Black Lives Matter

[eh up nah]

56 minutes ago, Howjy04 said:

Maybe we could start by dropping the term ‘BAME’. I have always thought it sets people apart.Dont know what other people think?

Thought that myself.  

On the face of it, when the aim is inclusivity and equality, does it make sense to identify so many groups as different? Not talking about the black community specifically there.

Badging and labelling seems to be a contradiction. Almost a getting off on the wrong foot.

Not easy.

[TheSage]

One important lesson that I learned a long time ago was that we can never truly understand what it must be like to be a black person, in the USA or indeed the UK. We think we can. We make assumptions and believe that we know best. But we don't. The best thing we can do is to listen and learn.

Blimey. It's not that long ago that it was fine to put up signs saying "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish". Interviewers and TV shows used the "n" word often and no-one turned a blind eye. The sixties and early seventies. In my lifetime.

We've come a long way since but have a very long way to go still. Windrush illustrates that all too clearly.

If I had to pass on any advice to any young person it would be to treat others in the way in which you expect them to treat you. We are all equal. No one chooses where and when they are born.

Hopefully we'll reach a situation in my lifetime where what MLK wanted becomes reality and that we judge everyone not by the colour of their skin but by their character.

If you want some powerful stuff to watch/read find some of MLKs speeches on line. Not only the famous one. There are many others. Stunning. Absolutely brilliant.

[Howjy04]

“ Am I not a man or a brother”.Wedgewood cameo.Man kneeling,how relevant is that at this moment?

[Regal Beagle]

11 minutes ago, eh up nah said:

Thought that myself.  

On the face of it, when the aim is inclusivity and equality, does it make sense to identify so many groups as different? Not talking about the black community specifically there.

Badging and labelling seems to be a contradiction. Almost a getting off on the wrong foot.

Not easy.

 

It's a minefield really. We all want the same thing. We all deride and shun the people who truly don't.

 

But how do we get there? What is the solution that will enable all people to feel as free as each other? Some more radical commentators I've seen in the media appear to be suggesting changes to the law that would in effect treat people differently based on skin colour, that sounds heinous to me. I'm not saying I have the answers at all, but I know a bad idea when I see one.

 

Ending slavery, making people equal in the eyes of the the law was quantifiably just. Ensuring the law is applied equally is tougher but should be a realistic expectation. What else can we strive for other than that, policy wise? Genuine question.

 

Language is definitely one that society can help to change and evolve. BAME is basically a euphamism for "non-white" - is it useful in this BLM context? Not sure, I use it but then again it seems to be an acceptable label for ethnic minorities currently.

 

[Andyregs]

The problem with the idea of being ‘colour blind’ so to speak, while being well meaning, does it help/allow people to miss or ignore the very real issues that minorities have? And at the same time we discuss this, we have people arguing a statue of a slaver is important because of history.

As a white guy, I’ve been racially abused a few times in my life and threatened. Not for being white, but for being Asian/terrorist/one of osamas boys! If I’ve experience that, i dread to think what minorities go through as a part of their lives. (Also shows the intelligence of your average racist). 
 

There isn’t one answer to it, though we definitely do get better with each generation. Personally I feel focusing on the poverty gap in society would have the most impact. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be in poverty, and so would benefit maybe proportionally more, but anyone in need would benefit regardless of who they are. Closest you’ll get to a real ‘colour blind’ solution.

 

[Iron Curtain]

For those interested Harvard created a test a while ago that tests for UNCONSCIOUS bias. They have done versions for many things, but there is one for race if you select it.

You will need to be on a laptop or computer to do it... There are a load of questions before and after the test, but if you dont have time you can just push "decline to answer" to save time. The test itself only takes a few minutes.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

I'm not asking anyone to share results as its personal and if you get an unconscious bias towards white people, don't worry, its doesn't mean you are racist, it means that subconsciously the messages that you are given every day have infiltrated.

But only when we know our subconscious bias can we work on it and improve.

[geosname]

When do we set up the retraining camps?

