the fabric of Britain than women? Should women just shut up and put up and not attempt to rewrite history?

I agree we need to draw a line somewhere, after all Henry VIII was a horrid murdering tyrant (yet is seen as some kind of carry on figure) but I don't think anybody is proposing pulling down his statues.

I think a safe middle ground is keeping statues if they have a significant contribution locally or nationally that benefitted all, and this benefit can't be widely disputed, and it far outweighs any horrid deeds they deed (which should be acknowledged).

I.e. Winston Churchill can remain because his most significant contribution was WWII (which was just as well as he was a dreadful chancellor), which benefitted everybody (I can't think of any minorities apart from fascists who would have benefitted from Germany winning). This outweighs his racial views although it is shocking how few people know about these and should know about them.

Colston on the other hand, his major contribution to the world was slavery and this far outweighs any benefit he brought one English Town (which is historically disputesd). His philanthropy didn't benefit all and in fact benefitted a small group of whites at the expense of many many black slaves.

There is an interesting read on the history of the statue and some historical myths about it. https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/#comments

Somebody like Cromwell would be tough to judge.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
After the destruction of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol the removal of other statues has now started, looks like the mob have won, a sad day for British history. Why not go all the way and re-write the history books and censor the parts of history that people don’t like?

You mean like Good King Richard and Bad King John? Twas ever thus. History is certainly not bunk, but it needs to be approached with an open and enquiring mind. Personally, I'd be happy if every statue in the country was consigned to museums (I know that would create a practical problem for storage!), and the practice of erecting them fell by the wayside. Heroes almost always have feet of clay.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Nobody is saying re-write history. They're just saying we shouldn't be publicly celebrating certain individuals.

To me, statues aren't about publicly celebrating individuals (even if that was the original historical reason they were put up). To me, statues are about showing us parts of history, and giving us a chance to connect with and become aware of events - particularly events related to the location the statue is in. No-one in their right mind is going to look at a statue of - to take another example - Cecil Rhodes - and think, 'Yay, isn't it amazing that we oppressed all those people'. Rather, the fact that the statue is there helps us to connect with and have some awareness part of our history and culture. It's for that reason that I feel extremely uneasy about the current move to remove statues. It doesn't just have echoes of erasing history - it also feels to me like an attempt to erase part of our culture.

I agree we need to draw a line somewhere, after all Henry VIII was a horrid murdering tyrant (yet is seen as some kind of carry on figure) but I don't think anybody is proposing pulling down his statues.

.... not yet ....

I think a safe middle ground is keeping statues if they have a significant contribution locally or nationally that benefitted all, and this benefit can't be widely disputed, and it far outweighs any horrid deeds they deed (which should be acknowledged).

I.e. Winston Churchill can remain because his most significant contribution was WWII (which was just as well as he was a dreadful chancellor), which benefitted everybody (I can't think of any minorities apart from fascists who would have benefitted from Germany winning). This outweighs his racial views although it is shocking how few people know about these and should know about them.

That makes a lot of sense. I would add another thing though - that we should also consider the historical context. Were the things the person doing bad by the standards of the time that person lived in. On that measure, Winston Churchill's racist views weren't that remarkable in his time, awful though they look today.

Applying that to Edward Colston: As I can make out, he lived in a time when almost no-one would have thought there was much wrong with keeping slaves. At the time he was born, we'd only recently stopped burning heretics at the stake, He grew up during the English Civil War, when roundheads and cavaliers were happily massacring each other. And he died fully 50 years before the abolition movement even started getting off the ground. His involvement with religious-restricted philanthropy seems discriminatory and petty-minded to us, but doing that philanthropy at all must have been remarkably progressive by the standards of the time. So should we really judge him entirely by his involvement with a slave trade, horrific though we'd all agree that trade is? It's difficult.

On the other hand, looking at the USA, the statues of confederates possibly has a different context - those people lived in the 19th century, and would have known full well that a substantial part of the population of the time viewed their actions in defending slavery as utterly immoral. That perhaps gives greater grounds for wanting to remove their statues.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
After the destruction of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol the removal of other statues has now started, looks like the mob have won, a sad day for British history. Why not go all the way and re-write the history books and censor the parts of history that people don’t like?

  1. The statue was not destroyed. It very much still exists and the council will, when they get around to it, fish it out of the floating harbour.
  2. Given that the statue will be put in a museum, I am unsure how that is "rewriting history" or "censoring" anything.
  3. If anything the event now has educated more people about Bristol's role in the slave trade than having the statue standing did. Especially given the statue didn't even mention that history on its plaque, and attempts to sort that were blocked by the Merchant Venturers and local Tories. I am sorry if I find it amusing that the same people who refused to acknowledge Colston's place in history as a slave trader are now having a little cry about "rewriting history".

To me, statues aren't about publicly celebrating individuals (even if that was the original historical reason they were put up). To me, statues are about showing us parts of history, and giving us a chance to connect with and become aware of events - particularly events related to the location the statue is in.

Given the statue of Colston will now be put in a museum, arguably with much more historical context than when the statue was standing (as above, the plaque on the state didn't even mention his role in the slave trade), I fail to see how what you claim to want isn't still possible.

It's for that reason that I feel extremely uneasy about the current move to remove statues. It doesn't just have echoes of erasing history - it also feels to me like an attempt to erase part of our culture.

As above - nobody is erasing history or culture.

That makes a lot of sense. I would add another thing though - that we should also consider the historical context. Were the things the person doing bad by the standards of the time that person lived in. On that measure, Winston Churchill's racist views weren't that remarkable in his time, awful though they look today.

Applying that to Edward Colston: As I can make out, he lived in a time when almost no-one would have thought there was much wrong with keeping slaves. At the time he was born, we'd only recently stopped burning heretics at the stake, He grew up during the English Civil War, when roundheads and cavaliers were happily massacring each other. And he died fully 50 years before the abolition movement even started getting off the ground. His involvement with religious-restricted philanthropy seems discriminatory and petty-minded to us, but doing that philanthropy at all must have been remarkably progressive by the standards of the time. So should we really judge him entirely by his involvement with a slave trade, horrific though we'd all agree that trade is? It's difficult.

By all means yes. But actually do that with the full historical context then. As I said above, the statue didn't even mention his involvement in the slave trade. If you are going to talk about considering the historical context and view people based on other views at the time, then the whole historical context has to be given alongside it, not sanitised because the Merchant Venturers and local Tories were upset about some strong wording.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
After the destruction of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol the removal of other statues has now started, looks like the mob have won, a sad day for British history. Why not go all the way and re-write the history books and censor the parts of history that people don’t like?

It goes on Little Britain, removed from Britbox and BBC Iplayer, Gone with the Wind removed from the HBO streaming site, Tom & Jerry, (albeit a few years ago) has a racism warning on Amazon Prime,
 

UP13

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2018
Messages
373
It goes on Little Britain, removed from Britbox and BBC Iplayer, Gone with the Wind removed from the HBO streaming site, Tom & Jerry, (albeit a few years ago) has a racism warning on Amazon Prime,

Gone with the Wind I can understand but Little Britain I'm not about (never watched it). I think the warning on Tom and Jerry is probably a sensible way of going about it.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I was enjoying watching Little Britain again and wondered why it had been removed. The BBC will be getting a complaint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top