Racism Part two

[sne]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

exactly my point

Also, not sure what's being driven out of revenge here. Revenge would be black people actively attacking and killing white people/cops. 

Yeah, I misread your post at first  

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

It's just a piece of cloth. The sooner people get over nonsense like flags and national anthems the better, IMO. 

I agree and I personally couldn’t give two shits about flags or anthems.

But we all know it does mean something to a lot of people so burning any flag is a hate crime in my opinion.

If that was a white guy burning the flag of an African or West Indian country would you feel the same way?

[chrisp65]

Spot the guys with a shit anthem.

[mjmooney]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Spot the guys with a shit anthem.

You do have a point there. 

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's my point

You didnt highlight that very well

[Sam-AVFC]

23 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I agree and I personally couldn’t give two shits about flags or anthems.

But we all know it does mean something to a lot of people so burning any flag is a hate crime in my opinion.

If that was a white guy burning the flag of an African or West Indian country would you feel the same way?

A hate crime has to target a victim, not a symbol. If a British person moved somewhere and woke up to a flag burning on their lawn that could be classified as a hate crime as there is a target.

I'm really not sure who the victim is when a flag gets burnt to protest. Particularly by someone who is a citizen of that country and I don't think their colour is really relevant.

I think the distinction in your example is that it's likely a Union Jack flag being burnt in Africa would be because of hatred linked to historic invasion and oppression. **** knows what point a British person burning a Nigerian flag would be trying to prove and I certainly don't think they would be pilloried (by most) if there was a legitimate reason e.g. I don't think a white person burning an Isis flag would get stick because there is something obviously evil they would be protesting against.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Sam-AVFC

[Rolta]

3 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Never get any political slant from the good old Guardian, eh

What newspaper do you prefer out of interest? I hope it hasn't got a political slant. In the UK the press is something like 80% right wing. Dismissing something in the Guardian because of 'a political slant' is a strange argument considering you can say that about any paper, especially considering the domination of the right wing in the press. Also, in a period where the Mail/Telegraph/Express act as a government mouthpiece this comes across, to me at least, as a convenient excuse not to rock the mental boat too much. There is plenty of good journalism in the Guardian and just imagine the steps towards a dystopia we'd be taking if there was only one point of view, one media voice, and it was that of this government of demonstrable bullshitters.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Rolta

[Enda]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

There is a lot of selective quoting going on where people are taking something he said or did without any context to  suit an agenda he was a racist  .. (I saw a link that was obviously designed to paint him in a light with Hitler and Stalin  , or worse)  , with respect to that poster whose views I thoroughly respect , that link is bollocks  ...

The average punter doesn't know that Winston Churchill was a horrible racist. The sentence "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion." does not require any context. It stands by itself.

What does require context is that the average British punter has been subjected to decades of light propaganda about the war. While Churchill was crucial in defeating Hitler, which nobody denies, he was also a horrible racist. Both parts are true, but only one has penetrated the British consciousness. If he were the knight in shining armour that films and insurance companies portray him as, there wouldn't be over a dozen disgusting quotes to choose from.

[lapal_fan]

8 minutes ago, Enda said:

The average punter doesn't know that Winston Churchill was a horrible racist. The sentence "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion." does not require any context. It stands by itself.

What does require context is that the average British punter has been subjected to decades of light propaganda about the war. While Churchill was crucial in defeating Hitler, which nobody denies, he was also a horrible racist. Both parts are true, but only one has penetrated the British consciousness. If he were the knight in shining armour that films and insurance companies portray him as, there wouldn't be over a dozen disgusting quotes to choose from.

Does it have any affect on the debate that the India quote from Churchill may be because he was in a war against Indians? 

A bit like how some of Afghan vets have much time for Afghans or the Vietnam vets don't think too much on Vietnamese people? 

Yes, it's a very racist comment, but if he'd seen and experienced things in which to base his views (as well has horribly generalising), does that make it more understandable? 

[Demitri_C]

So what do we make of Anthony joshuas alleged  comments?

[meregreen]

17 minutes ago, Enda said:

The average punter doesn't know that Winston Churchill was a horrible racist. The sentence "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion." does not require any context. It stands by itself.

What does require context is that the average British punter has been subjected to decades of light propaganda about the war. While Churchill was crucial in defeating Hitler, which nobody denies, he was also a horrible racist. Both parts are true, but only one has penetrated the British consciousness. If he were the knight in shining armour that films and insurance companies portray him as, there wouldn't be over a dozen disgusting quotes to choose from.

He was a man for his time, that being “wartime”. Pre war he was regarded as a loose cannon and no friend of the working class. After the war the electorate dispensed with him as he was seen by many as symbolic of a society that needed changing. But as I say, for the great struggle that was waged against Nazism, there was no one better. Labour realised this and insisted, against most in the Tory Party, that they would only join the National Govt if he was PM. As to wether he was racist, he was of his time. Probably no worse than most. He should be respected for what he did for the free world in WW2 though. Without him, many of the demonstrations we see now would have led to a concentration camp. I’m a Socialist, no time for Tories. But I think what happened to his statue, was born of ignorance.

Edited June 8, 2020 by meregreen

[Enda]

4 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Does it have any affect on the debate that the India quote from Churchill may be because he was in a war against Indians? 