[Davebrad]

11 hours ago, Andyregs said:

But he was a slaver who was put on a pedestal. He had a statue proclaiming him virtuous because he gave money to the city from slavery. Does charity absolve someone’s actions? Would you be happy for a Jimmy saville statue because of his charity work? 

Should the Russians have left the Stalin statue up? Should the Iraqis have left saddams statue up? 

Jews do remember the holocaust, and rightfully so, but they don’t do it with a statue of hitler. 
 

my point is/was, is that the statue was put up by the people of Bristol in 1895, 174yrs after his death, to recognise him being a philanthropist, member of parliament, and merchant, as many industrialists in that age had slavery connections because in those days slave trading was a legitimate undertaking, since the 60's it is changing for the better because our attitudes and thinking have changed.

if the Russian and Iraqi people had wanted theirdictators statues they would have left them up

    but to sanitise this part of history is to deny  it happened... the Guardian had a article in 2017 about the removal of Confederate monuments,  it also mentions Nelsons statue because he was not untouched by slavery in that age, could he be on the list...

a news item today "sadiq khan is setting up a commission to ensure the citys monuments reflect its diversity, it will review statues, murals, street art, street names and other memorials and consider which legacies should be celebrated."

   now why is my countrys  historys  statues and memorials being purged because attitudes are changing?

[Iron Curtain]

11 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

my point is/was, is that the statue was put up by the people of Bristol in 1895, 174yrs after his death, to recognise him being a philanthropist, member of parliament, and merchant, as many industrialists in that age had slavery connections because in those days slave trading was a legitimate undertaking, since the 60's it is changing for the better because our attitudes and thinking have changed.

if the Russian and Iraqi people had wanted theirdictators statues they would have left them up

    but to sanitise this part of history is to deny  it happened... the Guardian had a article in 2017 about the removal of Confederate monuments,  it also mentions Nelsons statue because he was not untouched by slavery in that age, could he be on the list...

a news item today "sadiq khan is setting up a commission to ensure the citys monuments reflect its diversity, it will review statues, murals, street art, street names and other memorials and consider which legacies should be celebrated."

   now why is my countrys  historys  statues and memorials being purged because attitudes are changing?

"Your Country"

[Andyregs]

4 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

my point is/was, is that the statue was put up by the people of Bristol in 1895, 174yrs after his death, to recognise him being a philanthropist, member of parliament, and merchant, as many industrialists in that age had slavery connections because in those days slave trading was a legitimate undertaking, since the 60's it is changing for the better because our attitudes and thinking have changed.

if the Russian and Iraqi people had wanted theirdictators statues they would have left them up

    but to sanitise this part of history is to deny  it happened... the Guardian had a article in 2017 about the removal of Confederate monuments,  it also mentions Nelsons statue because he was not untouched by slavery in that age, could he be on the list...

a news item today "sadiq khan is setting up a commission to ensure the citys monuments reflect its diversity, it will review statues, murals, street art, street names and other memorials and consider which legacies should be celebrated."

   now why is my countrys  historys  statues and memorials being purged because attitudes are changing?

I understand your point. But they were wrong. We know better now.

If the Bristol people wanted their statues they would have left them up. The Russians and Iraqis didn’t petition for them down, they pulled them down.

The confederate statues are a disgrace. They were erected during the time of Jim Crow laws in order to intimidate and send a message to black people. It’s a really bad example to give for preserving history. I agree it’s probably likely many back then would not be untouched by slavery, at least the ruling classes anyway, but there is a difference between untouched and being a slaver/confederate and using a statue to celebrate such people or intimidate minorities. 

Why? Because we are becoming better hopefully. Some still want to celebrate such things unfortunately. Like I said before, nazism is a part of German history, but they go as far as banning such things. A statue celebrates a person. 

