Should History be airbrushed/side stepped because of the Black Lives Matter movement?

[Aspman]

21 hours ago, BigJase88 said:

It’s an issue in Engerland too

 

try being a sweaty sock just south of the border, most of the time just banter i might add.

 

It's always just banter until it crosses the line. But the line is pretty much impossible to see until you've crossed it.

[gadgetman]

6 hours ago, Aspman said:

 

It's always just banter until it crosses the line. But the line is pretty much impossible to see until you've crossed it.

I always find something known to be offensive is labelled banter when others actually say its offensive to them. 

 

Bantz is just a way to be idiots IMO

 

 

[john999boy]

A possible statue replacement solution has been mooted.

[Aspman]

16 hours ago, john999boy said:

A possible statue replacement solution has been mooted.

 

Mocking people with growth disorders eh!

And look at the high plinth, making everyone look up to that idolatorous image, you're saying small people are superior are you? Saying that those of short stature look down on everyone else

Aiming your mirth gun at people with beards too?

What about women, most women can't grow a beard are you mocking them as well are you saying they are inadequate because only men can grow beards?

And it's in monochrome too, mocking those with colourblindness too oh we'll be round to get you soon

 

I'm so woke me.

 

Edited 23 June, 2020 by Aspman

[skomaz]

11 minutes ago, Aspman said:

 

Mocking people with growth disorders eh!

And look at the high plinth, making everyone look up to that idolatorous image, you're saying small people are superior are you? Saying that those of short stature look down on everyone else

Aiming your mirth gun at people with beards too?

What about women, most women can't grow a beard are you mocking them as well are you saying they are inadequate because only men can grow beards?

And it's in monochrome too, mocking those with colourblindness too oh we'll be round to get you soon

 

I'm so woke me.

 

 

Offence is a function of the receiver - so all pretty valid reasons to take offence if you were that way inclined.

[Aspman]

I who I am mocking are those who choose to take offense on behalf of others.

 

I've certainly read articles written by people who have the right to be offended but aren't and are offended by the 'woke' who take offense on their behalf without permission or will even attack that person for not giving permission for the 'woke' person to have that offence by proxy.

 

Many of the 'woke' are not offended or even really give a crap about the issues they are promoting it's just aother opportunity to put themselves at the front, it's a marketing exercise.

 

Which is awful really since it detracts from the more subtle real issues

[cheezemonkhai]

We have a huge cry of wailing over anything that could be offensive to one group, but doing exactly the same for a different group causes problems.

I'm completely against the colourisation of the matter (Black, white anything), because frankly we should be equal as humans not as X, Y or Z.

 

All I can see the current situation doing is causing racial tensions and letting the loonies out of all sides.

 

Since this kicked off we've noticed:

 

- Distinct increase in the use of the P word and my partner being told to go home.

- People judging her, because she doesn't want to be called black or BAME (From black, brown and white people), just wants to be herself.

- People stiring up **** just to wind up groups of different people.

 

Most of these can't be normal people, who just want everyone to be treated reasonably and in the same fashion. It appears to me that you've got a bunch of people trying to cause chaos/start a fight and it's starting to worry me that in 10 years this country won't be somewhere mixed kids can feel safe.

 

Edited 23 June, 2020 by cheezemonkhai
typo

[mandp]

2 hours ago, Aspman said:

I who I am mocking are those who choose to take offense on behalf of others.

 

I've certainly read articles written by people who have the right to be offended but aren't and are offended by the 'woke' who take offense on their behalf without permission or will even attack that person for not giving permission for the 'woke' person to have that offence by proxy.

 

Many of the 'woke' are not offended or even really give a crap about the issues they are promoting it's just aother opportunity to put themselves at the front, it's a marketing exercise.

 

Which is awful really since it detracts from the more subtle real issues

Pray tell...what is `woke`?

[shyVRS245]

6 minutes ago, mandp said:

Pray tell...what is `woke`?

Alert to injustice in society, especially racism. Once again Google is your friend.

[Aspman]

1 hour ago, mandp said:

Pray tell...what is `woke`?

 

From wiki - "Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues."

 

Unfortunately what it often means is young white middleclass individuals earnesty promoting just how aware they are of issues that affect other people. Often prominantly using electronic devices made by child labour in far eastern sweatshops. They are often super aware of social issues but also super deaf to their own impact on that.

i.e. Explotation is bad, however they won't give up buying the cheap goods that are made by the exploited.

 

they are also often speaking very earnestly about issues that they can have no real idea about. i.e. A young white girl from middle class Norfolk does not know what it is to be a poor black male youth in central London. No matter how muh they would like to think it.

 

It's Ali G made real.

[VWD]

On 23/06/2020 at 11:07, Aspman said:

I who I am mocking are those who choose to take offense on behalf of others.

 

I've certainly read articles written by people who have the right to be offended but aren't and are offended by the 'woke' who take offense on their behalf without permission or will even attack that person for not giving permission for the 'woke' person to have that offence by proxy.

 

Many of the 'woke' are not offended or even really give a crap about the issues they are promoting it's just aother opportunity to put themselves at the front, it's a marketing exercise.

