Should ethnic minorities & 'yoofs' be allowed to delete our history?

gatepost said:

I do wonder why all the demonstrators have not set about the sex slave business that we are led to believe is very prevalent in many cities. surely here and now is far more important that the past.

Click to expand...

History repeats itself. Who would have expected Britain to sail off to war again as it did in Iraq. Most Britons didn’t.
But history did repeat. Yet another in a very very long line of illegal wars by Britain. You really really know the true intent of the nation when even the opposition Tory Party and DUP at the time, voted to kill, maim and slaughter innocent children.
Thats the long and the short of it.
It’s not about if it will happen again. It’s about when it will happen again.
No fudgin harm at all, to keep reminding the people of that fact, by tearing down all those statues celebrating that past.

Ukjay said:

.
Carry on, you've lost any respect I may have had for you after openly condoning all this anarchy and aggression upon innocent people for what you consider a justified cause - then try and insinuate we accept all other things...

You're a legend ?

Click to expand...

I take it you're not a fan of our government then? Who openly encourage protests in Hong Kong, previous governments encouraged similar protests in Iraq. It's all factual information and available on Google to fact check if you wish.

Mr Blair allowed asylum to thousands of Iraqi and Iraninan protestors, Mr Mr Johnson has pledged to allow asylum to the Hong Kong protestors, well 3 million of them anyway.

Smith31 said:

What utter rubbish we invaded them in an illegal war, gave them the tools and equipment to remove the statue.

Would you agree to a foreign power bombing your house, destroying your property and killing your family? I am sure in a similar fashion 99% of the Iraqis were also against being invaded, bombed and killed.

Click to expand...

If that is the case and the majority of Iraqis didn't want to lose their statues of Saddam, (who we would probably all agree had certain character flaws whether or not we should have got involved),, then I agree with you. So why don't you apply the same principal here and condemn the minority who are forcing their views on us? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Smith31 said:

I take it you're not a fan of our government then? Who openly encourage protests in Hong Kong, previous governments encouraged similar protests in Iraq. It's all factual information and available on Google to fact check if you wish.

Mr Blair allowed asylum to thousands of Iraqi and Iraninan protestors, Mr Mr Johnson has pledged to allow asylum to the Hong Kong protestors, well 3 million of them anyway.

Click to expand...

As with many things in life, I am not party to the undoctored full ins and outs of why they may or may not have said what you are implying, so I will not make my judgement of it.

To your main ongoing diatribe, please do not bring in other people as a shallow defence for your disrespectful mannerisms towards innocent people in this Country, and stop twisting everything for your own sad gratification.

You know not what the person on the other keyboard has endured in their lives or indeed what they may be going through, yet you continually hack away at them for having opposing views and seek no clarity.

When you actually want to learn facts, one should go and talk to the individual concerned, not jump to conclusions based on doctored papers / media spin as you appear to do on many levels.

Good day...

Red Fred said:

If that is the case and the majority of Iraqis didn't want to lose their statues of Saddam, (who we would probably all agree had certain character flaws whether or not we should have got involved),, then I agree with you. So why don't you apply the same principal here and condemn the minority who are forcing their views on us? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with the folk who want the removal of slave trader statutes, who as I have stated previously dealt in pain and misery. If you want to celebrate men who sold women and children to be systematically raped and abused on a daily basis then I suspect you have underlying issues which need addressing.

I personally believe that anyone attacking a war memorial should be given a immediate custodial sentence. Our governments have been too weak to act on this subject for decades.

gatepost said:

I do wonder why all the demonstrators have not set about the sex slave business that we are led to believe is very prevalent in many cities. surely here and now is far more important than the past.

Click to expand...

I mentioned this on this thread or one of the others, the so called "modern slavery" not just sex trade but nail bars, car washes and cannabis farms. There was a Vietnamese or Chinese guy did a runner from a semi derelict farm cottage near here when the owner checked the property and discovered a cannabis farm, the police weren't really bothered about the guy saying he would be a victim of crime. The demonstrators probably wouldn't mention it as it may affect their supply (cannabis)

Ashtree said:

History repeats itself. Who would have expected Britain to sail off to war again as it did in Iraq. Most Britons didn’t.
But history did repeat. Yet another in a very very long line of illegal wars by Britain. You really really know the true intent of the nation when even the opposition Tory Party and DUP at the time, voted to kill, maim and slaughter innocent children.
Thats the long and the short of it.
It’s not about if it will happen again. It’s about when it will happen again.
No fudgin harm at all, to keep reminding the people of that fact, by tearing down all those statues celebrating that past.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I find mob rule a very worrying development, not to say the 'Yoots' have always had a bit of a march, in fact I would go as far, as suggesting that you should be anti establishment and fervent when your young , but the whipping up of a mob is always a frightening prospect for any civilised society, today a statue, tomorrow PC Keith Blakelock who or what is next?