[Iron Curtain]

15 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

my point is/was, is that the statue was put up by the people of Bristol in 1895, 174yrs after his death, to recognise him being a philanthropist, member of parliament, and merchant, as many industrialists in that age had slavery connections because in those days slave trading was a legitimate undertaking, since the 60's it is changing for the better because our attitudes and thinking have changed.

if the Russian and Iraqi people had wanted theirdictators statues they would have left them up

    but to sanitise this part of history is to deny  it happened... the Guardian had a article in 2017 about the removal of Confederate monuments,  it also mentions Nelsons statue because he was not untouched by slavery in that age, could he be on the list...

a news item today "sadiq khan is setting up a commission to ensure the citys monuments reflect its diversity, it will review statues, murals, street art, street names and other memorials and consider which legacies should be celebrated."

   now why is my countrys  historys  statues and memorials being purged because attitudes are changing?

The argument of "It was normal at the time" really really really isn't a good one to use... so many things that used to be normal are now recognised as being very very very very wrong. 

[Davebrad]

6 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

"In a democracy" means what exactly?

Protests turn ugly all the time, regardless of the cause.  There are elements that turn out for the trouble in much the same way elements turn out at big Vale away games.  Even environmentalists who are painted as passive tree huggers clash with police etc...  it happens.  Now usually I would agree and absolutely, this should not be a green light to defaced and destroy at will.  However, you are playing into the hands of the white establishment here without knowing it.   Just read the quote that Tunstallpotter put on the Covid thread from Martin Luther King and you should realise you are advocating the very problem.

Every once in a while, a law gets broken in such a way that rather than being an act of yobish behaviour or vandalism, it becomes something far more symbolic and acts as a turning point - this was one of those moments.

Having people like Boris Johnson talking about holding those to account merely proves the point that change is needed as us white folk still dont actually get it.

It's quite a puerile argument to suggest it's a signal that people can do this all the time now and further more its insulting to the intelligence of those who are protesting.  This was not the act of pissed up hooligans smashing shop windows and running riot because England lost a game of football, this was black people removing a statue of a <ovf censored> slave trader...  every single one should be unceremoniously ripped out in my opinion.  Even the very notion that anybody thinks that it's ok to literally put these people on a pedestal is sickening.

Further more, they have been trying for quite some time to get the statue removed through democratic means.  The problem is of course, of so called democratic process is choca with privileged white people, which of course is part of the problems black people face every day.

No, TT, you are completely missing the significance of this and in my opinion, on this occasion the police got it absolutely right and there should be no further action.

  I don't totally disagree with you, only on two points in the video shown 90%+ were white people pulling the statue down, and rolling it to the harbour, also what they did was against the law so the police chief interviewed was derelict in his duty to uphold the law to which he admitted to, incidently he also said it would have caused problems or incite the crowd so he thought better not do anything... have we heard this statement before? something to do with Asian grooming gangs...

 

 

[Davebrad]

12 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

The argument of "It was normal at the time" really really really isn't a good one to use... so many things that used to be normal are now recognised as being very very very very wrong. 

maybe so, but the point is at the time it was normal...

[Fosse69]

17 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

my point is/was, is that the statue was put up by the people of Bristol in 1895, 174yrs after his death, to recognise him being a philanthropist, member of parliament, and merchant, as many industrialists in that age had slavery connections because in those days slave trading was a legitimate undertaking, since the 60's it is changing for the better because our attitudes and thinking have changed.

if the Russian and Iraqi people had wanted theirdictators statues they would have left them up

    but to sanitise this part of history is to deny  it happened... the Guardian had a article in 2017 about the removal of Confederate monuments,  it also mentions Nelsons statue because he was not untouched by slavery in that age, could he be on the list...

a news item today "sadiq khan is setting up a commission to ensure the citys monuments reflect its diversity, it will review statues, murals, street art, street names and other memorials and consider which legacies should be celebrated."

   now why is my countrys  historys  statues and memorials being purged because attitudes are changing?

I assume the `purge` will be limited to the major slave traders, there cannot be all that many.  The place for history is in books, schools and museums, and by all  means celebrate heroes with monuments. Attitudes change with education and all aspects need to be taught. The rise and fall of the 3rd Reich is available for all to see in the middle of Berlin,  in German and English,  especially for children.  Conveniently on a preserved section of the Berlin Wall, another history lesson. 

[Fosse69]

6 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

maybe so, but the point is at the time it was normal...

Do we celebrate sending children up chimneys ?