A bit like how some of Afghan vets have much time for Afghans or the Vietnam vets don't think too much on Vietnamese people? 

Yes, it's a very racist comment, but if he'd seen and experienced things in which to base his views (as well has horribly generalising), does that make it more understandable? 

Yes, perhaps. I am happy to have a proper, adult sit-down discussion about the causes of Churchill's racism.

But that has to be the basis. I will not listen to someone who denies his racism.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

tbf until yesterday I'd never heard of the bloke ,  so I'm not really qualified to say how he made his fortune  , however ,  for the purpose of these discussions , I believe it has been established he was a slave trader .

I do understand your point  but equally I don't think it is unreasonable to state he had ties to the area as an answer to a question  "Why Bristol" 

 

FWIW  , the wiki entry for him has "The proportion of his wealth that came from his involvement in the slave trade and slave-produced sugar is unknown, and can only be the subject of conjecture unless further evidence is unearthed. As well as this income, he made money from his trade in the other commodities mentioned above, interest from money lending, and, most likely, from other careful financial dealings.

I'm learning about the bloke too, as I'm sure the majority of us are. In terms of exactly what proportion of his wealth came from the slave trade, it's a fair point to say we can't be sure, and in fact the source footnoted in the Wikipedia article is even more hedged than your version, saying 'He was undoubtedly remunerated for his work on the committees of the Royal African Company, but whether this money was the basis of his fortune remains conjectural. It is feasible that he accrued most of his wealth from the normal commodity trades with Europe mentioned above, which he had conducted successfully for several years before his involvement with the Royal African Company', so it seems you're right to challenge the confidence of my somewhat over-simplified version in the post you're quoting.

However, at the end of the day the context of his work is clearly a large part of 'who he was' and 'what he means to the city', and I maintain that since we can't separate Colston the Benefactor and Colston the Slave Trader, then the latter is essential context to the former.

[lapal_fan]

5 minutes ago, Enda said:

Yes, perhaps. I am happy to have a proper, adult sit-down discussion about the causes of Churchill's racism.

But that has to be the basis. I will not listen to someone who denies his racism.

I still don't think it excuses him really.

I'd prefer he didn't call all Indians out based on him fighting them, but we know and understand that in the army, if you're going up against that foe, you're made to despise them (otherwise you wouldn't kill em' would ya!?) 

But to say that after the fact and still have sweeping generalisations is the worrying part, then his policies obviously made things worse. 

Just thinking out loud, but even he'd probably admit to being indoctrinated against Indians, hence his views of them. 

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

So what do we make of Anthony joshuas alleged  comments?

I've seen a very small extract, but it seems like the far right are taking his comments out of context (as they do) and running with it.

This argument has been diluted into "My issue is bigger than yours" and no one is willing to give anything, because the people partaking are retarded. 

Thus, nothing will change minus a few statues. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by lapal_fan

[meregreen]

4 minutes ago, Enda said:

Yes, perhaps. I am happy to have a proper, adult sit-down discussion about the causes of Churchill's racism.

But that has to be the basis. I will not listen to someone who denies his racism.

He was born in 1874. As I say, he was a product of his time. His views of other races, were probably the views of most people of that era. Thankfully we have moved on, still some work to do yet though.

[chrisp65]

Had India invaded and occupied Britain, I’d have far more leeway for someone using nasty words against India and Indians.

But as the glove was on the other foot, I’m not sure it helps his case that he was in conflict with them at the time.

The very reason we were in any conflict in India, was because we were a colonial power in another country. Bloody ungrateful Indians, staying over there, supplying our tea.

[sne]

BLM protests from Philly and LA.

It's powerful but I just can't help thinking about the risks. I really hope they are not killing themselves or the people they care about through this.

[Sam-AVFC]

@lapal_fan only problem with saying it might have been justified, like views on the Vietnamese, as they were at war is the British and USA were both the invading forces!

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, Enda said:

Yes, perhaps. I am happy to have a proper, adult sit-down discussion about the causes of Churchill's racism.

But that has to be the basis. I will not listen to someone who denies his racism.

thats a bit of a  strange statement , firstly  since nobody in this thread appears to be denying it and secondly  that you seem to be willing to engage in a discussion  but  that you won't listen to anything anyone says if they try to counter your argument  

So the adult sit down-down discussion is - Churchill's a racist , end of    .....

[Demitri_C]

11 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I still don't think it excuses him really.

I'd prefer he didn't call all Indians out based on him fighting them, but we know and understand that in the army, if you're going up against that foe, you're made to despise them (otherwise you wouldn't kill em' would ya!?) 

But to say that after the fact and still have sweeping generalisations is the worrying part, then his policies obviously made things worse. 

Just thinking out loud, but even he'd probably admit to being indoctrinated against Indians, hence his views of them. 

I've seen a very small extract, but it seems like the far right are taking his comments out of context (as they do) and running with it.

This argument has been diluted into "My issue is bigger than yours" and no one is willing to give anything, because the people partaking are retarded. 

Thus, nothing will change minus a few statues. 

Well if he said dont buy from whites and again i stress alledgly than that is utterly racist and i will never support the bloke again if he has said that.