George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[craigkillie]

27 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not a fan of re-writing history to suit current values.

Obviously we can all agree that slavery = bad, but I see now that they're after the statue of Rhodes on Oxford.

What started out as the death of a black man in Minneapolis is starting to look like a far left hit list. 

 

 

Which part of history is being rewritten here? People aren't going to suddenly go "ah, I see that there are no longer statues of slave traders, it must not have happened", are they? You can't change your past, but what you can change is the decision about which parts of your past you think deserve to be commemorated and which parts you think don't.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Were any "people" living in any city in the UK ever consulted about the erection of statues?

Re your other point I'm quite aware of this, doesn't mean some folk can unilateraly remove a statue. If the public will is there it may have been removed in time.

You're correct that the erection of this statue, and many others like it, was entirely undemocratic and didn't represent the will of the people living there. Why do we need public will to get rid of them, but not public will to erect them? It seems as though the public will was there in Bristol anyway, based on the previous discussion about the Colston Hall.

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 hours ago, Tony Ferrino said:

What about those folk who pretend to be statues for a few pennies in a flat cap? Are they safe?

One of them used to drink in The Vale at Queen St station after a hard day standing still. Really creepy up close. Obviously this is neither here nor there in this debate. I'd rather the mob attacked the ones that pretend to play musical instruments but really just play a tape. Especially the "drummer" with the dancing cats.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[Sinner-to-Saint]

9 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

So, not just a fanny but a thick fanny.

Eh? You didn't know East Germany was a socialist state?

Quote

East Germany had a command economy, in which virtually all decisions were made by the governing communist party, the Socialist Unity Party (SED). The system of planning was inflexible and eventually caused ruinous economic conditions. Power, influence, and personal connections (Beziehungen, or “vitamin B”) drove economic decisions, and all groups, including trade unions, were expected to collaborate to achieve the SED’s economic objectives.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-East-German-system

Happy to make your acquaintance, btw.

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Any mention of art and fire and Glasgow would make me want a helicopter following Muriel Gray around rather than worrying about lefties striking a match tbh.

Given they were talking about shutting it in January they could probably get her son to play it then she could burn it down and save on direct public outrage.

[mizfit]

Yeah the way it has Dyer narrating It is like a very poor mans Trainspotting. It was pretty funny though and had a good soundtrack.
”See you you c**t, I’ll cut you first!”

The funniest bit for me is the chasing through London after the cup draw.

[welshbairn]

Interestingly Colston sold his shares in the slave trade to William of Orange. @The_Kincardine

[craigkillie]

6 minutes ago, spud131 said:

I take it everyone is going to be cool when the GOMA in Glasgow is burned to the ground because it was built by someone who made his money from plantations and the slave trade?

There is a difference between removing buildings paid for by the slave trade (or even built by slaves) and removing statues or other objects commemorating these slave traders. The GOMA has utility, it serves a purpose as a building, and therefore its value extends beyond its questionable history. A reasonable way to reconcile this history would be a plaque of some sort which explains the past of the building. A statue serves no useful function and merely exists as a monument to the person or event represented by it, and therefore if the object represented in it has a similar questionable history then it no longer has any value. A reasonable way to reconcile this would be to tear it down and break it into tiny little pieces.

I know that you understand this and are just being obtuse and doing a "just asking questions" act to cover up your underlying right-wing views, but this again needs to be said regardless.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

I think you overstate the extent to which wider public support is a) wanted or by) relevant.   What you, or I, or more particularly the government or police, think is utterly irrelevant.  This isn’t some kind of popularity contest.  It’s community action, community ownership, and a symbolic manifestation of historical and current injustices.

In many ways, yesterday was a direct challenge to wider public opinion.  

Wow, straight out of the Tooting popular front. Power to the people. 

My politics and outlook on life are generally mildly left of centre. If the opinion of people like me is pushed aside as an irrelevance because of the pursuit of some kind of left-wing, evangelical nirvana where the supposed wrongs of an imperial past can all be righted according to the doctrine dictated by a mob, then your 'cause' is already lost. 

I'll say it again, this smacks of a small, organised group of left-wingers using the death of a black man in the USA to push a different type of agenda here in the UK.  And as ever, while their cause is often right, they'll fail because they're stupid fuckers who are singularly unable to get public opinion onside.  

 

 

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

9 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Again, all fine. But remember what we're talking about in Bristol or London yesterday not being a crime but actually being an act of good, is a matter of opinion.  Not fact. 

I'll say once again, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment behind it. But if the people doing that think that they're going to get public opinion on their side, I would suggest that they're sadly mistaken. 

They'll very quickly....or maybe even already have.....make themselves look like extremists, and then their cause will be lost. 

