Renaming streets

[Bristolhibby]

They seem to be cool with him marrying kids so I'm sure it will be fine, same way Christians seem fine about Mary being about 14 when she had Jesus

Also what with him being the Prophet of Allah.

J

[ronaldo7]

The 2 Scottish ex forces groups I belong to have cancelled their trip to London after assurances that the cenotaph would be physically protected by scaffolding and boards. The right wing like EDL and sc um of that ilk have nothing to do with ex military.

Glad to hear they've come to the right conclusion.

It's really not for them to be protecting monuments these days. That's for the police to be doing, as I said on another post.

I see the mayor of London is on top of it again, saving those ex squaddies some cash.

[Kato]

Because in my experience whilst serving, I have never seen or imagine any of my former comrades behaving in such a disgusting manner. Time for me to permanently leave The Holy Ground as this does not appear like debate, feels like I constantly being attacked regardless what I post.I'm not attacking you. Just a question regarding what seems like completely opposing standpoints your capable of adopting.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Nothing at all, I'm sure the guy with the Ulster flag really is from Ulster and the one with the orange scarf was merely paying tribute to Dick Advocaat.

Just like the soldier on the pitch at the same game with the 'No Surrender' scarf was merely referring to his role in Afghanistan or Iraq. And the ones singing along to the Sectarian ditties at that match really believed they were 'up to their knees in Afghan blood'

As you say, all perfectly innocent.

I didn’t say innocent, I asked you what you felt it was indicative of. What it tells me is that these guys are rangers fans. Them being in the army has nothing to with them being horrible.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52966077

FWIW, I know many ex-service personnel who are not racist, but they acknowledge there is a problem link which exists.

The biggest rat's nest is amongst ex military. Their social media groups are awash with far right rhetoric. Most of the ex soldiers on them are just there to try and catch up with old mates but many of the sites are run by or have been infiltrated by the far right.

[Future17]

Because in my experience whilst serving, I have never seen or imagine any of my former comrades behaving in such a disgusting manner. Time for me to permanently leave The Holy Ground as this does not appear like debate, feels like I constantly being attacked regardless what I post.

I haven't seen anyone attacking you. This section of the site is for discussion and that includes posters disagreeing with each other's points of view. I've seen people agreeing with you on certain topics but I'm sure you know that by posting your opinions online, you're opening yourself up to being in a minority on any given subject.

Given your background, I'm a little surprised by how sensitive your last post seems.

[G B Young]

They’ll need to change the Washington part as well, George Washington was a slave owner. Which also begs the question, will Washington DC now be renamed?

Or maybe just demolished.

[G B Young]

Because in my experience whilst serving, I have never seen or imagine any of my former comrades behaving in such a disgusting manner. Time for me to permanently leave The Holy Ground as this does not appear like debate, feels like I constantly being attacked regardless what I post.

As you and others have pointed out, it's easy enough these days to dig up dirt on any number of institutions/organisations if you want to create an agenda that said organisation is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc when in fact in many cases it is only a minority who are giving the majority a bad name.

You are right IMHO to express strong feelings about the Cenotaph being vandalised. The vast majority of folk from all walks of life would condemn it and it's little wonder it has aroused strong feelings. It's sad that it needs to be boarded up to protect it from a minority of morons who would only be undermining public sympathy for Black Lives Matter by damaging it.

The implication that if you feel that way you must be a far right extremist is laughably wide of the mark.

[lapsedhibee]

As you and others have pointed out, it's easy enough these days to dig up dirt on any number of institutions/organisations if you want to create an agenda that said organisation is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc when in fact in many cases it is only a minority who are giving the majority a bad name.

You are right IMHO to express strong feelings about the Cenotaph being vandalised. The vast majority of folk from all walks of life would condemn it and it's little wonder it has aroused strong feelings. It's sad that it needs to be boarded up to protect it from a minority of morons who would only be undermining public sympathy for Black Lives Matter by damaging it.

The implication that if you feel that way you must be a far right extremist is laughably wide of the mark.
Who's implying that? :confused:

[Kato]

Who's implying that? :confused:Another straw man.

Its like Worzel Gummidge's family reunion.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Bobby Bruce being daubed a racist as well now...Good to see this statue thing didn’t get out of control too quickly...

[McD]

In Berlin they have little brass plates on the ground outside the houses of where jews lived that were then sent to the concentration camps with their names on. Maybe something similar to highlight our seedy historical buildings or statues.


that sounds like an incredibly poignant and powerful reminder

[McD]

They'd just need to shorten their name to Washington Reds if they follow those token examples. That's probably what a lot of folk call them anyway.



they’ve been getting a lot of criticism for a few years about the name, although the guy who owns them has rebuffed all calls to change so far... wouldn’t be surprised if he changes tack soon

[G B Young]

Who's implying that? :confused:

I just thought Berwickhibby was taking some undue flak for expressing his feelings about something he feels passionate about. He made it clear he has no truck with BNP-style nutjobs appointing themselves as vigilantes and it seems to me that the (ex-military?) group he's associated with are motivated more by comradeship or a sense of respect. However, there's an implication in some of the posts and pics in response that only those with extreme far right views would take it upon themselves to make their feelings about damage to the national war memorial publicly known.

[ronaldo7]

Bobby Bruce being daubed a racist as well now...Good to see this statue thing didn’t get out of control too quickly...

All clean now.

How easy was that. 👍

[hibsbollah]

I just thought Berwickhibby was taking some undue flak for expressing his feelings about something he feels passionate about. He made it clear he has no truck with BNP-style nutjobs appointing themselves as vigilantes and it seems to me that the (ex-military?) group he's associated with are motivated more by comradeship or a sense of respect. However, there's an implication in some of the posts and pics in response that only those with extreme far right views would take it upon themselves to make their feelings about damage to the national war memorial publicly known.

There is no such implication, you keep repeating this but it’s not evident in any posts I’ve read.
I had no problem with Berwickhibbys posts, a few posters disagreed with him and a few posters agreed, I don’t understand why there’s any accusations that he took any flak or abuse. Christ, he should try defending Corbyn on here if he wants to know what flak’s like :duck:

[G B Young]

There is no such implication, you keep repeating this but it’s not evident in any posts I’ve read.
I had no problem with Berwickhibbys posts, a few posters disagreed with him and a few posters agreed, I don’t understand why there’s any accusations that he took any flak or abuse. Christ, he should try defending Corbyn on here if he wants to know what flak’s like :duck:

Fair enough. I'm maybe just reading more into it than you are. As you say, things are by and large pretty even-handed on here with the occasional exception.

Defending Corbyn though...that's clearly beyond the pale :wink: :greengrin

[G B Young]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-52992669

Apology now due from the surviving members of the Beatles? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-52992669

Apology now due from the surviving members of the Beatles? :dunno:

Ridiculous. Everybody knows it celebrates the Kate Hudson character in Almost Famous.

[Sir David Gray]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-52992669

Apology now due from the surviving members of the Beatles? :dunno:

This is pathetic and is now beginning to detract from the very legitimate and serious points raised at the start of all of this and actually threatens to undermine and trivialise the very cause that these people claim to be campaigning for.

[Kato]

This is pathetic and is now beginning to detract from the very legitimate and serious points raised at the start of all of this and actually threatens to undermine and trivialise the very cause that these people claim to be campaigning for.

Which is exactly how these narratives go. Takes the heat off Govts.

[Radium]

https://twitter.com/paulduncanmcg/status/1271380726160797697?s=21

A lesson in how you can be manipulated on social media


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

The wee dafties have daubed some graffiti on the Falkirk wheel as well as the Bruce monument.

They must think we're zipped up the back with the BLM tag.

[Rocky]

We may not be using these facilities as a means of celebrating those who funded them, but by using them for their practical purpose we are arguably benefiting from the funding source of those facilities (eg slavery). Does that mean we're fine with embracing the 'good' these benefactors did but are less comfortable being confronted with statues erected in honour of these 'good' deeds? As Smartie suggests, were these figures honoured for more than just the 'bad' things they did? Even a couple of centuries ago, I'd be surprised if anyone proposed erecting a statue to somebody solely on the basis of their contribution to the slave industry.

I get the thinking that even a small, token gesture like changing a street name sends out some sort of positive message but I do wonder if it's such a bad thing for a city to live with its good and bad sides on view rather than only allow the bits we approve of to remain front of mind.

May I ask, if Jimmy Saville (pre revelations about his behaviour) had donated ten million quid to Hibs to build the main stand and Hibs had in turn named the stand after him and put a statue of him in the car park, which of the following would you be in favour of:
a) dropping the name from the stand
b) removing the statue
c) knocking down the main stand

I'd go with a and b. I doubt you'll convince me you'd choose anything other than the same but happy to listen.

[danhibees1875]

May I ask, if Jimmy Saville (pre revelations about his behaviour) had donated ten million quid to Hibs to build the main stand and Hibs had in turn named the stand after him and put a statue of him in the car park, which of the following would you be in favour of:
a) dropping the name from the stand
b) removing the statue
c) knocking down the main stand

I'd go with a and b. I doubt you'll convince me you'd choose anything other than the same but happy to listen.

A and B for me too.

Are they comparable though?

From what I can see there were a lot of flimsy reasons that people generally clung onto that justified slavery, it wasn't something that people were doing illegally.

It's absolutely right that the entirety of the actions of individuals are considered and I think plaques and information will see to that. Tearing down and removing tributes to people who done other good things on the basis of a, absolutely correct, change in public perception of one thing doesn't sit right with me though.

[Rocky]

A and B for me too.

Are they comparable though?

From what I can see there were a lot of flimsy reasons that people generally clung onto that justified slavery, it wasn't something that people were doing illegally.

It's absolutely right that the entirety of the actions of individuals are considered and I think plaques and information will see to that. Tearing down and removing tributes to people who done other good things on the basis of a, absolutely correct, change in public perception of one thing doesn't sit right with me though.

In what way are they not comparable?

[danhibees1875]

In what way are they not comparable?

I just don't think you can compare the two as easily as that.

It's a hard one to explain exactly without sounding like it's in some way justifying slavery but the actions at the time were in line with law and as far as I can tell not even against the general publics stance. It's only 2/300 years of progressed thinking that can so resolutely say that the actions were wrong.

[Rocky]

I just don't think you can compare the two as easily as that.

It's a hard one to explain exactly without sounding like it's in some way justifying slavery but the actions at the time were in line with law and as far as I can tell not even against the general publics stance. It's only 2/300 years of progressed thinking that can so resolutely say that the actions were wrong.
The age of consent in a number of countries even now is 12. Would you consider defending Saville's behaviour on the basis that it's in line with the laws and public stance in some countries? Would it be ok if he carried it out in those countries?

[Sir David Gray]

The age of consent in a number of countries even now is 12. Would you consider defending Saville's behaviour on the basis that it's in line with the laws and public stance in some countries? Would it be ok if he carried it out in those countries?

Jimmy Savile hasn't just been accused of having sex with people below the age of consent in the UK, he's been accused of raping them, including one patient that was brain dead. Even in countries that have an age of consent of 12, he would be deemed a criminal.

[Mon Dieu4]

May I ask, if Jimmy Saville (pre revelations about his behaviour) had donated ten million quid to Hibs to build the main stand and Hibs had in turn named the stand after him and put a statue of him in the car park, which of the following would you be in favour of:
a) dropping the name from the stand
b) removing the statue
c) knocking down the main stand

I'd go with a and b. I doubt you'll convince me you'd choose anything other than the same but happy to listen.

Wouldn't happen, everyone knows Saville would have donated to Hearts

[Rocky]

Jimmy Savile hasn't just been accused of having sex with people below the age of consent in the UK, he's been accused of raping them, including one patient that was brain dead. Even in countries that have an age of consent of 12, he would be deemed a criminal.

Ok I'm not professing to be a Jimmy Saville expert but I'd suggest you're rather missing the point.

[The Modfather]

Ok I'm not professing to be a Jimmy Saville expert but I'd suggest you're rather missing the point.

Jimmy Saville is the most infamous man in the UK of the last 50 years or more. I’m not sure it’s a good comparison with the majority of statues and street names that the majority of people couldn’t have told you who they were far less what they did in their lives until a few days ago.

A fairer comparison, IMO, would be if one of Hibs’ founding fathers was found to have had slaves or some such. Other than the fact I’d view it negatively, don’t think I’d see it much different to how I see our Irish roots. A part of our history but not much relevance to the modern inclusive club we are today. So while I probably wouldn’t lose any sleep if it happened wouldn’t particularly be in favour of changing something like a street or stadium name in that scenario.

[Sir David Gray]

Ok I'm not professing to be a Jimmy Saville expert but I'd suggest you're rather missing the point.

I'm not, I understand the point you're trying to make but you're comparing two very different things in two very different eras.

Jimmy Savile allegedly committed some of the most horrific crimes imaginable against children that sadly only really came to light after he had died. Slave traders from the 16th and 17th century openly did what they did as it was an acceptable thing to do at that time. Looking back as humanity has evolved, of course any right minded person will think that slavery is abhorrent and making money from it was immoral, I don't think anyone's denying that.

The point is that it was a widely accepted practice back in that period of history and the people who made money from it were not doing anything illegal at that time.

I've said earlier in this thread that I don't particularly have a problem with statues of slave traders being moved into museums but I don't believe tearing them down and dumping them into a harbour is necessarily a helpful thing to do. I think it's important that we learn from history and try and improve as a species. What happened 3-400 years ago with slavery was wrong and the overwhelming majority of people in the world today would accept that. However it's part of history and it's important not to just highlight the good parts.

[Rocky]

I'm not, I understand the point you're trying to make but you're comparing two very different things in two very different eras.

Jimmy Savile allegedly committed some of the most horrific crimes imaginable against children that sadly only really came to light after he had died. Slave traders from the 16th and 17th century openly did what they did as it was an acceptable thing to do at that time. Looking back as humanity has evolved, of course any right minded person will think that slavery is abhorrent and making money from it was immoral, I don't think anyone's denying that.

The point is that it was a widely accepted practice back in that period of history and the people who made money from it were not doing anything illegal at that time.

I've said earlier in this thread that I don't particularly have a problem with statues of slave traders being moved into museums but I don't believe tearing them down and dumping them into a harbour is necessarily a helpful thing to do. I think it's important that we learn from history and try and improve as a species. What happened 3-400 years ago with slavery was wrong and the overwhelming majority of people in the world today would accept that. However it's part of history and it's important not to just highlight the good parts.

The post I originally replied to was GB Young suggesting that if we wish to remove names and statues then we should also be knocking down the buildings etc that those people funded. My position on that, translating it to Hibs terms again, is that if Thomas Colston had funded the build of our stadium (and if it was still standing all this time later) I'd want his name removed from it, and his statue removed from the grounds, but I wouldn't be advocating knocking the whole stadium down.

I'm not in favour of violently removing statues either, unless the democratic process has failed. In the case of Bristol it had. Statues exist for the glorification of the individual depicted, they're not history in and of themselves and so they should be methodically removed to history museums if the individual doesn't deserve glorification based on our current societal beliefs. Street names in my view are different (I admit I'm partly influenced in this view by the massive pain in the arse it would be to change them all) and I do think that they reflect history to some extent, although clearly the choice of name in the first instance was about glorification of the individual.

My position on the cenotaph is that any desecration of a way memorial is a disgrace. I'm a little more torn on Churchill, personally I'd tear them all down but I do accept that many people see his achievements in the second World war as a core part of the national psyche so it might be a step too far. I'd absolutely insist that a more rounded view of the man and some of the atrocities he was responsible for should be taught in school though, if it was up to me.

[lapsedhibee]

Slave traders from the 16th and 17th century openly did what they did as it was an acceptable thing to do at that time. Looking back as humanity has evolved, of course any right minded person will think that slavery is abhorrent and making money from it was immoral, I don't think anyone's denying that.