Smith31 said:

I actually agree with the folk who want the removal of slave trader statutes, who as I have stated previously dealt in pain and misery. If you want to celebrate men who sold women and children to be systematically raped and abused on a daily basis then I suspect you have underlying issues which need addressing.

I personally believe that anyone attacking a war memorial should be given a immediate custodial sentence. Our governments have been too weak to act on this subject for decades.

Click to expand...

Oh my! A true manipulator of words and inference as can be seen in so many of your posts

The fight back has begun:

Tim s said:

Oh my! A true manipulator of words and inference as can be seen in so many of your posts

Click to expand...

It adds traffic to the threads

I am not going to support the glorification and celebration of slave traders, apologies if that offends some.

There is no valid moral reason to celebrate a trade which brought death, pain and sexual exploitation to thousands of human beings. Those farmers who feel different are free to erect statues of Jimmy Saville and grooming gangs in their fields to gauge public opinion on the matter.

Smith31 said:

I actually agree with the folk who want the removal of slave trader statutes, who as I have stated previously dealt in pain and misery. If you want to celebrate men who sold women and children to be systematically raped and abused on a daily basis then I suspect you have underlying issues which need addressing.

I personally believe that anyone attacking a war memorial should be given a immediate custodial sentence. Our governments have been too weak to act on this subject for decades.

Click to expand...

Oh my! A true manipulator of words and inference as can be seen in so many of your posts

Smith31 said:

It adds traffic to the threads

I am not going to support the glorification and celebration of slave traders, apologies if that offends some.

There is no valid moral reason to celebrate a trade which brought death, pain and sexual exploitation to thousands of human beings. Those farmers who feel different are free to erect statues of Jimmy Saville and grooming gangs in their fields to gauge public opinion on the matter.

Click to expand...

So pure you are Skywalker

They want to take down Churchills statue, if he hadnt led us to victory you would have had adolf who would have sent all these minorities to Auschwitz. So shut the F up and be thankful you are even here. Sick to the back teeth of this lot now

This whole thread has turned nasty you can
see how peaceful protests can get out of hand.

Genuine question
I don't know how it worked back in the day but did being involved in the slave trade mean that you had to be racist?
For example if you were a ships captain or part of the crew was it just another load ? did they have a back load ? what was that ? they wouldn't run back empty would they that would be bad business
Were these people who's statues are being torn or taken down hands on or were they business owners buying/transporting and selling ?
how were they seen at the time were they just like a corn buyer today working on supply and demand and making money from it ?
If you google the definition of racist there are lots of definitions and from what I can make out they are not all the same

here is one

So would this mean that those that say "eastern Europeans are better workers and they don't employ British cos they are not up to the job" are racist against British people ?
I know that could be confusing ethnicity [is that the right word?] with race but then you get definitions like this which seems to lump race and ethnic origin in together and call prejudice against either racist
racist
[ˈreɪsɪst]

ADJECTIVE​

1. prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"

NOUN​

1. a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

So what was racist then ? and what is it now ? has it changed ?

Henarar said:

Genuine question
I don't know how it worked back in the day but did being involved in the slave trade mean that you had to be racist?
For example if you were a ships captain or part of the crew was it just another load ? did they have a back load ? what was that ? they wouldn't run back empty would they that would be bad business
Were these people who's statues are being torn or taken down hands on or were they business owners buying/transporting and selling ?
how were they seen at the time were they just like a corn buyer today working on supply and demand and making money from it ?

Click to expand...

Simplified version: It was a 'triangular' trade started by the Portuguese and Spanish, the British really got into it in the 18th century. Guns, iron, cloth were taken to West Africa and exchanged for people who had been rounded up and taken to market by their tribal leaders. The slaves were then sold at markets in the southern US and the Caribbean to supply labour for the plantations and the traders returned to Europe with sugar, cotton, tobacco etc. A third of ships engaged in the business were British, sailing from the big ports on the south coast, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, London which is why those cities have large dock complexes, a history of civic philanthropy (museums, schools, libraries, public parks etc), and plenty of statues in recognition of their benefactors.