I don't think so, Bob. In recent times, even the proles are looking at what's going on and thinking, "that ain't right". More to the point, the number of people who are seeing the behaviour of our masters and not thinking "that could've been me" is shrinking. Sure slavery, Windrush, even Grenfell seem to affect a certain demographic - but UC, job losses from Brexit, avoidable fatalities from Covid-19 are, for even the dimmest flag-waver, issues that strike a little close to home. And nothing the current Government is doing at the moment is ever going to get someone back onside if their policies killed their granny.

The situation is ripe for a revolution, if not in deed at least in thinking. Top and bottom is that the UK, and even more so the USA have built their prosperity on the backs of people ripped from their homes. exploited and discarded when no longer productive.  The cúnts who did this are the direct predecessors of those in power today, and there simply has to be a better way. Finding a route to that better way is the priority now, and it has to start with education.

As I overheard in conversation at the weekend, and this really resonated with me,

"If you're more concerned with how they're protesting than why they're protesting, then you are part of the problem".

[D Angelo Barksdale]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Interestingly Colston sold his shares in the slave trade to William of Orange. @The_Kincardine

[spud131]

There is a difference between removing buildings paid for by the slave trade (or even built by slaves) and removing statues or other objects commemorating these slave traders. The GOMA has utility, it serves a purpose as a building, and therefore its value extends beyond its questionable history. A reasonable way to reconcile this history would be a plaque of some sort which explains the past of the building. A statue serves no useful function and merely exists as a monument to the person or event represented by it, and therefore if the object represented in it has a similar questionable history then it no longer has any value. A reasonable way to reconcile this would be to tear it down and break it into tiny little pieces.
I know that you understand this and are just being obtuse and doing a "just asking questions" act to cover up your underlying right-wing views, but this again needs to be said regardless.

The point I was trying to make is who decides what is acceptable to be destroyed/damaged because they don't agree with it?

[Savage Henry]

11 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Wow, straight out of the Tooting popular front. Power to the people. 

My politics and outlook on life are generally mildly left of centre. If the opinion of people like me is pushed aside as an irrelevance because of the pursuit of some kind of left-wing, evangelical nirvana where the supposed wrongs of an imperial past can all be righted according to the doctrine dictated by a mob, then your 'cause' is already lost. 

I'll say it again, this smacks of a small, organised group of left-wingers using the death of a black man in the USA to push a different type of agenda here in the UK.  And as ever, while their cause is often right, they'll fail because they're stupid fuckers who are singularly unable to get public opinion onside.  

 

 

 

It’s not coming across that way.  

The point, of course, is that they are taking direct action without begging permission from nebulous concepts such as “public opinion”.     Our opinions are of no significance at all in this matter.  And nor should they be.   The opinion of people like us is not relevant in every situation.  Half the problem is that we’re inclined to think that it is.  Your argument is: you need me to agree before you take action.  

And, as I’m sure you know fine well, the public protests are not about the death of George Floyd, but about a far wider, far more historical, issue, of which Floyd’s death was just the latest high-profile example.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Savage Henry

[DA Baracus]

50 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Randomly destroying things you don't like has a name. It's called 'breaking the law'.

 

Like black people's lives

[WhiteRoseKillie]

22 minutes ago, spud131 said:

I take it everyone is going to be cool when the GOMA in Glasgow is burned to the ground because it was built by someone who made his money from plantations and the slave trade?

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the current nomenclature to commemorate Cunninghame. 'Twould seem a bit churlish to demolish it, especially as the man it shoiuld stand as a memorial to is the architect, rather than the slaver who paid for it.

As with Carnegie (and, while we're at it, the likes of Comic Relief and various celebrity-led charity affairs), some good has come from human self-aggrandisement. That good should be embraced while, and this is important, recognising and lamenting the greater good that could have been done.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

25 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said:

The operative word being 'designed'...

You're really not very bright, are you? While the Wall was carrying out the function for which it was designed, not a great deal happened to it. Once it became a symbol, game on.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Tear it down, tear them all down.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

23 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said:

Eh? You didn't know East Germany was a socialist state?

Happy to make your acquaintance, btw.

Oh, Nazi Germany must have been Socialist as well, then, if that's what it takes. Are you actually allowed unsupervised internet access?

[Alert Mongoose]

Isn’t philanthropy basically trying to make yourself feel better by repatriating the money that you have ‘stolen’ from society through capitalism?  Society should really be set up in such a way that no one should ever be able to get to the stage where philanthropy on a grand stage is possible.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Alert Mongoose

[Savage Henry]

14 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Tear it down, tear them all down.

Anti-Wise agenda, IMO.

[Sinner-to-Saint]

18 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Oh, Nazi Germany must have been Socialist as well, then, if that's what it takes. Are you actually allowed unsupervised internet access?

Psst...A Nazi was a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.