The point is that it was a widely accepted practice back in that period of history and the people who made money from it were not doing anything illegal at that time.

Don't think this covers Dundas's case. He was in Government in 1792 by which time slavery was not widely accepted. He strove to delay its abolition until 1807. The boy done bad.

[CapitalGreen]

Don't think this covers Dundas's case. He was in Government in 1792 by which time slavery was not widely accepted. He strove to delay its abolition until 1807. The boy done bad.

Also, the Edward Colston statue was completed in 1895, 30 years after the American Civil war ended where many lost their lives fighting to end enslavement. So slavery was no longer widely accepted at that point either.

[Bristolhibby]

This is pretty cool.

Some history we would have never known, but for hoying Colston in Bristol Harbour.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/clue-leading-people-who-installed-4219104

J

[G B Young]

May I ask, if Jimmy Saville (pre revelations about his behaviour) had donated ten million quid to Hibs to build the main stand and Hibs had in turn named the stand after him and put a statue of him in the car park, which of the following would you be in favour of:
a) dropping the name from the stand
b) removing the statue
c) knocking down the main stand

I'd go with a and b. I doubt you'll convince me you'd choose anything other than the same but happy to listen.

I said in an earlier post that it would obviously be impractical and unrealistic to tear down every street or public building built by the money of controversial figures from history. If we applied that approach to the UK's slave trade links we'd need to pull down big chunks of cities such as Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow - along with numerous buildings in Edinburgh's New Town. That's not what I'm advocating, just pointing out that removing statues or changing street names does nothing to change the fact these buildings wouldn't have existed without the largesse of these people. Should we try to hide that or should we simply live with our past and learn from it, warts and all? There are plenty of more wholesome aspects of our cities which stand alongside the monuments to the less savoury parts.

As for Savile, as others have pointed out I'm not sure the under the radar actions of a modern day serial sexual predator bear comparison to those of slave owning businessmen from centuries ago whose unpleasant dealings were nevertheless legal and a matter of public record. However, you could argue that while many of these historical figures may never have walked the streets or entered the buildings which bear their names, the building which is most associated with Savile, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, benefited massively from the millions he raised for charity and because of that he appears to have been able to regularly walk its wards unchallenged to carry out his alleged abuses. As such the building could be described as a notorious crime scene and that's certainly an uncomfortable legacy for it to live with.

Oh, and in answer to your (thankfully hypothetical) question about Savile funding our main stand I actually think there would probably be quite a lot of pressure on the club to rebuild it rather than just take the name down.

[hibsbollah]

When the legality or otherwise of slavery got brought into this discussion the plot got badly lost.
It’s about the immorality not the legality of slavery that is the issue at hand.
More people getting exercised by whether they can watch The Mighty Boosh on their chosen platform or whether a statue they knew anything about two weeks ago is still there, than centuries of oppression and mass murder. Tragic.

[Andy74]

When the legality or otherwise of slavery got brought into this discussion the plot got badly lost.
It’s about the immorality not the legality of slavery that is the issue at hand.
More people getting exercised by whether they can watch The Mighty Boosh on their chosen platform or whether a statue they knew anything about two weeks ago is still there, than centuries of oppression and mass murder. Tragic.

What also doesn’t help is wholly inaccurate assessments of the conversations or what people care about such as this one.

[hibsbollah]

What also doesn’t help is wholly inaccurate assessments of the conversations or what people care about such as this one.

That’s true, you’ve shown previously you can make an idiot of yourself on here without any help from me :agree:

[The Modfather]

That’s true, you’ve shown previously you can make an idiot of yourself on here without any help from me :agree:

Where does a clash of ego’s and insults sit on the scale of this thread? Closer to debating slavery or the tragic end of discussing The Mighty Boosh?

[BroxburnHibee]

If this thread is just going to descend into posters taking pop shots at each other then perhaps its time for it to close?

[danhibees1875]

When the legality or otherwise of slavery got brought into this discussion the plot got badly lost.
It’s about the immorality not the legality of slavery that is the issue at hand.
More people getting exercised by whether they can watch The Mighty Boosh on their chosen platform or whether a statue they knew anything about two weeks ago is still there, than centuries of oppression and mass murder. Tragic.

If it was me that brought the legality matter into it then it was part of the same sentence as talking about how people generally perceived it at the time, which is loosely the morality around the issue.

[Keith_M]

....
More people getting exercised by whether they can watch The Mighty Boosh on their chosen platform or whether a statue they knew anything about two weeks ago is still there, than centuries of oppression and mass murder. Tragic.


That’s true, you’ve shown previously you can make an idiot of yourself on here without any help from me :agree:


If you want to make a valid point, needlessly judging and insulting your intended audience isn't usually the best way to go about it.

It's entirely possible to simultaneously be disgusted by racism AND be annoyed at some people's reaction to current events.

I think a very appropriate phrase would be, 'it's not all black and white'.

[Sir David Gray]

If it was me that brought the legality matter into it then it was part of the same sentence as talking about how people generally perceived it at the time, which is loosely the morality around the issue.

I think that's absolutely crucial to the debate and I agree with that.

Being a slave trader was a legitimate business to be involved in back in the 17th century and I think the context surrounding that point is important.

[hibsbollah]

If you want to make a valid point, needlessly judging and insulting your intended audience isn't usually the best way to go about it.

It's entirely possible to simultaneously be disgusted by racism AND be annoyed at some people's reaction to current events.

I think a very appropriate phrase would be, 'it's not all black and white'.

I can take most posters making snide wee comments about my posts.
When that poster is the peddler of the most pointless and circular rubbish on this site it’s a bit more difficult. Hence my sarcasm, if it’s caused genuine offence I of course unreservedly apologise. And I await my box set being taking off the air and reinstated overnight.

[hibsbollah]

I think that's absolutely crucial to the debate and I agree with that.

Being a slave trader was a legitimate business to be involved in back in the 17th century and I think the context surrounding that point is important.

It wasn’t ‘legitimate’.
It was ‘legal’.

But I repeat, the legality or otherwise of the activity is wholly irrelevant to the current protests or the motivation of the protestors. It’s so obvious I don’t even understand why it’s being debated.

[Sir David Gray]

It wasn’t ‘legitimate’.
It was ‘legal’.

But I repeat, the legality or otherwise of the activity is wholly irrelevant to the current protests or the motivation of the protestors. It’s so obvious I don’t even understand why it’s being debated.

The definition of legitimate is "conforming to the law or the rules", if what the slave traders were doing was legal then it was legitimate, no? :confused:

[The Modfather]

Getting this thread back on track. I asked a flippant question about George Washington and renaming Washington DC when the Washington Redskins were being talked about.

I wonder if there’s actually a wider point though. Are people defined by being a slave owner? How is George Washington now viewed? Can you separate the good (founding father) from the bad (slave owner) of a persons life?

[hibsbollah]

The definition of legitimate is "conforming to the law or the rules", if what the slave traders were doing was legal then it was legitimate, no? :confused:

I think the most usual definition of legitimate has a moral element to it. ‘That’s a legitimate debate to have’ is a well understood sentence, but ‘a legal debate’ isn’t the same at all.

[neil7908]

I think that's absolutely crucial to the debate and I agree with that.

Being a slave trader was a legitimate business to be involved in back in the 17th century and I think the context surrounding that point is important.

That's a pretty terrifying view imo. We ended slavery because people were able to recognise around this time that it was abhorrent and fought tireless to end it. If some of our ancestors could see this I'm not sure why we are giving slavers the benefit of the doubt now?

I'm extremely comfortable judging people 300 years ago based on our morals, and I'm sure generations ahead of us will be disgusted at some of the things we do now that are legal.

There are countries where stoning is legal, as are marrying what would be classed as children in our country. That doesn't make them any less wrong even though they are "legitimate" in their legal systems.

[CapitalGreen]

The definition of legitimate is "conforming to the law or the rules", if what the slave traders were doing was legal then it was legitimate, no? :confused:

The Colston statue went up 30 years after the US had a civil war over the legality of enslavement.

And while slave trading may have been legitimate in a legal sense 300 years ago, a lot of the slave traders actions were illegal. Injured or ill slaves were routinely thrown to their deaths off ships as they were no longer deemed to have any trade value. The female slaves, some of them children were subject to abhorrent abuse by their captors while in transit which the slave traders turned a blind eye to. You can try and legitimise them all you want but your current stance shows an ignorance to what these slave traders put people through, it wasn’t simply a transaction of buying and selling people.

[Sir David Gray]

I think the most usual definition of legitimate has a moral element to it. ‘That’s a legitimate debate to have’ is a well understood sentence, but ‘a legal debate’ isn’t the same at all.

I'm not sure I just referred to the Oxford dictionary.

Either way it was something that was allowed, which was the point I was making.


That's a pretty terrifying view imo. We ended slavery because people were able to recognise around this time that it was abhorrent and fought tireless to end it. If some of our ancestors could see this I'm not sure why we are giving slavers the benefit of the doubt now?

I'm extremely comfortable judging people 300 years ago based on our morals, and I'm sure generations ahead of us will be disgusted at some of the things we do now that are legal.

There are countries where stoning is legal, as are marrying what would be classed as children in our country. That doesn't make them any less wrong even though they are "legitimate" in their legal systems.

Who's giving them the benefit of the doubt? What they did was awful and the practice is thankfully consigned to the history books but the statues are still useful in a historical context.

I'm sure that some legal/legitimate ways of making money now could well be deemed unacceptable in 300 years time - maybe butchers perhaps.

The point I was making was by all means remove the statues of slave traders from city centres and move them into museums but completely destroying them isn't the way to go in my opinion.

[Sir David Gray]

The Colston statue went up 30 years after the US had a civil war over the legality of enslavement.

And while slave trading may have been legitimate in a legal sense 300 years ago, a lot of the slave traders actions were illegal. Injured or ill slaves were routinely thrown to their deaths off ships as they were no longer deemed to have any trade value. The female slaves, some of them children were subject to abhorrent abuse by their captors while in transit which the slave traders turned a blind eye to. You can try and legitimise them all you want but your current stance shows an ignorance to what these slave traders put people through, it wasn’t simply a transaction of buying and selling people.

I'm well aware that slavery wasn't just a case of buying and selling people. People did bad things in a much less civilised period in human history, what can I say?

The Romans were often a nasty bunch do we stop learning about them and lauding them for the great things they did like building roads? The Tudors are often learned about in school despite Henry VIII's treatment of his wives. I'm quite sure you could dig up some dirt on Robert The Bruce if you tried to.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm happy to see the statues of slave traders moved into museums but I don't think they should be tipped into a harbour.

[Bristolhibby]

The definition of legitimate is "conforming to the law or the rules", if what the slave traders were doing was legal then it was legitimate, no? :confused:

Suppose a Methodist owning a brewery is Legal, but not a legitimate business for them.

Also a devout Muslim owning a booze serving casino.

Or a Jew owning a pig farm and slaughterhouse.

Or a 17th Century man being a slaver.

J

[Bristolhibby]

I'm well aware that slavery wasn't just a case of buying and selling people. People did bad things in a much less civilised period in human history, what can I say?

The Romans were often a nasty bunch do we stop learning about them and lauding them for the great things they did like building roads? The Tudors are often learned about in school despite Henry VIII's treatment of his wives. I'm quite sure you could dig up some dirt on Robert The Bruce if you tried to.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm happy to see the statues of slave traders moved into museums but I don't think they should be tipped into a harbour.

Looks like that’s what will happen to Colston.

He had to go in the Harbour to get to the museum though.

Power to the People!

J

[Bristolhibby]

I'm not sure I just referred to the Oxford dictionary.

Either way it was something that was allowed, which was the point I was making.



Who's giving them the benefit of the doubt? What they did was awful and the practice is thankfully consigned to the history books but the statues are still useful in a historical context.

I'm sure that some legal/legitimate ways of making money now could well be deemed unacceptable in 300 years time - maybe butchers perhaps.

The point I was making was by all means remove the statues of slave traders from city centres and move them into museums but completely destroying them isn't the way to go in my opinion.

Also, pretty sure there’s no statues to butchers.

Slavers statues have to be removed. Ram them in a museum if it makes people happy. But they should not be doing the job of a statue - To venerate good people who did great things.

And if they have to go via the oggen on the way to the museum. So be it.

J

[G B Young]

Getting this thread back on track. I asked a flippant question about George Washington and renaming Washington DC when the Washington Redskins were being talked about.

I wonder if there’s actually a wider point though. Are people defined by being a slave owner? How is George Washington now viewed? Can you separate the good (founding father) from the bad (slave owner) of a persons life?

It's a fair point and one that was raised a few pages back by somebody else (Smartie I think). It's hard to imagine any of the statues erected to these people were done so as testimony to their slave ownership. 'Celebrated slave owner' is hardly likely to figure on any original plaque. Most likely, as you say, the perceived 'good' they did underpinned the rationale for raising a statue to them.

The problem of course with slave owners in particular is that the 'good' they did was mostly funded by the 'bad'.

This from Churchill's grand-daughter today:

The war-time prime minster was voted 'Greatest ever Briton' in a 2002 BBC poll and Ms Soames added: "Nobody would deny my grandfather held views which now are regarded as unacceptable but weren't necessarily then. However, he was a complex man, with infinitely more good than bad in the ledger of his life.

"If some people are so infuriated by seeing a statue of him it might be safer in a museum but I think Parliament Square would be a poorer place without him."

[Betty Boop]

Walt Disney and his racist cartoons deserve a mention.

[Mon Dieu4]

I've just watched a video of the "football lads" at the cenotaph, it's like a Hun day out as you can imagine, I have absolutely no time for ********s like that, but have seen Owen Jones and many others crying out that they are doing Nazi salutes at the cenotaph, anyone else watched the video? Looks like they are just doing shan football/rule Britannia nonsense to me with their arms in the air

Have watched it a few times and genuinely can't see any Nazi salutes(more than likely some will be done today but not in that video), there is so many things you can pull these folk up about so why make up things or have those folk just never been to a football game?

Canny believe I'm typing a post that semi stands up for them but just shows how easily things can be taken out of context and grow online

(Disclaimer when it no doubt all kicks off and videos come in left right and centre I was talking about one video alone :faf: )

[hibsbollah]

I've just watched a video of the "football lads" at the cenotaph, it's like a Hun day out as you can imagine, I have absolutely no time for ********s like that, but have seen Owen Jones and many others crying out that they are doing Nazi salutes at the cenotaph, anyone else watched the video? Looks like they are just doing shan football/rule Britannia nonsense to me with their arms in the air

Have watched it a few times and genuinely can't see any Nazi salutes(more than likely some will be done today but not in that video), there is so many things you can pull these folk up about so why make up things or have those folk just never been to a football game?

Canny believe I'm typing a post that semi stands up for them but just shows how easily things can be taken out of context and grow online

(Disclaimer when it no doubt all kicks off and videos come in left right and centre I was talking about one video alone :faf: )

I like Owen Jones but I very much doubt he goes to the football. Most fans do the outstretched arm thing which clearly isn’t a nazi salute.

There will be trouble today, guaranteed.

[Betty Boop]

I like Owen Jones but I very much doubt he goes to the football. Most fans do the outstretched arm thing which clearly isn’t a nazi salute.

There will be trouble today, guaranteed.


Looks like an older crowd at the far right demo.

[Mon Dieu4]

I like Owen Jones but I very much doubt he goes to the football. Most fans do the outstretched arm thing which clearly isn’t a nazi salute.

There will be trouble today, guaranteed.

You know I've no time for any of that nonsense whatsoever but just shows how easily information or miss-information can be spread these days, people see what they want to see and go on the side of "their" team

I used to think I was fairly left wing but by today's standards I'd get torn apart :faf:

[hibsbollah]

Bottles thrown at riot police at Whitehall, just as well the Gandhi and Mandela statues are boarded up.