 

Which is awful really since it detracts from the more subtle real issues

Aspman- you should try living in the Midlands of England as a Scot brought up to respect the rights of folks around you, irrespective of race/creed/ political persuasion or any other factor. First slur thrown at you when standing up for your rights is that you're "a scot", and I've had worse . I'm also a human being  being with rights and responsibilities . So I can understand the grievance a lot of other ethnic ( and to the English population, being non English  beings ethnic), communities have. But the way to sort out problems is to do it legally , not by mob rule, which is what the current trend seems to be doing.

[john999boy]

Quote

President Trump labelled protesters calling for the removal of Confederate monuments “terrorists” yesterday as he prepared to order cities to protect their statues.

In an escalation of his rhetoric, Mr Trump told Fox News: “At some point there is going to be retribution because there has to be. These people are vandals. They’re agitators. They’re really terrorists in a sense.”
He urged Republicans to “get tougher” on the protesters, complaining that “they’re sitting back, they want to be politically correct”.
Last night the president said he had signed a “strong” executive order which would mean “long prison terms for these lawless acts”. It is unclear what is constitutionally available to him.

On Thursday Mr Trump appeared to show a new openness to some statues being removed, saying: “We can take things down too. I can understand certain things being taken down, but they ought to go through a process legally. And then we take it down — in some cases, put them in museums or wherever they go. But these are really rioters and there are a lot of bad people involved.”
Mr Trump also said: “I mean, you’re also talking about statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. They’d like to get Jesus. You know that, right?” Shaun King, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, had tweeted: The statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy.”

Mr Trump is exercised by calls to remove a statue of Abraham Lincoln erected in 1876. Police put up barriers around it on Thursday. It shows Lincoln holding the Emancipation Proclamation. A black man kneels at his feet in broken shackles.
•Non-white and Hispanic people formed a majority of the US population under the age of 16 for the first time last year, according to US Census Bureau estimates. The number of non-Hispanic white people has declined over the past decade. The number of non-Hispanic white people dropped by more than half a million from 2016 to 2019. Last year, just under 40 per cent of the total US population was either non-white or Hispanic. Non-Hispanic white people are projected to be a minority of the US population in around 25 years

Who is in the frame for a takedown?
Abraham Lincoln
Protesters have targeted the Emancipation Memorial, saying its depiction of Lincoln freeing a black man is demeaning.

Christopher Columbus
Demonstrators criticise the explorer’s treatment of indigenous people.

Mount Rushmore
“It’s an injustice to steal indigenous people’s land, then carve the white faces of the conquerors who committed genocide,” said Nick Tilsen, a Native American activist. Protests are planned to coincide with President Trump’s visit on July 3.

USS John C Stennis
A retired black lieutenant commander is leading calls for the Navy to rename the nuclear aircraft carrier. Stennis was a segregationist Democratic senator from Mississippi for 42 years until 1989. Joe Biden called him a “legend” at his 84th birthday party in 1985.

White Jesus
Shaun King, an activist, has called for statues of Jesus to come down. “If your religion requires Jesus to be a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus, then your religion is not Christianity, but white supremacy,” he said.

The National Anthem
Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star-Spangled Banner’s lyrics, owned slaves.

From The Times

Edited 27 June, 2020 by john999boy

[moley]

Removing statues will not change what happened in the past. I have a keen interest in history and I have read a few books on the American civil war. When visiting the States I look out for civil war battle sites etc. I have visited Gettysburg, Vicksburg and some smaller sites, which have many statues and monuments to both sides. 

Which of these should be removed?

[@Lee]

That Confederate flag would be a start.

[shyVRS245]

If BLM start using explosives to blow up statues then they will lower themselves to the same level as ISIS in Iraq and Syria who destroyed historical monuments just because they didn't like them and what they stood for.

[moley]

Removing the Confederate flag will also not change what happened in the past. The flag in the photo was probably placed there by a descendant because it was a Confederate cemetery at Franklin, just south of Nashville TN.  

[@Lee]

1 hour ago, moley said:

Removing the Confederate flag will also not change what happened in the past. 

Removing the Swasticka from Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark etc also hasn't changed what happened but would you go and plant one at the grave of a dead German (SS etc) soldier at St. Brelade's on Jersey? 
What do you think, Moley? Do you think the Confederate flag should stay or go? Bear in mind it's a symbol of oppression and slavery and is mostly flown by the white supremacist type who would happily see things such as apartheid return. 

Edited 28 June, 2020 by Lee01

[J.R.]

Touche pas a mon General Lee or Bo, Luke, Daisy, Uncle Jessie & Crazy Cooter will be comin at ya!

[Arkaig]

[Mickvrs220]

You can take away flags ,swastikas etc ,it changes diddly squat ,because folks who beleive in such things will still believe because thats their choice ,all this is doing is driving wedges between people ,why did the fellow who flew a white lives matter banner over the football ground end up losing his job for racism he did nothing wrong ,people who wear black lives matter t shirts arnt losing their jobs its very hypocritical ,folk are just waiting to jump on any white person with an opinion thats not woke .