Whether the traders were racist is a good question. By today's definitions and standards, yes. People living in Africa had what Europeans would consider to be worse than medieval living conditions but without a European education how could they be expected to improve themselves, the poor creatures? However, by the standards of the time where the western world industrialising powerhouse countries ran on a class system that included servitude by the lower classes to the better-offs, those with money looked down on those without regardless of skin colour. The slaves were most definitely seen as a commodity by the statue blokes, perhaps in the same way farmers look at their livestock bought to sell on.

The slave trade was abolished in Britain in 1807 after increasing problems from the end of the 18th century. Getting hold of enough people in Africa was becoming difficult because too many had been removed over the previous decades and tribal leaders were no longer prepared to sell their people. Slave ships arriving in Africa were being attacked. Whereas people were being bought by the traders for about £5 and sold 6 weeks or so later for £25 in the early 18th century, by the end of the century profit margins had dropped and it was costing £25 in goods to buy a man whose best price in the Americas was £35. Demand was also dropping in the Americas as slaves were breeding more home-grown slaves. Given that the traders had to allow for a percentage of the Africans dying on the journey due to insanitary conditions and western diseases they had no immunity to, there was no longer the money in it.

Public opinion was also changing by the end of the 18th century as news of slave mutinies arrived in Britain, and slaves who escaped had their first-hand accounts printed by the abolitionist movement, which made the public aware of the details of the whole inhumane business.

If you google the definition of racist there are lots of definitions and from what I can make out they are not all the same

here is one
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

So would this mean that those that say "eastern Europeans are better workers and they don't employ British cos they are not up to the job" are racist against British people ?
I know that could be confusing ethnicity [is that the right word?] with race but then you get definitions like this which seems to lump race and ethnic origin in together and call prejudice against either racist
racist
[ˈreɪsɪst]


ADJECTIVE

1. • prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
     "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"

NOUN

1. • a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
     "he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

So what was racist then ? and what is it now ? has it changed ?

Click to expand...

Yes, people were racist then and had been for thousands of years prior, even back to the neolithic era when tribal Britons fought their neighbours, stole their women, children and livestock, and used them for doing the hard work keeping the homestead going.

People by nature are tribal creatures that are suspicious of 'different' people. It's why it's stressful living in large urban environments where people create their own enclaves of other people 'like them' with shared culture and lifestyles. All the best-intentioned multi-culturalism ideals won't change that. However, because we have bigger brains than chickens we can be taught good manners and to value other people by their characters rather than superficialities such as their appearance.

But, and this is the big one that the liberal lefties don't or won't understand, it has to work both ways. There is little point indigenous British people trying to welcome people from other countries to settle in the UK if those people are not prepared to adapt to their new homeland. It is outrageous that there are areas of the country where white people are abused for walking down the street, where people have lived for decades without learning to speak or read English. However, you can't say that because the liberal left think it's racist.

Equally, people should not play the race card to cover up their character failings. It should not be racist to ask why so many black children are brought up without their fathers present in their lives, but it is. It should not be racist to question why more black people are murdered by other black people both here and in the US, but it is. I haven't seen the figures for the UK but in the US black people make up 18% of the population and commit 52% of murders, of which 85% are black on black. Could those black children being raised without father figures be influential in those murder statistics? As a white indigenous British woman I am not allowed to ask as that is racist.

A lot of the liberal left stuff is 'emperor's new clothes' and it will take a firm and protracted backlash from the hitherto silent majority of kind and decent people to slap them down. I'm not holding my breath though.

I've only been on one protest march in my life, one of the Countryside Marches. As rural people we were and still are a minority. There wasn't that much press coverage for over 400,000 people descending on London, probably because we didn't break windows or pull down statues. The only person I can remember shouting was a steward up a lamppost telling gentlemen to doff their caps as they passed the cenotaph.

Paddington said:

I've only been on one protest march in my life, one of the Countryside Marches. As rural people we were and still are a minority. There wasn't that much press coverage for over 400,000 people descending on London, probably because we didn't break windows or pull down statues. The only person I can remember shouting was a steward up a lamppost telling gentlemen to doff their caps as they passed the cenotaph.

Click to expand...

The only marches ever where the city was cleaner after we left than when we got there!

Paddington said:

I've only been on one protest march in my life, one of the Countryside Marches. As rural people we were and still are a minority. There wasn't that much press coverage for over 400,000 people descending on London, probably because we didn't break windows or pull down statues. The only person I can remember shouting was a steward up a lamppost telling gentlemen to doff their caps as they passed the cenotaph.

Click to expand...

Me too. I remember well the startled faces of London natives when we flooded the Tube system with smelly wax jackets, tweedy breeks, flat caps, and polite manners.