[Mon Dieu4]

Bottles thrown at riot police at Whitehall, just as well the Gandhi and Mandela statues are boarded up.

That's my point, there were always going to be flashpoints and trouble today, instead of making up stuff or I will give them the benefit of the doubt, seeing something that isn't there, just wait 5 minutes and you will get all the evidence you need that's plain as day

[hibsbollah]

That's my point, there were always going to be flashpoints and trouble today, instead of making up stuff or I will give them the benefit of the doubt, seeing something that isn't there, just wait 5 minutes and you will get all the evidence you need that's plain as day

I didn’t see the clip, maybe he saw something that was off camera?
Anyway, according to the guardian live feed the far right are chucking flares and smoke bombs, all sorts at riot police in Whitehall, nothing on bbc news or sky news yet so maybe just left wing fake news :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Looks like an older crowd at the far right demo.

Beware the Gammon backlash.

[Mon Dieu4]

I didn’t see the clip, maybe he saw something that was off camera?
Anyway, according to the guardian live feed the far right are chucking flares and smoke bombs, all sorts at riot police in Whitehall, nothing on bbc news or sky news yet so maybe just left wing fake news :greengrin

If only the BBC would let Ben Dirs the guy who does the Wimbledon online live feeds commentate on this :faf:

[Keith_M]

Apparently the statue of William of Orange in Glasgow is now under 24 hour police guard.

I didn't even know there was a statue of William of Orange in Glasgow, till I saw the article about it.

I'd imagine the Green Brigade will be targeting it now.

[Keith_M]

I didn’t see the clip, maybe he saw something that was off camera?
Anyway, according to the guardian live feed the far right are chucking flares and smoke bombs, all sorts at riot police in Whitehall, nothing on bbc news or sky news yet so maybe just left wing fake news :greengrin


The Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8416897/London-braces-chaos-hooligans-far-right-thugs-threaten-clashes-BLM-protesters.html) have an article on it -- "far-right mob hijack pro-statue demos"

As does The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matter-protests-london-statues-racism-churchill/) -- "London protests live: Priti Patel condemns 'unacceptable thuggery' of demonstrators clashing with police"


Whereas The Sunday Post just says -- "What are you doing for Fathers Day? How about a wee day out at The Cenotaph."




...although I might have made that last one up :wink:

[Bostonhibby]

Apparently the statue of William of Orange in Glasgow is now under 24 hour police guard.

I didn't even know there was a statue of William of Orange in Glasgow, till I saw the article about it.

I'd imagine the Green Brigade will be targeting it now.Problem with celtc copycats jumping on every bandwagon without the first idea what its about is there'll probably be brave celtc fans there protecting the poor victimised statue as well.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

The Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8416897/London-braces-chaos-hooligans-far-right-thugs-threaten-clashes-BLM-protesters.html) have an article on it -- "far-right mob hijack pro-statue demos"

As does The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matter-protests-london-statues-racism-churchill/) -- "London protests live: Priti Patel condemns 'unacceptable thuggery' of demonstrators clashing with police"


Whereas The Sunday Post just says -- "What are you doing for Fathers Day? How about a wee day out at The Cenotaph."




...although I might have made that last one up :wink:

I wasn’t sure reading the Telegraph article who was doing the rioting :dunno:
Still nothing from sky news live, the bbc headline just saying ‘crowds have gathered’ with some video of when last weeks BLM turned violent’. Guardian now reporting journalists being attacked, boy had his nose broken.

[Keith_M]

I wasn’t sure reading the Telegraph article who was doing the rioting :dunno:
Still nothing from sky news live, the bbc headline just saying ‘crowds have gathered’ with some video of when last weeks BLM turned violent’. Guardian now reporting journalists being attacked, boy had his nose broken.


Agreed.

It's written in such a vague way that I was beginning to suspect it was deliberate.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/vinnieodowd/status/1271774513831849985?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

https://twitter.com/vinnieodowd/status/1271774513831849985?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF is the boy in the green polo shirt all about?

Absolute roasters.

[Scorrie]

There are people “defending” Churchill’s statue and doing nazi salutes. The irony. Complete roasters.

[Just Alf]

Yup... Pick out the smallest police woman you can find then square up to her! Jeez..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Modern Scotland and Modern UK seem like very different places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

There are people “defending” Churchill’s statue and doing nazi salutes. The irony. Complete roasters.

https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/1271755011777794048?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[green&left]

https://mobile.twitter.com/OliDugmore/status/1271745768026787846

Obviously Scotland's shame had to be involved somehow.

[Radium]

https://twitter.com/edclowes/status/1271808661183180800?s=21

Telegraph journalist checked over by demonstrators and allowed to carry on when they realise who he represents.


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200613/1c742c9d003aba4ae06c5a0494292277.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mon Dieu4]

https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/1271755011777794048?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much the video I was talking about, let me reiterate I hate these kind of people with every fibre of my being, am I'm being incredibly naive here?, I see ******** "fans" chanting and putting their arms in the air or pointing at the opposition when you sing

[lapsedhibee]

Pretty much the video I was talking about, let me reiterate I hate these kind of people with every fibre of my being, am I'm being incredibly naive here?, I see ******** "fans" chanting and putting their arms in the air or pointing at the opposition when you sing
I'd say there's a couple of nazi salutes in there, but only a couple.

[Mon Dieu4]

I'd say there's a couple of nazi salutes in there, but only a couple.

If there are one or two then it's one or two too many, maybe I'm guilty of giving the benefit of the doubt to folk that really don't deserve it

[green&left]

If there are one or two then it's one or two too many, maybe I'm guilty of giving the benefit of the doubt to folk that really don't deserve it

Defo one or 2 nazi salutes or those made up hun "red haun salutes"

https://twitter.com/Reverend_Makers/status/1271774574187884545/photo/1

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200613/cdb1cc88ce3103efcd1bf23c08d6adb2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200613/cdb1cc88ce3103efcd1bf23c08d6adb2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh dear, tweeted by the Telegraph correspondent...

One key difference between today’s anti-BLM protest in London’s Parliament Square, and last week’s #BlackLivesMatter (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackLivesMatter?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) protest?

It looks more like a music festival with all this rubbish.

(And yes, that last photo is a river of piss) pic.twitter.com/EeuBgk0gkV (https://t.co/EeuBgk0gkV)

[heretoday]

To hell with all statues. Just let them be defaced. Don't waste police resouces protecting them 24 hours anyway.

[Ozyhibby]

To hell with all statues. Just let them be defaced. Don't waste police resouces protecting them 24 hours anyway.

I think if we can afford to have 24 hour guards on statues but we can’t give nurses PPE to protect themselves at work then we have taken a wrong turn somewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/huckmagazine/status/1271822085766209537?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

The wee dafties have daubed some graffiti on the Falkirk wheel as well as the Bruce monument.

They must think we're zipped up the back with the BLM tag.

Well, Bruce was very anti-English. Quite violent too.

[660]

The abolition of slavery was not due to the morality of it.

[Smartie]

The abolition of slavery was not due to the morality of it.

What was it due to?

(Honest question - this is part of our history that I have to confess to knowing shamefully little about).

[Betty Boop]

What was it due to?

(Honest question - this is part of our history that I have to confess to knowing shamefully little about).

Decline in profits, I would imagine.

[lapsedhibee]

Decline in profits, I would imagine.

That's odd, though, because when using horses to transport goods became uneconomic I don't remember horses being abolished.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/tamsellicsoniii/status/1271818419432763395?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

The abolition of slavery was not due to the morality of it.

It's an interesting discussion.

I saw a reference above to the US civil war being about enslavement. At a base level that is true but there haven't been hundreds of books and papers written about the subject because it was so simplistic. It's worth noting the Emancipation Proclamation exempted the slave states which had remained loyal to the Union. In many ways the root causes of the war can still be seen in the US electoral system and indeed the constraints placed on the federal government. At the outset of the war it's arguable whether emancipation of slaves was even a key war aim, the decision when it was taken was as much strategic as it was moral.

I studied the subject for 2 years and barely scratched the surface.

[wpj]

https://twitter.com/tamsellicsoniii/status/1271818419432763395?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's almost on par with the muslamic rayguns

[Glory Lurker]

Right Wing ****ers 1 Left Wing ****ers 1

[Pretty Boy]

https://twitter.com/tamsellicsoniii/status/1271818419432763395?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically Hitler killed Hitler. Maybe we should have a statue of him....

[660]

What was it due to?

(Honest question - this is part of our history that I have to confess to knowing shamefully little about).

Yeah I only read about it recently to be honest. Here’s an interesting post I took from AskHistorians on reddit. (https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9nx3hr/why_was_britain_so_heavily_abolitionist_in_the/)

“ Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and the practice of slavery entirely in 1833. As you note, this was quite different from other empires and major powers on the world stage. Antislavery advocates, writing the history of their own movement, pointed to their work as evidence of the morality and justness of the British people: Britain abolished the slave trade because Britain was morally equipped to do so, unlike its rapacious rivals who would continue buying and selling humans for profit. By the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, this narrative served to justify Britain's empire, exculpate Britain from that empire's excesses, and/or single out Britain as a uniquely civilized country. In this reading, the abolition of slavery proved that Britain was a just imperial actor because it had given up slavery and turned its back on the profits of that trade. So too did it show that the British Empire of the late 19th century was a new, benevolent, and more moral empire than what preceded it, for this empire would not enslave— it would uplift.
So that is the first answer: Britain was heavily abolitionist in the 19th century, and emphasized its abolitionist credentials, because abolition fit into a narrative about Britain's benevolent empire, and that was very useful to, say, the benevolent imperialists.
But ok, were British people really more moral or humane than others? Was it really so civilized in a way other societies weren't? The Trinidadian scholar (and politician, and prime minister, etc) Eric Williams thought not. In his 1944 book, Capitalism and Slavery, he took aim at the whole "we abolished slavery because we're just so moral and good" story. He argued convincingly that Britain only abolished slavery once, and only once, slavery was no longer profitable. Remember that the slave trade was most prevalent in the Caribbean sugar islands, where slaves worked plantations at hellish paces and under even more hellish conditions in order to produce sugar for white British consumers. But after the American Revolution, Caribbean sugar production was increasingly outpaced by French and Brazilian rivals who could do more for cheaper. Potentially handicapping Caribbean sugar by abolishing slavery was now no longer the death knell that it might have been. Moreover, industrialists and merchants wanted access to those cheaper markets—this was the beginning of the free trade movement— and one way to facilitate access to those markets was to abolish slavery. Abolishing slavery depressed the Caribbean sugar economy and so broke their monopoly on the British market. Nobody in Britain felt the hit, however, because there were other colonies and plantations to turn to; this would not have been the case in the 18th c and is why slavery remained in force then.
Williams' argument has been critiqued seven ways from Sunday in the decades since he originally made it, but Williams' fundamental point still stands. The antislavery advocates (many, but not all, of whom were abolitionists— whose antislavery agitation took the form of wanting to abolish the slave trade) of the early 19th century were self-interested, and their advocacy was linked to their class status and the interests of their class. So there's your second answer: Britain abolished slavery when and because it could afford to, and not a moment before.
However, historian Christopher Brown argues in his magisterial 2006 book that while Williams' answer is useful if we want to understand abolition as a political event and the culmination of a process of political change, it is less useful if we want to understand abolitionism as a movement with a particular ideological character that people joined and believed in. Brown goes back to the history of the original antislavery advocates, who began their work in the 1780s, and he reads with them, instead of against them. (By reading with a source, I mean that he reads his sources trying to understand the narrative that the creators of those sources told about themselves. That is a different kind of reading than reading against a source, where you take the source and look for the contradictions and the gaps. Historians have to do both kinds of reading and both are very important methods; it's a matter of which one you're going to do at a given time.)
When Brown does that, he finds that the antislavery advocates were self-interested— morally self-interested. Put another (if inelegant) way, they came to oppose slavery because opposing slavery made them feel good. For the American Revolution didn't just make Caribbean sugar less profitable. Rather it threw into sharp, unflattering relief the entire project of empire as Britain had engaged with it. It prompted public discussion and debate over whether or not British rule was actually so great after all. And it turned the slave trade into an object of public scrutiny; slavery was shorthand for & encapsulation of this larger "crisis in imperial authority." For middle-class antislavery advocates, abolishing the slave trade was a way to resolve that crisis—although at the time, Brown takes pains to note, it was certainly not the only solution on offer and its unfolding certainly not inevitable—and to cleanse Britain of slavery's associated ills. Brown sums it up better than I can: "Often activists took up the issue of slavery less because they cared about Africans than because they regretted its impact on society, on the empire, on public morals... A few did take a genuine interest in the welfare of the enslaved. But many more wanted, above all, to be free of slavery, and thus free from danger or free from corruption or free from guilt." (Brown, pg 26.)
That's the third answer. There was an abolitionist movement in Britain because middle-class onlookers and anti-slavery advocates were deeply troubled by what empire had become, and wanted to try and fix it— for themselves as much as for the enslaved.
Sources:
• Thomas Clarkson, The History of the Rise, Progress, & Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade (1808)
• Eric Williams, Capitalism & Slavery (1944)
• Christopher Brown, Moral Capital: Foundations of British Abolitionism (2006)”

[G B Young]

Going off at a small tangent here but I note there was a large 'counter demonstration' in Newcastle today and it reminded me of something I'm a bit unclear about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53034023

My question is do Newcastle United fans have a far-right association? I used to have an assumption that they were generally salt of earth Geordies but a few years ago I was on a train to London and a large group of them got on heading for a game against (I think) Crystal Palace. A big range in ages but almost all wearing Newcastle shirts and they were generally friendly enough, but I noted a number of Union Jack tattoos and there were a fair amount of clearly racist comments, particularly once the bevvy took a hold. For some reason I used to think this was something more associated with Sunderland but I might be wrong.

[The Modfather]

Technically Hitler killed Hitler. Maybe we should have a statue of him....

As an aside, there was a series on the History channel about whether Hitler secretly escaped to Argentina, Hunting Hitler I think it was called, that I quite enjoyed. Was a group of former FBI agents working the case the way they would if chasing a drug kingpin.

They investigated the escape networks used through Germany, into Spain and then Argentina the fleeing Nazi’s used. They concluded that in their opinion it was possible Hitler could have escaped, but the history and investigation was really interesting and a bit of an afterthought as to specifically watching it in relation to Hitler 🤓

[Kato]

Why are the press calling those rioters the "far right"?

They look very like the Brexit lot most of whom voted Tory at the last election and couldn't wait to laud Johnson.

Do they now recognise Boris 's version of the Tory party as far right?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200613/cdb1cc88ce3103efcd1bf23c08d6adb2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely disgraceful.

[lapsedhibee]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200613/cdb1cc88ce3103efcd1bf23c08d6adb2.jpg
Patel and Ellwood hyperbolically aghast at this. Far from deliberately peeing on the thing, he's not even peeing on it. Deflect deflect deflect.

[wpj]

Patel and Ellwood hyperbolically aghast at this. Far from deliberately peeing on the thing, he's not even peeing on it. Deflect deflect deflect.

Not a fan of tories in general but the plaque the guy is peeing next to was the police man Ellwood try to save in the London Bridge attack,can get why he is upset. Patel on the otherhand just blows out her erchie about everything

[lapsedhibee]

Not a fan of tories in general but the plaque the guy is peeing next to was the police man Ellwood try to save in the London Bridge attack,can get why he is upset. Patel on the otherhand just blows out her erchie about everything

Sure Ellwood was personally involved in that, but it's clear there was no intent in that photo.
Four things that he could be more aghast at today:
(1) The bloke who believes that Churchill killed Hitler
(2) The blokes calling the polis "left-wing ****" :faf:
(3) The bloke leaving the Telegraph journo alone because Telegraph
(4) Johnson condemning not racism, but "racism on the streets"
These are all issues for his party. Or would be in saner times.

