Racism Part two

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

On the website under the “what we believe“ tab:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children”

Marxism 101: disrupt existing powers structures and sources of resistance to the new authority/movement etc. 

Defunding the police is a banner headline on their site. What replaces the police? The new authority/movement etc. The self-appointed leaders of the mob - see Seattle for how that’s working out.

on capitalism their position is that capitalism is racist because it perpetuates the existing system of oppression. They’re more coy about that on their website, talking about ‘economic injustice’ reform of the ‘financial system’ etc. 

The UKBLM go fund me page is more direct in their overtly Marxist agenda:

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. 

 

Thanks. I don't really agree with your interpretation on those, though. The third one I dealt with above, but on the first, again your use of the words 'overthrow' and 'replace' in your initial post suggests forbidding people who want nuclear families from having them, but that clearly isn't the message of the sentence quoted, which is talking about them modelling a different family structure for themselves ('supporting each other').

On the second, I think there is a wide range of views on both what is meant by 'defund the police', and by what would replace some or all of their functions (versions of this argument have been around for years, and different people have different spins on it). I don't know what is happening in Seattle, so thanks for the heads up, I will read about that.

[Follyfoot]

6 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Probably because we live in a mostly non racist country that see's good and bad as just that and not being driven by race ?

Example, I am not racist but I disagree with the defacement of statues and lobbing half enders at the police/police horses 

[maqroll]

Mind you @Awol, I'm not condoning violence against police or destruction of public property. But I understand the anger that inspires it. 

[PaulC]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

On the website under the “what we believe“ tab:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children”

Marxism 101: disrupt existing powers structures and sources of resistance to the new authority/movement etc. 

Defunding the police is a banner headline on their site. What replaces the police? The new authority/movement etc. The self-appointed leaders of the mob - see Seattle for how that’s working out.

on capitalism their position is that capitalism is racist because it perpetuates the existing system of oppression. They’re more coy about that on their website, talking about ‘economic injustice’ reform of the ‘financial system’ etc. 

The UKBLM go fund me page is more direct in their overtly Marxist agenda:

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. 

 

I didn't read that bit

[Seat68]

24 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It was a joke relax. Geez 

Indeed. 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, maqroll said:

But the cops that killed Breona Taylor walk free and scores more are never held accountable for all sorts of criminality against black people in the USA.

I don’t disagree, the US and UK cases are night and day for comparative purposes. Not that you’d know that if you listened to the propaganda being pumped out over here. 

[Sam-AVFC]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Agreed. I think that’s why those four officers are going to prison. 

I'm sure you're well aware that was not happening before the protests started.

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm sure you're well aware that was not happening before the protests started.

I thought one was but the other three were suspended or am i mistaken?

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think having to state that Colston's removal was blocked by shadowy groups and Tory Councillors, ie  due process failed, is getting to the point where ignorance can't be used as an excuse.

Was  removal was ever considered ?

There was , continued argument  around the wording of a new plaque but i can't see any reference to removal or a failure of due process ?

Assuming Bristol Live timelines are an accurate representation  ( they may not be)

Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay.

the 38 degrees petition to have it removed started 3 years ago  , it had 100 signatures until a few weeks ago

Quote

Getting it removed completely seemed ambitious. Bristol had elected a man who resigned his membership of the Merchant Venturers to stand for election as an independent, George Ferguson, in 2012, and the statue's presence was off the agenda.  "I now regret us not removing the Colston statue when I was Mayor to place it in Bristol Museum with full historical narrative -

even though it would have been flying in the face of majority Bristol opinion," he added.

 

Quote

If the statue was to remain - and there had been no serious move on the part of Bristol City Council to begin consultation on that - then the campaigners had instead called for, and won, the idea of placing a second plaque on the statue, outlining Colston's role in the slave trade.

 

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

is that 4/4 posts I agree with you on lately? Maybe you're softening, or I'm becoming more like Boris. Who knows  

Ha , I've just posted to stop it being 5 of 5    (not intentionally I should add )

 

[Sam-AVFC]

Spoiler: if you have spent the last weeks saying "I'm not racist but - black people don't have it bad here"

- now isn't the time"

- if we pull down statues of slavers, where does it stop?"

- most of them don't actually care, they're just opportunists"

- GEORGE SOROS"

- I don't know anyone that's offended"

- AJ is  a bastard"*

etc

Then the chances are you're a bit racist or blinded by your hatred of 'lefties'. Sure, you're not as bad as someone openly abusing or attacking people but it's suspicious that anyone is motivated to constantly undermine the validity of the protests.

*I actually saw one guy say something along the lines of 'if he cared that much why is he owned my Eddie Hearn'. Struck me as a very unfortunate choice of words considering the context.