[shyVRS245]

2 minutes ago, Mickvrs220 said:

You can take away flags ,swastikas etc ,it changes diddly squat ,because folks who beleive in such things will still believe because thats their choice ,all this is doing is driving wedges between people ,why did the fellow who flew a white lives matter banner over the football ground end up losing his job for racism he did nothing wrong ,people who wear black lives matter t shirts arnt losing their jobs its very hypocritical ,folk are just waiting to jump on any white person with an opinion thats not woke .

Agree even Manchester Police said he didn't commit an offence/crime yet his company gave a knee jerk reaction similar to Burnley football club who should have been more embarrassed by their players on the pitch with a woeful performance than an amusing banner pointing out there are 2 sides to every story. In the UK last year only 1 Black person died in Police Custody and the other 13 that died were white so does that mean British Police are racist towards white people. A bit of balance is always good when tempers fray but most don't check these sort of facts.

[@Lee]

9 minutes ago, Mickvrs220 said:

You can take away flags ,swastikas etc ,it changes diddly squat ,because folks who beleive in such things will still believe because thats their choice ,all this is doing is driving wedges between people ,why did the fellow who flew a white lives matter banner over the football ground end up losing his job for racism he did nothing wrong ,people who wear black lives matter t shirts arnt losing their jobs its very hypocritical ,folk are just waiting to jump on any white person with an opinion thats not woke .

What do you mean by 'woke'? I've seen it used many times as an insult, mostly by far right people towards people who are more left leaning, but what do you mean by it? 

3 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Agree even Manchester Police said he didn't commit an offence/crime yet his company gave a knee jerk reaction similar to Burnley football club who should have been more embarrassed by their players on the pitch with a woeful performance than an amusing banner pointing out there are 2 sides to every story. In the UK last year only 1 Black person died in Police Custody and the other 13 that died were white so does that mean British Police are racist towards white people. A bit of balance is always good when tempers fray but most don't check these sort of facts.

Amusing? What was amusing about it to you? 

[john999boy]

43 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

What do you mean by 'woke'? I've seen it used many times as an insult, mostly by far right people towards people who are more left leaning, but what do you mean by it? 

Amusing? What was amusing about it to you? 

I think the 'woke' statement was referring to a post by @Aspman and maybe 'amusing' could have been replaced by a slightly different word but the point still stands.

 

[Mickvrs220]

I mean people who jump on a bandwagon because its the in thing to do they think ,and dont actually have a clue thats its about being aware of injustice in society towards all creeds and races ,non of which will ever change on a global scale because racist people will always exist ,right from the high power people to the man on the street no matter what their skin colour

Edited 29 June, 2020 by Mickvrs220
Spelling

[john999boy]

Another one potentially biting the dust?

 

The future of a statue of a former governor of the Royal Bank of Scotland has been thrown into doubt because of his links to the slave trade.

The monument to John Hope, the 4th Earl of Hopetoun, was erected outside what were the headquarters of the bank in Edinburgh in 1834.

RBS has confirmed that it is investigating the future of the statue, just off St Andrew Square, after concerns were raised as part of the growing Black Lives Matter movement.

It was erected close to the Melville Monument in St Andrew Square, which honours Henry Dundas, an influential political figure of the 18th and 19th centuries, whose statue is to be fitted with a plaque acknowledging that he was “instrumental in deferring the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade”.

Adam McVey, the leader of Edinburgh council, has pledged that the authority will review all its monuments with links to “slavery and colonialism”.

The Hope statue was erected by Sir Lawrence Dundas, a wealthy businessman and cousin of Henry Dundas, on land originally earmarked for a church. The site was acquired in 1825 by RBS for a head office and is still home to a branch of the bank. Hope was governor of the bank from 1820 to 1823.

A recent article on Historic Environment Scotland’s website describes how Hope helped to end a rebellion in the Caribbean, which led to slavery continuing for nearly four decades afterwards. Lisa Williams, director of the Edinburgh Caribbean Association, told Scotland On Sunday that Hope “was second in command to fellow Scot, Ralph Abercromby, commander-in-chief of the British forces in the West Indies. Together, they helped to end the two-year slave revolution led by French-African Julien Fédon in Grenada in 1795-96.”

She added: “The suppression of this revolution resulted in slavery continuing for almost another 40 years.”

A spokesman for RBS confirmed that the future of the monument was being considered. “Society needs to look at the legacy of slavery and the footprint that it has left behind across our towns and cities today,” the spokesman said. “We’ve looked into this very carefully in the past and we are continuing to review it in light of current events. We are in very early conversations regarding the statue, including establishing ownership.”

It is understood that removal of the statue and the addition of a plaque are being considered.

Sir Geoff Palmer, Scotland’s first black professor, has spoken out against taking down statues and instead supports adding plaques explaining the subjects’ links to slavery and trafficking. “I’m not for taking statues down because if you remove the evidence you remove the deed,” he said. “Plaques remind us what human beings are capable of doing to other human beings.”