[wpj]

Sure Ellwood was personally involved in that, but it's clear there was no intent in that photo.
Four things that he could be more aghast at today:
(1) The bloke who believes that Churchill killed Hitler
(2) The blokes calling the polis "left-wing ****" :faf:
(3) The bloke leaving the Telegraph journo alone because Telegraph
(4) Johnson condemning not racism, but "racism on the streets"
These are all issues for his party. Or would be in saner times.

The virus and the recent events have been a golden opportunity to bury bad news.As you say, deflection

[hibsbollah]

Going off at a small tangent here but I note there was a large 'counter demonstration' in Newcastle today and it reminded me of something I'm a bit unclear about:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53034023

My question is do Newcastle United fans have a far-right association? I used to have an assumption that they were generally salt of earth Geordies but a few years ago I was on a train to London and a large group of them got on heading for a game against (I think) Crystal Palace. A big range in ages but almost all wearing Newcastle shirts and they were generally friendly enough, but I noted a number of Union Jack tattoos and there were a fair amount of clearly racist comments, particularly once the bevvy took a hold. For some reason I used to think this was something more associated with Sunderland but I might be wrong.

NUFC have had a long standing racist element and have had since the 80s. If you listen to the early generation of black players the grounds they hated going to most were Millwall, Chelsea and the north east teams. Saying that, I had a season ticket for a season and a half and went as a walk up for another couple of seasons in the 90s and I never saw any direct evidence of it myself. But I’m not black :agree:

[ronaldo7]

Let's hope the squaddies made it out of London safely, as it all kicked off. Pwopa nawty, so it was.

Churchill would be proud.

Upsetting families having a picnic.

Brave boys.

[marinello59]

Let's hope the squaddies made it out of London safely, as it all kicked off. Pwopa nawty, so it was.

Churchill would be proud.

Upsetting families having a picnic.

Brave boys.

Probably more pretendy Squaddies than serving Soldiers I would guess. Boris’s fascist Army.

[ronaldo7]

Probably more pretendy Squaddies than serving Soldiers I would guess. Boris’s fascist Army.

Aye probably. I did hear the Raf were there today though, bombing the Germans.

[Glory Lurker]

Who gives a monkey's? Honestly. A few thousand people tops. Yet it's news. Because that's what rolling 24 hour news needs. It is irrelevant to the vast majority of the population, but here we are getting wound up (I include myself) by actions that don't really, actually affect us at all. The rockets on each side have a load to apologise for, but at least they're just rockets and not key opinion-influencers like the telly is.

[Bishop Hibee]

NUFC have had a long standing racist element and have had since the 80s. If you listen to the early generation of black players the grounds they hated going to most were Millwall, Chelsea and the north east teams. Saying that, I had a season ticket for a season and a half and went as a walk up for another couple of seasons in the 90s and I never saw any direct evidence of it myself. But I’m not black :agree:

When I lived in Co Durham I was a novelty being Scottish and got a mixture of good natured banter through to suspicion as an outsider. The local High School in Consett in 2004 had 540 pupils, one of whom was black. The Head Teacher said he didn’t get much trouble as he was great at football. Biggest ethnic minority was South African/Zimbabwean white farmers who’d sold up and emigrated to the area. It was like stepping back into the 70s and many Geordies and Mackems had some pretty eyebrow raising views at times.

As for changing street names, not for me. Plaques for statues definitely. We need more meaningful names for new estates being built in Edinburgh though.

[Betty Boop]

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article22187551.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_Black-Lives-Matter-protest-in-London-1.jpg

[Scorrie]

Yeah I only read about it recently to be honest. Here’s an interesting post I took from AskHistorians on reddit. (https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9nx3hr/why_was_britain_so_heavily_abolitionist_in_the/)

“ Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and the practice of slavery entirely in 1833. As you note, this was quite different from other empires and major powers on the world stage. Antislavery advocates, writing the history of their own movement, pointed to their work as evidence of the morality and justness of the British people: Britain abolished the slave trade because Britain was morally equipped to do so, unlike its rapacious rivals who would continue buying and selling humans for profit. By the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, this narrative served to justify Britain's empire, exculpate Britain from that empire's excesses, and/or single out Britain as a uniquely civilized country. In this reading, the abolition of slavery proved that Britain was a just imperial actor because it had given up slavery and turned its back on the profits of that trade. So too did it show that the British Empire of the late 19th century was a new, benevolent, and more moral empire than what preceded it, for this empire would not enslave— it would uplift.
So that is the first answer: Britain was heavily abolitionist in the 19th century, and emphasized its abolitionist credentials, because abolition fit into a narrative about Britain's benevolent empire, and that was very useful to, say, the benevolent imperialists.
But ok, were British people really more moral or humane than others? Was it really so civilized in a way other societies weren't? The Trinidadian scholar (and politician, and prime minister, etc) Eric Williams thought not. In his 1944 book, Capitalism and Slavery, he took aim at the whole "we abolished slavery because we're just so moral and good" story. He argued convincingly that Britain only abolished slavery once, and only once, slavery was no longer profitable. Remember that the slave trade was most prevalent in the Caribbean sugar islands, where slaves worked plantations at hellish paces and under even more hellish conditions in order to produce sugar for white British consumers. But after the American Revolution, Caribbean sugar production was increasingly outpaced by French and Brazilian rivals who could do more for cheaper. Potentially handicapping Caribbean sugar by abolishing slavery was now no longer the death knell that it might have been. Moreover, industrialists and merchants wanted access to those cheaper markets—this was the beginning of the free trade movement— and one way to facilitate access to those markets was to abolish slavery. Abolishing slavery depressed the Caribbean sugar economy and so broke their monopoly on the British market. Nobody in Britain felt the hit, however, because there were other colonies and plantations to turn to; this would not have been the case in the 18th c and is why slavery remained in force then.
Williams' argument has been critiqued seven ways from Sunday in the decades since he originally made it, but Williams' fundamental point still stands. The antislavery advocates (many, but not all, of whom were abolitionists— whose antislavery agitation took the form of wanting to abolish the slave trade) of the early 19th century were self-interested, and their advocacy was linked to their class status and the interests of their class. So there's your second answer: Britain abolished slavery when and because it could afford to, and not a moment before.
However, historian Christopher Brown argues in his magisterial 2006 book that while Williams' answer is useful if we want to understand abolition as a political event and the culmination of a process of political change, it is less useful if we want to understand abolitionism as a movement with a particular ideological character that people joined and believed in. Brown goes back to the history of the original antislavery advocates, who began their work in the 1780s, and he reads with them, instead of against them. (By reading with a source, I mean that he reads his sources trying to understand the narrative that the creators of those sources told about themselves. That is a different kind of reading than reading against a source, where you take the source and look for the contradictions and the gaps. Historians have to do both kinds of reading and both are very important methods; it's a matter of which one you're going to do at a given time.)
When Brown does that, he finds that the antislavery advocates were self-interested— morally self-interested. Put another (if inelegant) way, they came to oppose slavery because opposing slavery made them feel good. For the American Revolution didn't just make Caribbean sugar less profitable. Rather it threw into sharp, unflattering relief the entire project of empire as Britain had engaged with it. It prompted public discussion and debate over whether or not British rule was actually so great after all. And it turned the slave trade into an object of public scrutiny; slavery was shorthand for & encapsulation of this larger "crisis in imperial authority." For middle-class antislavery advocates, abolishing the slave trade was a way to resolve that crisis—although at the time, Brown takes pains to note, it was certainly not the only solution on offer and its unfolding certainly not inevitable—and to cleanse Britain of slavery's associated ills. Brown sums it up better than I can: "Often activists took up the issue of slavery less because they cared about Africans than because they regretted its impact on society, on the empire, on public morals... A few did take a genuine interest in the welfare of the enslaved. But many more wanted, above all, to be free of slavery, and thus free from danger or free from corruption or free from guilt." (Brown, pg 26.)
That's the third answer. There was an abolitionist movement in Britain because middle-class onlookers and anti-slavery advocates were deeply troubled by what empire had become, and wanted to try and fix it— for themselves as much as for the enslaved.
Sources:
• Thomas Clarkson, The History of the Rise, Progress, & Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade (1808)
• Eric Williams, Capitalism & Slavery (1944)
• Christopher Brown, Moral Capital: Foundations of British Abolitionism (2006)”

Thanks for this. Really interesting. There was also a Christian element to abolition, genuine moral abhorrence at what was going on. Living in Liverpool, slavery is part of the city’s fabric with many streets named after slavers. But also, we have streets named after abolitionists as well such as Roscoe Interestingly. The Slavery museum is well worth a visit - a sobering experience.

[DaveF]

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article22187551.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_Black-Lives-Matter-protest-in-London-1.jpg

What's the story? Sorry for being daft!

[Betty Boop]

What's the story? Sorry for being daft!


Ah sorry forgot to add the link :greengrin

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/black-lives-matter-activist-rescues-22188162

[lapsedhibee]

Ah sorry forgot to add the link :greengrin

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/black-lives-matter-activist-rescues-22188162

Bob off Rita Sue And Bob Too's pictured in that report!

[Betty Boop]

Bob off Rita Sue And Bob Too's pictured in that report!


:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Well, Bruce was very anti-English. Quite violent too.

I'm not sure there's a Robert the Bruce Avenue in Chelmsford. 😉

[hibby rae]

Can't help but think the 'counter protesters' yesterday would be engaged in the exact same behaviour if the Euros were on.

None of them seem to have any grasp of irony either, opposed to anti-fascists but keep saying they are defending the memory of those who fought fascism.

[Keith_M]

Can't help but think the 'counter protesters' yesterday would be engaged in the exact same behaviour if the Euros were on.

None of them seem to have any grasp of irony either, opposed to anti-fascists but keep saying they are defending the memory of those who fought fascism.


I think a lot of people watching that would have been thinking the same.

Let's be honest, it was just a bunch of football hooligans (mostly middle-aged ones at that) making up for the lack of any international football events by latching on to their current 'cause', as an excuse to strut around trying to look macho.

[hibby rae]

I think a lot of people watching that would have been thinking the same.

Let's be honest, it was just a bunch of football hooligans (mostly middle-aged ones at that) making up for the lack of any international football events by latching on to their current 'cause', as an excuse to strut around trying to look macho.

Couldn't agree more. It's quite telling when you compare the demographic of BLM protests, all genders and racesz against the ones yesterday, as you say mostly middle aged white men (with a large portion pissed and, I imagine, on the class As).

[hibsbollah]

I think a lot of people watching that would have been thinking the same.

Let's be honest, it was just a bunch of football hooligans (mostly middle-aged ones at that) making up for the lack of any international football events by latching on to their current 'cause', as an excuse to strut around trying to look macho.

When you say ‘just’ a bunch of football hooligans, this missed the point a bit, and I don’t blame you for that because most of the media outrage isn’t about the actual chain of events, it’s focussed on a pissed up boy having a slash next to a monument he didn’t realise was there. What’s going on with the ‘counter protests’ and their ‘scuffles’ (not riots, remember, like the BLM hooligans, just ‘scuffles’) is serious and organised.

Chain of events; Last weekend there were overwhelmingly peaceful, socially distanced BLM protests across the country because of ordinary folks outrage at the George Floyd killing and what they represent. There was an isolated protest that turned violent with criminal damage and policemen hurt.

That then turned into a media ****storm about ‘Antifa’, thuggery and violence, the debate is then distracted onto what TV shows we should ban, blackface and semantics and whatabootery over statues. We are diverted from the real issue, like what happened with the NFL protests.

Then, encouraged by the press headlines, and the behaviour of our PM who suddenly decides to appeal to his base from Twitter (who does this remind you of), we have a well organised far right meet up, with Britain First the EDL and the Football Lads, who had numbered close to 10,000 during the islamaphobia period, so have the numbers to cause serious unrest. The result? The BLM protests in London are cancelled. Because the organisers knew what was going to happen. But the democratic right to protest has been taken away by the far right and they’ve already won.

So the knuckledraggers turn up at parliament square, have no one to fight so start attacking the police instead, who are guarding the statues that the knuckledraggers, are, eh, supposed to be protecting. And all the time the ‘Antifa’, who are made up of a large proportion of women and young people that have no idea about how to deal with football lads after a pagger, are being demonised as some sort of existential threat to democracy.

I was wondering how the BLM movement was going to be undermined by those with an interest in doing so. We’ve found out.

[lapsedhibee]

When you say ‘just’ a bunch of football hooligans, this missed the point a bit, and I don’t blame you for that because most of the media outrage isn’t about the actual chain of events, it’s focussed on a pissed up boy having a slash next to a monument he didn’t realise was there.

"Speaking yesterday in response to an image circulating on social media, Commander Bas Javid said: “We are aware of a disgusting and abhorrent image circulating on social media of a man appearing to urinate on a memorial to PC Palmer." The polis's response to a picture of a man clearly not urinating on a memorial. :bitchy:

[heretoday]

Can't help but think the 'counter protesters' yesterday would be engaged in the exact same behaviour if the Euros were on.

None of them seem to have any grasp of irony either, opposed to anti-fascists but keep saying they are defending the memory of those who fought fascism.

There's a lot of blowing off steam going on at the moment. It doesn't take much for the self-righteous London football yobs to come out in force when they perceive they've a just cause to protect. Similarly, there's a lot of bandwagonning on the other side too.

[greenlex]

What's the story? Sorry for being daft!
He’s probably been accused of taking him away to eat him or something.:rolleyes:

[JimBHibees]

When you say ‘just’ a bunch of football hooligans, this missed the point a bit, and I don’t blame you for that because most of the media outrage isn’t about the actual chain of events, it’s focussed on a pissed up boy having a slash next to a monument he didn’t realise was there. What’s going on with the ‘counter protests’ and their ‘scuffles’ (not riots, remember, like the BLM hooligans, just ‘scuffles’) is serious and organised.

Chain of events; Last weekend there were overwhelmingly peaceful, socially distanced BLM protests across the country because of ordinary folks outrage at the George Floyd killing and what they represent. There was an isolated protest that turned violent with criminal damage and policemen hurt.

That then turned into a media ****storm about ‘Antifa’, thuggery and violence, the debate is then distracted onto what TV shows we should ban, blackface and semantics and whatabootery over statues. We are diverted from the real issue, like what happened with the NFL protests.

Then, encouraged by the press headlines, and the behaviour of our PM who suddenly decides to appeal to his base from Twitter (who does this remind you of), we have a well organised far right meet up, with Britain First the EDL and the Football Lads, who had numbered close to 10,000 during the islamaphobia period, so have the numbers to cause serious unrest. The result? The BLM protests in London are cancelled. Because the organisers knew what was going to happen. But the democratic right to protest has been taken away by the far right and they’ve already won.

So the knuckledraggers turn up at parliament square, have no one to fight so start attacking the police instead, who are guarding the statues that the knuckledraggers, are, eh, supposed to be protecting. And all the time the ‘Antifa’, who are made up of a large proportion of women and young people that have no idea about how to deal with football lads after a pagger, are being demonised as some sort of existential threat to democracy.

I was wondering how the BLM movement was going to be undermined by those with an interest in doing so. We’ve found out.

Agree with that. As Sadiq Khan said after Boris commented about the Churchill monument something along the lines of it is good he is passionate about that but would also like him to comment passionately about the huge numbers of Covid deaths, black life's matter campaign and racism in Uk and abroad. He is totally spot on. Never seen anything like Johnson in regard to a complete lack of leadership on any important issue affecting this country. Totally goes missing and never seen for days on end.

