Care to expand then?Are you being serious?
Care to expand then?Are you being serious?
Even events in this country? and you are condoning the acts of violence and vandalism in the UK this weekend?! seriously?What has happened afterwards is an inevitable consequence of years of racism.
How are violent acts not newsworthy?Please don't let what has happened since that act of police brutality (and many other similar acts over the years) become the story.
Sounded a well-reasoned post to me; what part do you disagree with, and why?Are you being serious?
That's not my interpretation of post #5; if you wish to make any amendments accordingly that would be most welcome.I haven't condoned acts of violence against any people whether police officers or ordinary citizens;
Racism does exist; I cannot believe any sensible person would deny that, and I don't believe anyone here has actually said that.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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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 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.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.
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 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 agree. We should not forget about the past but how society has learnt and moved on.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 .
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 earI 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.
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.
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?
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?
Nobody is saying re-write history. They're just saying we shouldn't be publicly celebrating certain individuals.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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,