By the way I think attacking police is wrong, pulling down statues in public is illegal and will be punished and I myself am not comfortable breaking social distancing rules in a group that big.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Sam-AVFC

[Sam-AVFC]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I thought one was but the other three were suspended or am i mistaken?

Nah the first guy only got arrested after a little while. I think it was then another week or so for the second guy.

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Was  removal was ever considered ?

There was , continued argument  around the wording of a new plaque but i can't see any reference to removal or a failure of due process ?

Assuming Bristol Live timelines are an accurate representation  ( they may not be)

Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay.

the 38 degrees petition to have it removed started 3 years ago  , it had 100 signatures until a few weeks ago

It kinda supports the argument though.

Even placing a plaque clearly stating the historical context for the statue was blocked for political and shadowy reasons.

It's an unsurprising development if people felt that democratic means and due process failed them. 

[Awol]

Just now, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm sure you're well aware that was not happening before the protests started.

Yes, as above the situation in the US is happening in an entirely different  context. 

I have no issue with statues of actual slave traders being removed, if it’s done properly and legally with consent. That fella in Bristol was working at a time when the slave trade was as old as civilisation. The truly remarkable thing was the democratic debate and decision in this country to end that trade. Not just by ourselves, but everywhere. 

The story behind the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron is amazing. At a time of press-ganged sailors it was crewed entirely by volunteers, many doing multiple tours disrupting the trade and freeing slaves - hence ‘Freetown’ the capital of what’s now Sierra Leone.

It was the most dangerous naval posting in the world, suffering 25% casualties every time through disease and combat. But ordinary men, themselves piss poor, kept going back. For decades. 

It was the most unequivocally moral thing this country has ever done, and for people who don’t find taking pride in their country revolting or absurd it’s one to hang your hat on. 

Instead, we’re lectured about our immoral past. Some of it undoubtedly was by modern standards, but again in the context of the time it was perfectly normal. Like Empires.

Context matters.

[Sam-AVFC]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Was  removal was ever considered ?

I'm not sure it was, but people have been calling for it for years. That's kind of the point.

[Clarry]

22 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There are a lot of very real grievances, I don't personally think some rather dated comedy that causes offence is one of them.

I know what you mean, it does distract, it was the use of the word "mob" that raised my eyebrows. I'm being too sensitive. As you've already said some of the Little Britain sketches were blatantly anti-bigot. The blackface thing I would say is a no-no whatever the message they are trying to put across.

I hope the rumour about Django Unchained is just that, a rumour. One of the reasons Tarantino made it was because of the bullshit Civil War movies and movies set in that period. Kind slave owners and the tragedy of brother fighting brother...

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Instead, we’re lectured about our immoral past. Some of it undoubtedly was by modern standards, but again in the context of the time it was perfectly normal. Like Empires.

I really don't understand why people get so wound up about this though. We all know slavery was bad. We all know imperialism was bad. Why are there so many British people that get angry when it's pointed out this is what our country was built on? 

Also, you say we're lectured on our immoral past. Maybe if schools did a bit more of it this whole thing would be redundant.

I remember at school we learnt about:

• Greeks & Romans
• Tudors
• WWI
• WWII
• The Cold War

That's basically it over however many years of schooling. You'll notice the big gap between Tudors and WWI which is 'The British Empire'.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Was  removal was ever considered ?

There was , continued argument  around the wording of a new plaque but i can't see any reference to removal or a failure of due process ?

Assuming Bristol Live timelines are an accurate representation  ( they may not be)

Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay.

the 38 degrees petition to have it removed started 3 years ago  , it had 100 signatures until a few weeks ago

They got 11,000 signatures on the end, or 2% of Bristol’s population. For context, 35,000 signed a petition against building a new Tesco Metro.

It doesn’t seem there was an overwhelming public desire to pull down the statue.

[Clarry]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

 

It was the most unequivocally moral thing this country has ever done, and for people who don’t find taking pride in their country revolting or absurd it’s one to hang your hat on. 

Instead, we’re lectured about our immoral past. Some of it undoubtedly was by modern standards, but again in the context of the time it was perfectly normal. Like Empires.

Context matters.

 

In his book Black Jacobins, C L R James notes that this is the way it is reported by white historians. Yes, Britain had a lot of truly moral people active in trying to abolish slavery and we should be rightly be very proud of them. It was passed in law mainly because it would cause massive economic damage to the French war effort. Without that, it is doubtful we would have abolished it so early. Maybe in time.

Great book by the way. The big philosophical dilemma of a newly revolutionised France claiming all men are equal...except for slaves in Haiti and other colonies.

[PaulC]

13 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm not sure it was, but people have been calling for it for years. That's kind of the point.

But not enough cared