[McD]

When you say ‘just’ a bunch of football hooligans, this missed the point a bit, and I don’t blame you for that because most of the media outrage isn’t about the actual chain of events, it’s focussed on a pissed up boy having a slash next to a monument he didn’t realise was there. What’s going on with the ‘counter protests’ and their ‘scuffles’ (not riots, remember, like the BLM hooligans, just ‘scuffles’) is serious and organised.

Chain of events; Last weekend there were overwhelmingly peaceful, socially distanced BLM protests across the country because of ordinary folks outrage at the George Floyd killing and what they represent. There was an isolated protest that turned violent with criminal damage and policemen hurt.

That then turned into a media ****storm about ‘Antifa’, thuggery and violence, the debate is then distracted onto what TV shows we should ban, blackface and semantics and whatabootery over statues. We are diverted from the real issue, like what happened with the NFL protests.

Then, encouraged by the press headlines, and the behaviour of our PM who suddenly decides to appeal to his base from Twitter (who does this remind you of), we have a well organised far right meet up, with Britain First the EDL and the Football Lads, who had numbered close to 10,000 during the islamaphobia period, so have the numbers to cause serious unrest. The result? The BLM protests in London are cancelled. Because the organisers knew what was going to happen. But the democratic right to protest has been taken away by the far right and they’ve already won.

So the knuckledraggers turn up at parliament square, have no one to fight so start attacking the police instead, who are guarding the statues that the knuckledraggers, are, eh, supposed to be protecting. And all the time the ‘Antifa’, who are made up of a large proportion of women and young people that have no idea about how to deal with football lads after a pagger, are being demonised as some sort of existential threat to democracy.

I was wondering how the BLM movement was going to be undermined by those with an interest in doing so. We’ve found out.


:top marks Great post

[Fuzzywuzzy]

10 years for desecrating a statue?? That's pretty ****ed up. You get less for manslaughter

[Just_Jimmy]

10 years for desecrating a statue?? That's pretty ****ed up. You get less for manslaughterWhilst I agree the sentence is a nonsense, manslaughter carries life imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Whilst that's rarely or ever given it's not "less".

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Chorley Hibee]

Can't help but think the 'counter protesters' yesterday would be engaged in the exact same behaviour if the Euros were on.

None of them seem to have any grasp of irony either, opposed to anti-fascists but keep saying they are defending the memory of those who fought fascism.

Not if the Russians had been there, they'd have been running away pronto.

[Bristolhibby]

Saw this excellent piece on Facebook. Not sure about Nazis being puppets. But much of the German people, Nazi or not, got pulled into the War.

Phil Thornton a fantastic piece and something everyone needs to take a few minutes of their time to read.

Phil Thornton (Author of Casuals and FLAF member) , nail on head as per usual.

An open letter (FB message) to the DFLA types.

Dear football “lads”

You are angry with the wrong people. You have been indoctrinated via our education system and our mass media into believing a lie.

The lie is “we’re all in this together.”

We’re not and we never have been. When i say “we” i suppose i mean the “white working class” of England (and other parts of GB but mostly England).

You claim you are reclaiming our streets but they’re not “our” streets and never have been. They were stolen from us a thousand years ago and the same families that came over with William The Conqueror STILL own vast tracts of land and the wealth derived from this theft

Take my home county of Cheshire. The Grosvenor family are the richest in Britain because the 1stof their line was William Plantagenet’s chief huntsman (Gros Venor means chief of the hunt) and Cheshire’s Vale Royal was a vast game estate.

Do you to want to reclaim this kid’s lands, his streets, his mansions, his stolen billions? A kid who had a £5 million pound 18th birthday party paid for by all of us saps who accept this piss take of a feudal hierarchy?

The notion of a “shared cultural identity” is a myth designed to stop you questioning your position at the bottom of this hierarchy. How they must piss themselves as you rally around the flag and buy into their propaganda.

You may scoff at Black Lives Matter and the pulling down of statues of slave traders but OUR ancestors were slaves of a sort too. They weren’t captured and branded and whipped as they toiled on sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations but they were starved into economic slavery in mills and pits and foundries.

They also sent millions off to be slaughtered in wars to protect their trade routes. Did this empire benefit all of us?

Look around you! If you live on a council estate then tell me how you benefitted from the trillions of stolen wealth taken by force from Africans and Indians and the Chinese and the Arabs.

Ivory and spices and opium and oil. Where did that money go?

Look at that golden carriage and jewels of this inbred aristocrat you worship. The Hanoverian line began with a mad man and degenerated into THIS!

Yes i know you adore the Queen as some totemic symbol of British benevolence but she is simply a puppet of the city who pimp her out to the Saudis and any other blood soaked regime with an open cheque book.

All those lads from our estates that died in Belgium and France and Germany and Italy and North Africa and the Atlantic Suez and Palestine and Ireland and the Falklands and Afghanistan and Iraq - yes, it’s better to believe they died for a noble cause but really they died to protect the wealth of their officer class.

Even Churchill, the sainted Churchill sent in gunboats and soldiers to defeat our class during the general strike. He wasn’t so far removed from the politics of Hitler or Mussolini but he was helped both by the US and the Russians to defeat the nazis.

The Nazis themselves were also puppets of the super rich, happy to go along with his madness as long as it lined their pockets.

If you truly feel as if “your” culture and identity is slowly being taken from you ask yourself what kind of identity it is you believe in.

We are all immigrants! it’s true! We all came from somewhere else. We are all descended from the same bunch of apeman that escaped the rift valley and followed the shoreline.

When you’ve got **** all it’s only natural that you cling to something, ANYTHING that gives your life meaning and validity. Nationalism is always there when all else fails.

But it’s a con trick and the very people that despise you the most, the privileged public school city boys and their pals in parliament are the first to call you hooligans and **** once you’ve done their bidding.

Black Lives DO Matter and they’re not saying yours don’t but you can’t avoid the awful truth of police killing black men and women here and in the US is not just a case of black people being criminal (poor) but the police see black people as an inferior sub species of humanity.

I hope most reasonable football lads can see how they’re being used by the likes of Farage, Batten and Yaxley-Lennon for their own purposes. The real enemy isn’t the muslim or the black person or the commies or the Antifa it’s the ones that sit back in their stolen palaces and castles as you fight their fight for them.

J

[hibsbollah]

Saw this excellent piece on Facebook. Not sure about Nazis being puppets. But much of the German people, Nazi or not, got pulled into the War.

Phil Thornton a fantastic piece and something everyone needs to take a few minutes of their time to read.

Phil Thornton (Author of Casuals and FLAF member) , nail on head as per usual.

An open letter (FB message) to the DFLA types.

Dear football “lads”

You are angry with the wrong people. You have been indoctrinated via our education system and our mass media into believing a lie.

The lie is “we’re all in this together.”

We’re not and we never have been. When i say “we” i suppose i mean the “white working class” of England (and other parts of GB but mostly England).

You claim you are reclaiming our streets but they’re not “our” streets and never have been. They were stolen from us a thousand years ago and the same families that came over with William The Conqueror STILL own vast tracts of land and the wealth derived from this theft

Take my home county of Cheshire. The Grosvenor family are the richest in Britain because the 1stof their line was William Plantagenet’s chief huntsman (Gros Venor means chief of the hunt) and Cheshire’s Vale Royal was a vast game estate.

Do you to want to reclaim this kid’s lands, his streets, his mansions, his stolen billions? A kid who had a £5 million pound 18th birthday party paid for by all of us saps who accept this piss take of a feudal hierarchy?

The notion of a “shared cultural identity” is a myth designed to stop you questioning your position at the bottom of this hierarchy. How they must piss themselves as you rally around the flag and buy into their propaganda.

You may scoff at Black Lives Matter and the pulling down of statues of slave traders but OUR ancestors were slaves of a sort too. They weren’t captured and branded and whipped as they toiled on sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations but they were starved into economic slavery in mills and pits and foundries.

They also sent millions off to be slaughtered in wars to protect their trade routes. Did this empire benefit all of us?

Look around you! If you live on a council estate then tell me how you benefitted from the trillions of stolen wealth taken by force from Africans and Indians and the Chinese and the Arabs.

Ivory and spices and opium and oil. Where did that money go?

Look at that golden carriage and jewels of this inbred aristocrat you worship. The Hanoverian line began with a mad man and degenerated into THIS!

Yes i know you adore the Queen as some totemic symbol of British benevolence but she is simply a puppet of the city who pimp her out to the Saudis and any other blood soaked regime with an open cheque book.

All those lads from our estates that died in Belgium and France and Germany and Italy and North Africa and the Atlantic Suez and Palestine and Ireland and the Falklands and Afghanistan and Iraq - yes, it’s better to believe they died for a noble cause but really they died to protect the wealth of their officer class.

Even Churchill, the sainted Churchill sent in gunboats and soldiers to defeat our class during the general strike. He wasn’t so far removed from the politics of Hitler or Mussolini but he was helped both by the US and the Russians to defeat the nazis.

The Nazis themselves were also puppets of the super rich, happy to go along with his madness as long as it lined their pockets.

If you truly feel as if “your” culture and identity is slowly being taken from you ask yourself what kind of identity it is you believe in.

We are all immigrants! it’s true! We all came from somewhere else. We are all descended from the same bunch of apeman that escaped the rift valley and followed the shoreline.

When you’ve got **** all it’s only natural that you cling to something, ANYTHING that gives your life meaning and validity. Nationalism is always there when all else fails.

But it’s a con trick and the very people that despise you the most, the privileged public school city boys and their pals in parliament are the first to call you hooligans and **** once you’ve done their bidding.

Black Lives DO Matter and they’re not saying yours don’t but you can’t avoid the awful truth of police killing black men and women here and in the US is not just a case of black people being criminal (poor) but the police see black people as an inferior sub species of humanity.

I hope most reasonable football lads can see how they’re being used by the likes of Farage, Batten and Yaxley-Lennon for their own purposes. The real enemy isn’t the muslim or the black person or the commies or the Antifa it’s the ones that sit back in their stolen palaces and castles as you fight their fight for them.

J

Brilliant, or could be shortened to ‘You're being had’.

The problem is, the political climate is such that only a tiny proportion of lads that have signed up with the far right are going to be persuaded off that route by fine words.

[EAZY-ME]

Meanwhile huge queues are forming in England to snap up bargains made by slaves

[CapitalGreen]

Meanwhile huge queues are forming in England to snap up bargains made by slaves

Maybe direct your ire at the business owners who use slave-labour in order to line their own pockets rather than at the poor working classes who are being expected to make ethical decisions when shopping with already stretched budgets.

[Speedy]

Maybe direct your ire at the business owners who use slave-labour in order to line their own pockets rather than at the poor working classes who are being expected to make ethical decisions when shopping with already stretched budgets.

It's down to both groups imo. And not everyone who shops at primark is poor.

[G B Young]

It's down to both groups imo. And not everyone who shops at primark is poor.

Spot on. It's one of the great contradictions that many of the nation's youth (from all walks of life) flock to stores like Primark (ie stylish clothes at a rock bottom price which allows them to wear them once at the weekend and then chuck them out) yet claim to be climate change warriors :wink:

[Keith_M]

I see the 'Loyalist Defense League' were on the streets of Glasgow again yesterday.

Their counterparts in the Green Brigade were, as usual, latching on to the opposite side of the debate and they had to be separated by the Police.

What a bunch of sad sacks.

[Keith_M]

When you say ‘just’ a bunch of football hooligans, this missed the point a bit, and I don’t blame you for that because most of the media outrage isn’t about the actual chain of events, it’s focussed on a pissed up boy having a slash next to a monument he didn’t realise was there. What’s going on with the ‘counter protests’ and their ‘scuffles’ (not riots, remember, like the BLM hooligans, just ‘scuffles’) is serious and organised.
.


Don't read too much into my choice of the word 'just'.

I honestly wasn't trying to minimise what they were doing and I totally agree with you about their behaviour.

I think there may well be a small number of people latching on to the BLM protests for their own ends (though not so much in the UK, though), but these people are just a joke, with their alleged defence of monuments as an excuse for asserting some idea of superiority and, for some, as an excuse for a pagger.

[Kato]

Saw this excellent piece on Facebook. Not sure about Nazis being puppets. But much of the German people, Nazi or not, got pulled into the War.

Phil Thornton a fantastic piece and something everyone needs to take a few minutes of their time to read.

Phil Thornton (Author of Casuals and FLAF member) , nail on head as per usual.

An open letter (FB message) to the DFLA types.

Dear football “lads”

You are angry with the wrong people. You have been indoctrinated via our education system and our mass media into believing a lie.

The lie is “we’re all in this together.”

We’re not and we never have been. When i say “we” i suppose i mean the “white working class” of England (and other parts of GB but mostly England).

You claim you are reclaiming our streets but they’re not “our” streets and never have been. They were stolen from us a thousand years ago and the same families that came over with William The Conqueror STILL own vast tracts of land and the wealth derived from this theft

Take my home county of Cheshire. The Grosvenor family are the richest in Britain because the 1stof their line was William Plantagenet’s chief huntsman (Gros Venor means chief of the hunt) and Cheshire’s Vale Royal was a vast game estate.

Do you to want to reclaim this kid’s lands, his streets, his mansions, his stolen billions? A kid who had a £5 million pound 18th birthday party paid for by all of us saps who accept this piss take of a feudal hierarchy?

The notion of a “shared cultural identity” is a myth designed to stop you questioning your position at the bottom of this hierarchy. How they must piss themselves as you rally around the flag and buy into their propaganda.

You may scoff at Black Lives Matter and the pulling down of statues of slave traders but OUR ancestors were slaves of a sort too. They weren’t captured and branded and whipped as they toiled on sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations but they were starved into economic slavery in mills and pits and foundries.

They also sent millions off to be slaughtered in wars to protect their trade routes. Did this empire benefit all of us?

Look around you! If you live on a council estate then tell me how you benefitted from the trillions of stolen wealth taken by force from Africans and Indians and the Chinese and the Arabs.

Ivory and spices and opium and oil. Where did that money go?

Look at that golden carriage and jewels of this inbred aristocrat you worship. The Hanoverian line began with a mad man and degenerated into THIS!

Yes i know you adore the Queen as some totemic symbol of British benevolence but she is simply a puppet of the city who pimp her out to the Saudis and any other blood soaked regime with an open cheque book.

All those lads from our estates that died in Belgium and France and Germany and Italy and North Africa and the Atlantic Suez and Palestine and Ireland and the Falklands and Afghanistan and Iraq - yes, it’s better to believe they died for a noble cause but really they died to protect the wealth of their officer class.

Even Churchill, the sainted Churchill sent in gunboats and soldiers to defeat our class during the general strike. He wasn’t so far removed from the politics of Hitler or Mussolini but he was helped both by the US and the Russians to defeat the nazis.

The Nazis themselves were also puppets of the super rich, happy to go along with his madness as long as it lined their pockets.

If you truly feel as if “your” culture and identity is slowly being taken from you ask yourself what kind of identity it is you believe in.

We are all immigrants! it’s true! We all came from somewhere else. We are all descended from the same bunch of apeman that escaped the rift valley and followed the shoreline.

When you’ve got **** all it’s only natural that you cling to something, ANYTHING that gives your life meaning and validity. Nationalism is always there when all else fails.

But it’s a con trick and the very people that despise you the most, the privileged public school city boys and their pals in parliament are the first to call you hooligans and **** once you’ve done their bidding.

Black Lives DO Matter and they’re not saying yours don’t but you can’t avoid the awful truth of police killing black men and women here and in the US is not just a case of black people being criminal (poor) but the police see black people as an inferior sub species of humanity.

I hope most reasonable football lads can see how they’re being used by the likes of Farage, Batten and Yaxley-Lennon for their own purposes. The real enemy isn’t the muslim or the black person or the commies or the Antifa it’s the ones that sit back in their stolen palaces and castles as you fight their fight for them.

J
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -Lyndon B. Johnson

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Neil Oliver spectacularly missing the point.

https://youtu.be/cSIiTSMbdDc

[hibsbollah]

Neil Oliver spectacularly missing the point.

https://youtu.be/cSIiTSMbdDc

A classic bit of whitabootery there from the long hair tossing, Scots toff fop. I can’t watch him or his crap history programmes.

[lapsedhibee]

A classic bit of whitabootery there from the long hair tossing, Scots toff fop. I can’t watch him or his crap history programmes.

I took it as a call for naked protests against children working in sweatshops.

[hibsbollah]

I took it as a call for naked protests against children working in sweatshops.

I bet that ponce would be well up for some naked protesting. Looking wistfully out over a mist shrouded glen tossing his perfectly conditioned locks over his shoulder in the buff.

[lapsedhibee]

I bet that ponce would be well up for some naked protesting. Looking wistfully out over a mist shrouded glen tossing his perfectly conditioned locks over his shoulder in the buff.

Alice Roberts is your historian for presenting nood. I recall she had to get her kit off for a programme about wild swimming recently. Maybe her and Oliver together, with him doing the mist shrouded bits.

[hibsbollah]

Alice Roberts is your historian for presenting nood. I recall she had to get her kit off for a programme about wild swimming recently. Maybe her and Oliver together, with him doing the mist shrouded bits.

Dr Alice Roberts. Now you're talking.

[Sir David Gray]

Neil Oliver spectacularly missing the point.

https://youtu.be/cSIiTSMbdDc

I think he raises some good points.

[Kato]

I think he raises some good points.Which ones?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

I think he raises some good points.

Id summarise his points like this;

Slavery has always been with us. Back into the past and still exists now. We cant express outrage at the UKs role in this as a result.

Smart phones are the new vital tech that everyone today uses. So because this tech is made with child labour, and we live in an unfair world, those people using smart phones to film these injustices are somehow hypocrites for using that ubiquitous tech :faf:

Don't talk about our role in the slave trade, because todays slavery is more important. Its impossible to do BOTH of these things, of course.

The 'anarchists and communists' bit must be a joke. Are there even any communists anymore?! Its like he's a McCarthyist commentating on the US in the 60s or something. Just weird all round.

[Smartie]

Id summarise his points like this;

Slavery has always been with us. Back into the past and still exists now. We cant express outrage at the UKs role in this as a result.

Smart phones are the new vital tech that everyone today uses. So because this tech is made with child labour, and we live in an unfair world, those people using smart phones to film these injustices are somehow hypocrites for using that ubiquitous tech :faf:

Don't talk about our role in the slave trade, because todays slavery is more important. Its impossible to do BOTH of these things, of course.

The 'anarchists and communists' bit must be a joke. Are there even any communists anymore?! Its like he's a McCarthyist commentating on the US in the 60s or something. Just weird all round.

I thought he DID make good points before losing the plot at the end.

The points regarding modern day slavery are a bit of a handy distraction, valid though they may be.

He actually needs to be pressed further on his own thoughts. Does he believe that black lives matter? Does he understand why people are protesting or does he believe are they just anarchists who have been in the house too long? He's a historian, does his interest in history extend beyond monuments built to revere British establishment figures?

If he actually answered those points we could move on to discussing modern day slavery, which is a different issue - and one that deserves better than to be used as a distraction from separate issue altogether.

[Speedy]

Which ones?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Highlighting issues that exist today is a good thing.

If people are concerned about slavery and working conditions then creating awareness will put pressue on companies to improve working conditions.

[Kato]

Highlighting issues that exist today is a good thing.

If people are concerned about slavery and working conditions then creating awareness will put pressue on companies to improve working conditions.

Highlighting issues which exist today is fine, in fact vital.

Highlighting issues which exist today whilst also highlighting problematic symbols of the past is also possible and illuminating.

His take seems to be that none of the protesters know a thing about today's problems and are in fact all hypocrites for protesting about symbols from the past.

That isn't a very good point IMHO.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Neil Oliver spectacularly missing the point.

https://youtu.be/cSIiTSMbdDc

He really is a bellend of the highest proportions.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought he DID make good points before losing the plot at the end.

The points regarding modern day slavery are a bit of a handy distraction, valid though they may be.

He actually needs to be pressed further on his own thoughts. Does he believe that black lives matter? Does he understand why people are protesting or does he believe are they just anarchists who have been in the house too long? He's a historian, does his interest in history extend beyond monuments built to revere British establishment figures?

If he actually answered those points we could move on to discussing modern day slavery, which is a different issue - and one that deserves better than to be used as a distraction from separate issue altogether.

The jury is still out as to whether he is a valid historian, or whether he is a guy who looks good on telly. His background is in archaeology, and historians I know tend to roll their eyes at his credentials.

[Speedy]

Highlighting issues which exist today is fine, in fact vital.

Highlighting issues which exist today whilst also highlighting problematic symbols of the past is also possible and illuminating.

His take seems to be that none of the protesters know a thing about today's problems and are in fact all hypocrites for protesting about symbols from the past.

That isn't a very good point IMHO.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

I'm sure there are at least some who are either oblivious to today's issues or are aware but are happy to accept those things if it gives them cheap clothes and easy access to their instagram account. Talking in extremes doesn't help, clearly there are a lot of people involved, all of which will have a different perspective.

My take on it is that it is important people learn from the past, it is more important that leads to change now and in the future.

[Hibrandenburg]

Highlighting issues that exist today is a good thing.

If people are concerned about slavery and working conditions then creating awareness will put pressue on companies to improve working conditions.

Then we're back to deflecting from the issue at hand. Slavery past, present and future is only part of the story, this is about equality. You wouldn't deflect from the issue of breast cancer by saying "there's always been cancer and what about lung cancer". Oliver is a walloper.

[Sir David Gray]

Which ones?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Well his opening remark for a start - "Slavery is the scourge of humankind."

Also pointing out the double standards of the people protesting against slavery from the 17th century, when the majority of people present at the protests will have been using mobile phones that contain batteries produced by slaves in Africa in the 21st century.

Also pointing out that a lot of them will have been wearing clothes produced by slaves in Asia, again in the 21st century.

Describing the taking down of certain TV shows from the past as token gestures.

Describing it as more important that we tackle modern day slavery that's happening right now.

[Speedy]

Then were back to deflecting from the issue at hand. Slavery past, present and future is only part of the story, this is about equality. You wouldn't deflect from the issue of breast cancer by saying "there's always been cancer and what about lung cancer". Oliver is a walloper.

He makes some good points and some bad points. Why does it have to be all or nothing.

You can add to something without it being an attempt at 'deflecting'.

[G B Young]

A classic bit of whitabootery there from the long hair tossing, Scots toff fop. I can’t watch him or his crap history programmes.

Is he a toff? I might be thinking about the wrong TV presenter but I'm pretty sure I recall one of my former work colleagues (a bit of a nutjob Queen of the South fan who certainly wasn't a toff) saying he was a pal of his when they were at school together in Dumfries.

[G B Young]

Well his opening remark for a start - "Slavery is the scourge of humankind."

Also pointing out the double standards of the people protesting against slavery from the 17th century, when the majority of people present at the protests will have been using mobile phones that contain batteries produced by slaves in Africa in the 21st century.

Also pointing out that a lot of them will have been wearing clothes produced by slaves in Asia, again in the 21st century.

Describing the taking down of certain TV shows from the past as token gestures.

Describing it as more important that we tackle modern day slavery that's happening right now.

I thought those were fair points too, although it seemed like an excerpt from a longer piece?

[hibsbollah]

Is he a toff? I might be thinking about the wrong TV presenter but I'm pretty sure I recall one of my former work colleagues (a bit of a nutjob Queen of the South fan who certainly wasn't a toff) saying he was a pal of his when they were at school together in Dumfries.

Och I don’t know his social background to be honest, I just have an unhealthy visceral hatred for the guy and his TV programmes, so I’m not an objective judge :faf:

[Pretty Boy]

Neil Oliver is a dickhead.

That's my contribution to this discussion.

[McD]

Och I don’t know his social background to be honest, I just have an unhealthy visceral hatred for the guy and his TV programmes, so I’m not an objective judge :faf:


Neil Oliver is a dickhead.

That's my contribution to this discussion.



:greengrin:aok: to both of you

[Kato]

I'm sure there are at least some who are either oblivious to today's issues or are aware but are happy to accept those things if it gives them cheap clothes and easy access to their instagram account. Talking in extremes doesn't help, clearly there are a lot of people involved, all of which will have a different perspective.

My take on it is that it is important people learn from the past, it is more important that leads to change now and in the future.Agreed. Talking in terms of "anarchists and communists " looking to destroy the fabric of Britain's history is hysterical nonsense. History and the interpretation of historical materials is and should always be in a state of flux.

If removing a few statues threatens the fabric of Britains history it doesn't say much for Britains history.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Well his opening remark for a start - "Slavery is the scourge of humankind."

Also pointing out the double standards of the people protesting against slavery from the 17th century, when the majority of people present at the protests will have been using mobile phones that contain batteries produced by slaves in Africa in the 21st century.

Also pointing out that a lot of them will have been wearing clothes produced by slaves in Asia, again in the 21st century.

Describing the taking down of certain TV shows from the past as token gestures.

Describing it as more important that we tackle modern day slavery that's happening right now.The double standards he points out are supposition, he doesn't know everything about all the people there.

Also - people are capable of tackling, discussing and taking on board points about multiple aspects of a subject. His point seems to be "hypocrisy" full stop.


Tackle modern day slavery whilst addressing Britains histiory is possible, without labelling people as "communists".

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

He makes some good points and some bad points. Why does it have to be all or nothing.

You can add to something without it being an attempt at 'deflecting'.

He makes no good points that have in anyway relevance to black people in the western world fighting for equality and justice. Should we always demand other world issues be addressed before we make social progress in our own countries for our own fellow citizens, or does world poverty, slavery and all other worldly evils only have to be rectified before black people are listened to? It's whataboutery by definition.

[Speedy]

He makes no good points that have in anyway relevance to black people in the western world fighting for equality and justice. Should we always demand other world issues be addressed before we make social progress in our own countries for our own fellow citizens, or does world poverty, slavery and all other worldly evils only have to be rectified before black people are listened to? It's whataboutery by definition.

Do you post daft analogies and straw man arguments in every post?

If the bit in bold is what you're taking from this conversation then I'm not going to waste my time.

[Speedy]

Agreed. Talking in terms of "anarchists and communists " looking to destroy the fabric of Britain's history is hysterical nonsense. History and the interpretation of historical materials is and should always be in a state of flux.

If removing a few statues threatens the fabric of Britains history it doesn't say much for Britains history.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Agreed, chat of anarchists and communists is a bit daft and certainly undermines his other points.

[G B Young]

Och I don’t know his social background to be honest, I just have an unhealthy visceral hatred for the guy and his TV programmes, so I’m not an objective judge :faf:

Fair enough :greengrin

I don't know a lot about him (I recall he presented a programme called Coast a few years back which I remember thinking was OK) but some of the Scottish history stuff he's done for the BBC Bitesize home schooling initiative has been useful and done in a very accessible, kid-friendly way.

I have, however, dug a bit deeper and I see he's strongly pro-Union which I guess makes any viewpoint he holds pretty much invalid in the eyes of some on here :wink:

[greenlex]

Neil Oliver is a dickhead.

That's my contribution to this discussion.
He’s the only Johnathan Watson impression that raises a titter out me these days.

[Hibrandenburg]

Do you post daft analogies and straw man arguments in every post?

If the bit in bold is what you're taking from this conversation then I'm not going to waste my time.

I'm only saying that there's no reason to discuss the there and now when it's only vaguely relevant to the here and now. Effectively Oliver is saying that black people in the west shouldn't get worked up because other black people have it worse. That's a shocking message and like I say in my original post, he's missed the point completely.

[Moulin Yarns]

Fair enough :greengrin

I don't know a lot about him (I recall he presented a programme called Coast a few years back which I remember thinking was OK) but some of the Scottish history stuff he's done for the BBC Bitesize home schooling initiative has been useful and done in a very accessible, kid-friendly way.

I have, however, dug a bit deeper and I see he's strongly pro-Union which I guess makes any viewpoint he holds pretty much invalid in the eyes of some on here :wink:

I can confirm that he is not a true scotsman, because he really got his knickers in a twist 6 years ago. 😉

[makaveli1875]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

[Mibbes Aye]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

I was knitting a jumper for an orphaned Nepalese puppy. Then I read your post.

I can’t continue with my knitting because my eyes are welled—up in distress at your anger.

I hope my puppy survives the cold, without its jumper, and I apologise to Nepal and orphaned puppies in general.

[bigwheel]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

Feels like a cry for help this ...sending Love and hugs [emoji176]

[Hibrandenburg]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

Good morning mate, how are you feeling today?

[hibsbollah]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

Neil Oliver after a few scoops. Morning geezer :aok:

[CapitalGreen]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

You ok hun?

[Scouse Hibee]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

Let it all out mate, it’s good to blow once in a while and rid yourself of frustration. Hope all is well.

[Jones28]

You lot talk as much ***** as anyone. Same pish and virtue signalling every day. Bunch of slavering boring ********s

Well done, it’s good to talk

[ronaldo7]

#prayformakaveli1875

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair enough :greengrin

I don't know a lot about him (I recall he presented a programme called Coast a few years back which I remember thinking was OK) but some of the Scottish history stuff he's done for the BBC Bitesize home schooling initiative has been useful and done in a very accessible, kid-friendly way.

I have, however, dug a bit deeper and I see he's strongly pro-Union which I guess makes any viewpoint he holds pretty much invalid in the eyes of some on here :wink:

He's an archaeologist. Real historians get a bit upset that he gets to do history programmes on the telly. Nats get a bit upset that he calls them "cancerous". Highlanders got a bit upset when he called the clearances "a migration ... looking for adventure".

Personally I get a bit upset looking at his barnet and neckwear but ho hum. :dunno:

[green&left]

I see the 'Loyalist Defense League' were on the streets of Glasgow again yesterday.

Their counterparts in the Green Brigade were, as usual, latching on to the opposite side of the debate and they had to be separated by the Police.

What a bunch of sad sacks.

There was no Celtic or any other republicans out on Sunday I don't think? Reading journalist reports loyalists were attacking innocent passer-by's/journalists and the polis. Strangely not one arrest made. From what i've read this morning they can't get near the numbers and are happy to just allow the huns to make complete ****s of themselves similar to how their English counterparts did in London on Saturday.

There is a rally tonight at George Sq at 6pm by evicted asylum seekers.

Guess who's organising a counter rally and turning up at 5pm tonight to "protect the war memorial".:rolleyes:

[Tomsk]

He's an archaeologist. Real historians get a bit upset that he gets to do history programmes on the telly. Nats get a bit upset that he calls them "cancerous". Highlanders got a bit upset when he called the clearances "a migration ... looking for adventure".

Personally I get a bit upset looking at his barnet and neckwear but ho hum. :dunno:

I agree about the hair. :rolleyes: He reminds me of some of those sleazy 'hip' lecturers I encountered at university, past their sell-by date, desperately clinging to their long-faded youth. But what really annoys me about him is his style of presentation. Everything's delivered in deadly earnest and so over-wrought. Lighten up, will ye! And get your bleedin' hair cut!

[Hiber-nation]

I agree about the hair. :rolleyes: He reminds me of some of those sleazy 'hip' lecturers I encountered at university, past their sell-by date, desperately clinging to their long-faded youth. But what really annoys me about him is his style of presentation. Everything's delivered in deadly earnest and so over-wrought. Lighten up, will ye! And get your bleedin' hair cut!

How did this clown ever get to appear on telly in the first place? I've never heard of anyone ever having a good word to say about his presentation style. I'd rather watch a head-to-head between Tom English and Levein while getting root canal treatment.

[Tomsk]

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/18/blm-protests-prompt-edinburgh-to-reassess-fate-of-golliwog-mural

[hibsbollah]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/uncle-bens-rice-firm-to-scrap-brand-image-of-black-farmer

Will the madness never end. What next.

[Smartie]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/uncle-bens-rice-firm-to-scrap-brand-image-of-black-farmer

Will the madness never end. What next.

It's interesting that a "black farmer" can be considered to be a racist emblem in one place, when "white farmers" for so long represented a very different sort of oppression in another part of the world.

[Bristolhibby]

It's interesting that a "black farmer" can be considered to be a racist emblem in one place, when "white farmers" for so long represented a very different sort of oppression in another part of the world.

Uncle Ben has that “Uncle Tom” house slave connotations.

Same with Aunt Jemima pancake mix.

Think Samuel L Jackson’s excellent portrayal of Stephen the house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

I can see why they will ditch it. And TBH that’s their decision to make.

J

[The Modfather]

Uncle Ben has that “Uncle Tom” house slave connotations.

Same with Aunt Jemima pancake mix.

Think Samuel L Jackson’s excellent portrayal of Stephen the house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

I can see why they will ditch it. And TBH that’s their decision to make.

J

I think it’s a stretch to equate it to Uncle Tom (which I know you weren’t doing). The cynic in me sees it as something the PR team probably came up with to jump on the current bandwagon, for reasons of self gain.

[Sir David Gray]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/uncle-bens-rice-firm-to-scrap-brand-image-of-black-farmer

Will the madness never end. What next.

Utter nonsense.

[G B Young]

Uncle Ben has that “Uncle Tom” house slave connotations.

Same with Aunt Jemima pancake mix.

Think Samuel L Jackson’s excellent portrayal of Stephen the house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

I can see why they will ditch it. And TBH that’s their decision to make.

J

I'm unclear how he can be a stereotype if he was a real black farmer who was known as Uncle Ben. What are they going to do, pretend he was white?

[lapsedhibee]

I'm unclear how he can be a stereotype if he was a real black farmer who was known as Uncle Ben. What are they going to do, pretend he was white?

His name was Frank Brown and he wasn't a farmer.

[hibsbollah]

The Do Gooder brigade are trying to ban the Twickenham faithful from singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot now. I’d like to see them try!

[makaveli1875]

Let it all out mate, it’s good to blow once in a while and rid yourself of frustration. Hope all is well.

Much better now thanks

[Future17]

I'm unclear how he can be a stereotype if he was a real black farmer who was known as Uncle Ben. What are they going to do, pretend he was white?

I'm assuming The Colonel is done for and don't get me started on Ronald McDonald with his whiteface schtick.

[G B Young]

His name was Frank Brown and he wasn't a farmer.

Oops, I stand corrected if that's the case. Have to admit I didn't actually read that Guardian piece. I'd already read the story in the Metro which says he was named after a farmer:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/why-are-uncle-bens-rice-aunt-jemimas-pancake-syrup-logos-racist-quaker-oats-mars-change-branding-12869165/

I still think that if he's based on a real person then it's debatable how 'racist' the image is, but there's clearly a rush among brand manufacturers etc to be seen to be doing the right thing right now - and as somebody else has suggested there may be some opportunist PR at play in a bid to boost sales.

[hibsbollah]

If anyone tries to stop me singing about south Morocco at ER I swear I’ll do time.

[Keith_M]

There was no Celtic or any other republicans out on Sunday I don't think? Reading journalist reports loyalists were attacking innocent passer-by's/journalists and the polis. Strangely not one arrest made. From what i've read this morning they can't get near the numbers and are happy to just allow the huns to make complete ****s of themselves similar to how their English counterparts did in London on Saturday.

There is a rally tonight at George Sq at 6pm by evicted asylum seekers.

Guess who's organising a counter rally and turning up at 5pm tonight to "protect the war memorial".:rolleyes:


"Police Scotland, Chief Superintendent Alan Murray, said: “A sizeable number of individuals identified as being from various groups gathered in George Square this morning with a stated intention of protecting statues.

“Throughout the day, police officers were required to intervene due to the presence of opposing groups to maintain order and public safety.

“Both factions included known football risk groups."

Glasgow Times (https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18516846.police-say-known-football-risk-groups-involved-statue-clashes-george-square/)


A few days before that, the Green Brigade were attempting to change street names in Glasgow City Centre.

(Article in Daily Record (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/change-gonna-come-green-brigade-22162274))

It's generally believed that was a large part of the motivation for their 'Loyalist' counterparts to turn up. Some of them then returned to the square but were outnumbered

[lapsedhibee]

Oops, I stand corrected if that's the case. Have to admit I didn't actually read that Guardian piece. I'd already read the story in the Metro which says he was named after a farmer:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/why-are-uncle-bens-rice-aunt-jemimas-pancake-syrup-logos-racist-quaker-oats-mars-change-branding-12869165/

I still think that if he's based on a real person then it's debatable how 'racist' the image is, but there's clearly a rush among brand manufacturers etc to be seen to be doing the right thing right now - and as somebody else has suggested there may be some opportunist PR at play in a bid to boost sales.

Uncle Ben might have been a farmer, but the picture which accompanies the logo is not of Uncle Ben, as both Guardian and Metro make clear. The Metro picture is of someone in open necked shirt, who could be a farmer, but many of the pictures show a black man in bow tie, suggesting servant/servile status. If the bow tie version is current, probably wise to change that.

[G B Young]

Uncle Ben might have been a farmer, but the picture which accompanies the logo is not of Uncle Ben, as both Guardian and Metro make clear. The Metro picture is of someone in open necked shirt, who could be a farmer, but many of the pictures show a black man in bow tie, suggesting servant/servile status. If the bow tie version is current, probably wise to change that.

As far as I can gather from this New York Times piece from 2007 (I couldn't read all of it because of the paywall), the current suit and tie look was brought it to show him as an 'opulant businessman' rather than somebody of more servile status:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/business/media/30adco.html

I guess it shows this has been under debate for a long time (and there's no mention of who he was based on).

[lapsedhibee]

As far as I can gather from this New York Times piece from 2007 (I couldn't read all of it because of the paywall), the current suit and tie look was brought it to show him as an 'opulant businessman' rather than somebody of more servile status:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/business/media/30adco.html

I guess it shows this has been under debate for a long time (and there's no mention of who he was based on).

Not everyone convinced by the creative/cynical makeover. Full article:

Uncle Ben, Board Chairman
By Stuart Elliott
March 30, 2007

A racially charged advertising character, who for decades has been relegated to a minor role in the marketing of the products that still carry his name, is taking center stage in a campaign that gives him a makeover — Madison Avenue style — by promoting him to chairman of the company.

The character is Uncle Ben, the symbol for more than 60 years of the Uncle Ben’s line of rices and side dishes now sold by the food giant Mars. The challenges confronting Mars in reviving a character as racially fraught as Uncle Ben were evidenced in the reactions of experts to a redesigned Web site (unclebens.com), which went live this week.

“This is an interesting idea, but for me it still has a very high cringe factor,” said Luke Visconti, partner at Diversity Inc. Media in Newark, which publishes a magazine and Web site devoted to diversity in the workplace.

“There’s a lot of baggage associated with the image,” Mr. Visconti said, which the makeover “is glossing over.”

Uncle Ben, who first appeared in ads in 1946, is being reborn as Ben, an accomplished businessman with an opulent office, a busy schedule, an extensive travel itinerary and a penchant for sharing what the company calls his “grains of wisdom” about rice and life. A crucial aspect of his biography remains the same, though: He has no last name.

Vincent Howell, president for the food division of the Masterfoods USA unit of Mars, said that because consumers described Uncle Ben as having “a timeless element to him, we didn’t want to significantly change him.”

“What’s powerful to me is to show an African-American icon in a position of prominence and authority,” Mr. Howell said. “As an African-American, he makes me feel so proud.”

The previous reluctance to feature Uncle Ben prominently in ads stood in stark contrast to the way other human characters like Orville Redenbacher and Colonel Sanders personify their products. That reticence can be traced to the contentious history of Uncle Ben as the black face of a white company, wearing a bow tie evocative of servants and Pullman porters and bearing a title reflecting how white Southerners once used “uncle” and “aunt” as honorifics for older blacks because they refused to say “Mr.” and “Mrs.”

Before the civil rights movement took hold, marketers of food and household products often used racial and ethnic stereotypes in creating brand characters and mascots.

In addition to Uncle Ben, there was Aunt Jemima, who sold pancake mix in ads that sometimes had her exclaiming, “Tempt yo’ appetite;” a grinning black chef named Rastus, who represented Cream of Wheat hot cereal; the Gold Dust Twins, a pair of black urchins who peddled a soap powder for Lever Brothers; the Frito Bandito, who spoke in an exaggerated Mexican accent; and characters selling powdered drink mixes for Pillsbury under names like Injun Orange and Chinese Cherry — the latter baring buck teeth.

“The only time blacks were put into ads was when they were athletic, subservient or entertainers,” said Marilyn Kern Foxworth, the author of “Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.”

After the start of the civil rights movement, such characters became “lightning rods” in a period when consumers started to want “images our children could look up to and emulate,” Ms. Kern Foxworth said.

/cont

[lapsedhibee]

/cont

As a result, most of those polarizing ad characters were banished when marketers — becoming more sensitive to the changing attitudes of consumers — realized they were no longer appropriate. A handful like Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima and the Cream of Wheat chef were redesigned and kept on, but in the unusual status of silent spokescharacters, removed from ads and reduced to staring mutely from packages.

Times, however, change, as evidenced by real-life figures as disparate as Wally Amos, the founder of Famous Amos cookies; Oprah Winfrey; and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who is running for president. In advertising, there are now black authority figures serving as spokesmen in multimillion-dollar campaigns, like Dennis Haysbert, for Allstate, and James Earl Jones, for Verizon.

That helped executives at Masterfoods and its advertising agency, TBWA/Chiat/Day, consider the risky step of reviving the character.

“There’s no doubt we realized we had a very powerful asset we were not using strongly enough,” Mr. Howell said.

So about 18 months ago, the company and agency decided “to reach out to our consumers” and gauge attitudes toward Uncle Ben, Mr. Howell said. There were no negative responses or references to the stereotyped aspects of the character, he said. Rather, the consumers “focused on positive images, quality, warmth, timelessness,” he added, and “the legend of Uncle Ben.”

That encouraged the idea that “we could bring him to life,” Mr. Howell said, sensitive to “the sorts of concerns that are important to me as an African-American.”

Joe Shands, a creative director at the Playa del Rey, Calif., office of TBWA/Chiat/Day, said the freedom to use the character to sell the Uncle Ben’s brand was a welcome change from the years when “all we’ve had to work with is a portrait.” “We wanted to know if there was something there we could utilize to talk about new products, existing products, the values of the company,” Mr. Shands said, adding that both black and white consumers described the character as someone “they know and love.”

“Through the magic of marketing, we’ve made him the chairman,” Mr. Shands said. Uncle Ben’s office, he said, is “reflective of a man with great wisdom who has done great things.”

Magazine ads in the campaign, which carries the theme “Ben knows best,” present a painting of the character in a gold frame with the chairman’s title affixed on a plaque.

The painting is also on display on the home page of the redesigned Web site, which offers a virtual tour of Ben’s office. Visitors can browse through his e-mail messages, examine his datebook and read his executive memorandums.

“It’s important consumers begin to hear from Uncle Ben,” said Mr. Howell of Masterfoods, who is based in Los Angeles.

Despite the character’s impressive new credentials, some advertising executives expressed skepticism that the campaign could avoid negative overtones.

The ads are “asking us to make the leap from Uncle Ben being someone who looks like a butler to overnight being a chairman of the board,” Ms. Kern Foxworth said. “It does not work for me.”

/cont

[lapsedhibee]

/cont

“I applaud them for the effort and trying to move forward,” she added, but the decision to keep the same portrait of Uncle Ben, bow tie and all, also dismayed her because “they’re trying so hard to hold onto something I’m trying so hard to get rid of.”

Howard Buford, chief executive at Prime Access in New York, an agency specializing in multicultural campaigns, said he gave the campaign’s creators some credit. “It’s potentially a very creative way to handle the baggage of old racial stereotypes as advertising icons,” he said, but “it’s going to take a lot of work to get it right and make it ring true.”

For instance, Mr. Buford said, noting all the “Ben” references in the ads, “Rarely do you have someone of that stature addressed by his first name” — and minus any signs of a surname.

Mr. Buford, who is a real-life black leader of a company, likened the promotion of Uncle Ben to the abrupt plot twists on TV series like “Benson” and “Designing Women,” when black characters in subservient roles one season became professionals the next.

“It’s nice that now, for the 21st century, they’re saying this icon can ‘own’ a company,” Mr. Buford said, “but they’re going to have to make him a whole person.”

Mr. Visconti of Diversity Inc. Media struck a similar chord. He said he would have turned Ben’s office into “a learning experience,” furnishing it with, for example, books by Frederick Douglass and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I’ve never been in the office of African-Americans of this era who didn’t have something in their office showing what it took to get them there,” Mr. Visconti said.

The actual biography of Uncle Ben is at variance with his fanciful new identity. According to Ms. Kern Foxworth’s book and other reference materials, there was a Ben — no surname survives — who was a Houston rice farmer renowned for the quality of his crops. During World War II, Gordon L. Harwell, a Texas food broker, supplied to the armed forces a special kind of white rice, cooked to preserve the nutrients, under the brand name Converted Rice.

In 1946, Mr. Harwell had dinner with a friend (or business partner) in Chicago (or Houston) and decided that a portrait of the maitre d’hotel of the restaurant, Frank Brown, could represent the brand, which was renamed Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice as it was being introduced to the consumer market.

In coming months, visitors to the Uncle Ben’s Web site will be able to discover new elements of the character, Mr. Howell said, like full-body digital versions of Uncle Ben and voice mail messages. The Web site was designed by an agency, Tequila, that is a sibling of TBWA/Chiat/Day, and the budget for the campaign, print and online, is estimated at $20 million. TBWA/Chiat/Day is part of the TBWA Worldwide unit of the Omnicom Group.

If the makeover for Uncle Ben is deemed successful, could there be similar changes in store for other racially charged characters?

Last month, the Cream of Wheat chef got a new owner when B&G Foods completed a $200 million deal to buy his brand, and its companion, Cream of Rice, from Kraft Foods.

“We’re doing consumer focus work right now to understand how important the character is,” said David L. Wenner, chief executive at B&G in Parsippany, N.J.

If any changes were to be made, “you would need to be very careful,” he added, “and you would want to do it with dignity.”

[Keith_M]

Reading the racist heritage of some Americans calling older black people 'uncle' and 'aunt', I'm amazed it's only now started to occur to them that it might not be particularly appropriate.

The guy actually looks like the chauffeur from 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I would have thought that was a bit of a hint.

[The Modfather]

Without wanting to come across as glib, or even trolling. Has this subject had its 15 minutes of attention among the wider public and beginning to be forgotten about again? Certainly in the UK anyway.

That’s not to say the debate or issues are any less valid, but is the inactivity on this thread an indicator of, like Cummings & Prince Andrew, we see a big public outcry, lots of debate, and then folk forget and move on. I’m talking about the public in general, not at an individual level. Or is it more a reflection of the fact the debate has ran it’s course and much more is just repeating itself and the general public are just as aware and active for things to change.

[Kato]

Without wanting to come across as glib, or even trolling. Has this subject had its 15 minutes of attention among the wider public and beginning to be forgotten about again? Certainly in the UK anyway.

That’s not to say the debate or issues are any less valid, but is the inactivity on this thread an indicator of, like Cummings & Prince Andrew, we see a big public outcry, lots of debate, and then folk forget and move on. I’m talking about the public in general, not at an individual level. Or is it more a reflection of the fact the debate has ran it’s course and much more is just repeating itself and the general public are just as aware and active for things to change.

The outcry and counter-outcry served a purpose as did the banning of some crappy old TV shows in taking the public's attention away from the real subject.

[hibsbollah]

Without wanting to come across as glib, or even trolling. Has this subject had its 15 minutes of attention among the wider public and beginning to be forgotten about again? Certainly in the UK anyway.

That’s not to say the debate or issues are any less valid, but is the inactivity on this thread an indicator of, like Cummings & Prince Andrew, we see a big public outcry, lots of debate, and then folk forget and move on. I’m talking about the public in general, not at an individual level. Or is it more a reflection of the fact the debate has ran it’s course and much more is just repeating itself and the general public are just as aware and active for things to change.


There were some ‘alternative’ street signs put up around imperial streets in Edinburgh the other day, according to my social media feed.

Id say just because it’s not on the news doesn’t mean it’s over. Events have a gradual impact on society;The Cummings affair now seems to be history and he’s still in a job, but the recent collapse of public obedience is a direct consequence. Lack of deference these days to politicians and the medical profession stems from the expenses scandal and the Shipman affair. People remember this stuff even when it’s not discussed.

[G B Young]

Without wanting to come across as glib, or even trolling. Has this subject had its 15 minutes of attention among the wider public and beginning to be forgotten about again? Certainly in the UK anyway.

That’s not to say the debate or issues are any less valid, but is the inactivity on this thread an indicator of, like Cummings & Prince Andrew, we see a big public outcry, lots of debate, and then folk forget and move on. I’m talking about the public in general, not at an individual level. Or is it more a reflection of the fact the debate has ran it’s course and much more is just repeating itself and the general public are just as aware and active for things to change.

A lot of (mainly young?) folk seem to have moved on to demonising JK Rowling in the light of the furore she has provoked around transgender issues...burning their Harry Potter books etc.

[Keith_M]

There were some ‘alternative’ street signs put up around imperial streets in Edinburgh the other day, according to my social media feed.

Id say just because it’s not on the news doesn’t mean it’s over. Events have a gradual impact on society;The Cummings affair now seems to be history and he’s still in a job, but the recent collapse of public obedience is a direct consequence. Lack of deference these days to politicians and the medical profession stems from the expenses scandal and the Shipman affair. People remember this stuff even when it’s not discussed.


There hasn't been as much discussion on here as there's not been as much happening in regards to renaming streets, but the focus has now moved on to other items related to racism.

It is true, though, that a lot of people do jump on to causes and drop them quite quickly. That's especially true of the media.

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/29/groundbreaking-report-reveals-racial-bias-in-english-football-commentary?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

This is something that has always been very noticeable and I’m surprised they needed a study to point it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/29/groundbreaking-report-reveals-racial-bias-in-english-football-commentary?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

This is something that has always been very noticeable and I’m surprised they needed a study to point it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has it? In all my years of watching football on the TV I have never noticed it. I would also be willing to bet that millions of other viewers have never noticed it either.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/29/groundbreaking-report-reveals-racial-bias-in-english-football-commentary?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

This is something that has always been very noticeable and I’m surprised they needed a study to point it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Has it? In all my years of watching football on the TV I have never noticed it. I would also be willing to bet that millions of other viewers have never noticed it either.

I think I may have posted about this on another thread before but there was an in-depth study of American pro sports that made the same point Ozy was making. Essentially, black sportsmen were credited with physique and athleticism, white sportsmen were credited with intelligence and smarts, in disproportionate amounts. There was also explicit reference to the balance in coaching, which is obviously a current issue in English football, but also reference to the balance of commentators and pundits. The clear majority of NFL players are black, but the number of coaches, and even more so, the number of TV talking heads was minuscule.

[Ozyhibby]

Has it? In all my years of watching football on the TV I have never noticed it. I would also be willing to bet that millions of other viewers have never noticed it either.

It was pointed out to me in the late 90’s and once it was I couldn’t stop spotting it. It happens in lots of sports.
In the NFL there are hardly any black QB’s because that was seen as a position where smarts were needed. They were not getting a chance there at high schools and it meant there were none coming through at the top level despite black players performing brilliantly in every other position. It was in the psyche that black players were athletic and powerful but when it came to your QB you needed a clever white kid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

It used to be very noticeable in International tournaments the most artistic, entertaining German teams were "efficient". USSR teams packed with individual talents were all about "team work" and playing "with fear".

[Hiber-nation]

It used to be very noticeable in International tournaments the most artistic, entertaining German teams were "efficient". USSR teams packed with individual talents were all about "team work" and playing "with fear".

And any Eastern European club teams were "crack" outfits.

[hibsbollah]

It was pointed out to me in the late 90’s and once it was I couldn’t stop spotting it. It happens in lots of sports.
In the NFL there are hardly any black QB’s because that was seen as a position where smarts were needed. They were not getting a chance there at high schools and it meant there were none coming through at the top level despite black players performing brilliantly in every other position. It was in the psyche that black players were athletic and powerful but when it came to your QB you needed a clever white kid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is true about the NFL although there are a lot more black QBs coming through in the last 3 or 4 years. The stereotype used to be that they would struggle to remember the vast playbooks.

There’s degrees of racism. In the Premier League in England obviously there’s players from every corner of the globe, managed by almost exclusively white coaches and rich white guys on the board. You don’t get Big Ron Atkinson calling players ‘big lazy ****ing ******’ publicly anymore, but there seems to be unconscious bias where black players get their physical stature, strength, speed emphasised and your white guy his work ethic, consistency, intelligence. When I watch Pogba, the attribute that jumps out at me is intelligent passing. But you just hear ‘physical specimen’ ‘freak’ ‘monster’ ‘strength and power’ when that’s not the most obvious thing to me. Also, football and sports journalists are overwhelmingly white. In Scotland, I’m not sure there has even been one :dunno: Kheradine? So you get that unconscious bias even though I’m sure the vast majority arent actively consciously prejudiced.

Im involved in kids football; at the regional compulsory monthly meetings you get 200+ people packed into the Edina Hibs clubhouse, You didn’t see a single non white face in there. And just the one woman. All men, mostly 40+, all white. But somewhere around 10% of the kids and parents are black. Very little representation in Scotland. I’d much rather things were done about that, or the likes of Latapy or Marvin finally getting a coaching job, than changing a street name.

[hibsbollah]

It used to be very noticeable in International tournaments the most artistic, entertaining German teams were "efficient". USSR teams packed with individual talents were all about "team work" and playing "with fear".

I always thought it was ironic that the US loves it’s ‘collective’ sports where the collective ethos is paramount, particularly American Football, and the Russians were all about gymnastics and chess where it’s all about individual brilliance :greengrin

[G B Young]

I think I may have posted about this on another thread before but there was an in-depth study of American pro sports that made the same point Ozy was making. Essentially, black sportsmen were credited with physique and athleticism, white sportsmen were credited with intelligence and smarts, in disproportionate amounts. There was also explicit reference to the balance in coaching, which is obviously a current issue in English football, but also reference to the balance of commentators and pundits. The clear majority of NFL players are black, but the number of coaches, and even more so, the number of TV talking heads was minuscule.

Leaving the issue of 'intelligence' aside, there's also been a lot of debate regarding physique and athleticism when it comes to black competitors. The lack of successful black swimmers, I recall, has often been attributed to a genetic lack of buoyancy and a different sort of bone density which is why they're apparently more successful in other sports. I can't remember if there's any truth in this or whether it actually just comes down to how accessible certain sports are.

[Keith_M]

The last time a non-black person won the 100 metres at the Olympics was in 1980.

US athletes have won it 12 times in the last one hundred years. Eleven of those twelve wins was by a black American. The last white American to win it did so one hundred years ago this year.

The 200m and 400m sprints have mostly been dominated by Black athletes for the last 30-40 years. As have the long distance races, like the Marathon (Kenya gets a special mention here).

The NFL is dominated by black sportsmen. Two of the most successful tennis players of recent times are the Williams sisters. One of the greatest golfers ever (and still competing) is Tiger Woods. Then there's boxing, a sport dominated by black sportsmen for as long as I can remember...and obviously an incredible number of really talented, and successful, footballers.


I could go on here but, it's safe to say that there is an amazing number of sporting role models for young black people.

It would be fantastic if those role models could be extended to other fields, such as business, science, the arts, etc.

[Andy74]

That is true about the NFL although there are a lot more black QBs coming through in the last 3 or 4 years. The stereotype used to be that they would struggle to remember the vast playbooks.

There’s degrees of racism. In the Premier League in England obviously there’s players from every corner of the globe, managed by almost exclusively white coaches and rich white guys on the board. You don’t get Big Ron Atkinson calling players ‘big lazy ****ing ******’ publicly anymore, but there seems to be unconscious bias where black players get their physical stature, strength, speed emphasised and your white guy his work ethic, consistency, intelligence. When I watch Pogba, the attribute that jumps out at me is intelligent passing. But you just hear ‘physical specimen’ ‘freak’ ‘monster’ ‘strength and power’ when that’s not the most obvious thing to me. Also, football and sports journalists are overwhelmingly white. In Scotland, I’m not sure there has even been one :dunno: Kheradine? So you get that unconscious bias even though I’m sure the vast majority arent actively consciously prejudiced.

Im involved in kids football; at the regional compulsory monthly meetings you get 200+ people packed into the Edina Hibs clubhouse, You didn’t see a single non white face in there. And just the one woman. All men, mostly 40+, all white. But somewhere around 10% of the kids and parents are black. Very little representation in Scotland. I’d much rather things were done about that, or the likes of Latapy or Marvin finally getting a coaching job, than changing a street name.

I think on the whole commentators comment on the attributes as they see them.

Pogba of course is an intelligent player and a good, creative passer but what sets him apart is that he also has immense physical attributes to go with it.

How do commentators talk about his team mates Rashford, Martial or Greenwood? Much more about creativity, touch, intelligence, composure.

Rio Ferdinand and Vidic. Which one was the physical specimen and which one the artist?

[Tomsk]

The last time a non-black person won the 100 metres at the Olympics was in 1980.

US athletes have won it 12 times in the last one hundred years. Eleven of those twelve wins was by a black American. The last white American to win it did so one hundred years ago this year.

The 200m and 400m sprints have mostly been dominated by Black athletes for the last 30-40 years. As have the long distance races, like the Marathon (Kenya gets a special mention here).

The NFL is dominated by black sportsmen. Two of the most successful tennis players of recent times are the Williams sisters. One of the greatest golfers ever (and still competing) is Tiger Woods. Then there's boxing, a sport dominated by black sportsmen for as long as I can remember...and obviously an incredible number of really talented, and successful, footballers.


I could go on here but, it's safe to say that there is an amazing number of sporting role models for young black people.

It would be fantastic if those role models could be extended to other fields, such as business, science, the arts, etc.


Lindy Remigino won in 1952 and Bobby Morrow won in 1956. They were both white Americans.

[hibsbollah]

I think on the whole commentators comment on the attributes as they see them.

Pogba of course is an intelligent player and a good, creative passer but what sets him apart is that he also has immense physical attributes to go with it.

How do commentators talk about his team mates Rashford, Martial or Greenwood? Much more about creativity, touch, intelligence, composure.

Rio Ferdinand and Vidic. Which one was the physical specimen and which one the artist?

The existence of physically dominant white players like Vidic (or Stam, now he WAS a ‘beast’) or intelligent black players like Latapy, doesn’t mean the pattern of unconscious bias doesn’t exist. You just have to watch and listen.

[Andy74]

The existence of physically dominant white players like Vidic (or Stam, now he WAS a ‘beast’) or intelligent black players like Latapy, doesn’t mean the pattern of unconscious bias doesn’t exist. You just have to watch and listen.

As I said I’d expect, as I did with the commentary on the game last, to hear them explain the game as they see it. That included a range of comments on the creativity and intelligence of a number of black players.

To prove this you’d need to be looking at exact matches of players in physical attributes and all the mental attributes and be able to show that they were being talked about differently.

I don’t know how you’d be able to start doing that.

If you took a Hibs game when Bartley was playing for example you’d need a white guy playing of same physical attributes, same playing style, same skill set, otherwise you’d be listening out for all the comments about him being physical and limited in other skills. Well, that was because that was him.

[Scouse Hibee]

I watched Kyle Walker as he made up five yards and put a tackle in, strangely enough the commentator mentioned his explosive pace simply because...........he has explosive pace and is super fast!

[bigwheel]

I watched Kyle Walker as he made up five yards and put a tackle in, strangely enough the commentator mentioned his explosive pace simply because...........he has explosive pace and is super fast!

Not sure what the point is here Scouse. The study isn’t suggesting commentators don’t analyse correctly at times. The study on unconscious bias studied the commentary from 80 games. It undertook structures analysis on the content of the commentary. The largest of its kind undertaken. You don’t agree with its conclusions ?

[Scouse Hibee]

Not sure what the point is here Scouse. The study isn’t suggesting commentators don’t analyse correctly at times. The study on unconscious bias studied the commentary from 80 games. It undertook structures analysis on the content of the commentary. The largest of its kind undertaken. You don’t agree with its conclusions ?

My point was that I believe that the study has identified that commentators are basing their commentary on the known attributes of the players and not an unconscious bias down to race. One poster even suggested that it is so obvious when watching football on TV. As someone who is 52 and has watched football on TV since a kid I stated that it was not obvious to me and I would bet millions more would agree.

[bigwheel]

My point was that I believe that the study has identified that commentators are basing their commentary on the known attributes of the players and not an unconscious bias down to race. One poster even suggested that it is so obvious when watching football on TV. As someone who is 52 and has watched football on TV since a kid I stated that it was not obvious to me and I would bet millions more would agree.

The study found that after analysis of over 600 players, Black players were 7 times more likely to be referred to about their power, and over three times more likely to be mentioned for their speed than white players. Whereas 2/3rds of all comments on “intelligent play” were noted about lighter skinned players. Seems to me, uncomfortable as it is, there is some decent basis on which their findings have been drawn...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

Not sure what the point is here Scouse. The study isn’t suggesting commentators don’t analyse correctly at times. The study on unconscious bias studied the commentary from 80 games. It undertook structures analysis on the content of the commentary. The largest of its kind undertaken. You don’t agree with its conclusions ?

The study doesn’t really take into account the actual attributes of the people they were describing.

[Scouse Hibee]

The study found that after analysis of over 600 players, Black players were 7 times more likely to be referred to about their power, and over three times more likely to be mentioned for their speed than white players. Whereas 2/3rds of all comments on “intelligent play” were noted about lighter skinned players. Seems to me, uncomfortable as it is, there is some decent basis on which their findings have been drawn...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Were the attributes of the players described factually correct? Unless the study can provide examples that state otherwise then I would pay no heed to it.

[bigwheel]

The study doesn’t really take into account the actual attributes of the people they were describing.

the study’s findings shows that it is the commentators that don’t do that consistently..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

Were the attributes of the players described factually correct? Unless the study can provide examples that state otherwise then I would pay no heed to it.

The population sample is a decent size...the generalisations used by the commentators showed quite incredible consistency.

By refuting it, it says that you think the black players studied are dominantly about speed and power ? And lighter skinned players are much more likely to be “intelligent players”. Because that’s the scientific analysis of their findings....

As a minimum, it’s worthy of respect and further exploration....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

The population sample is a decent size...the generalisations used by the commentators showed quite incredible consistency.

By refuting it, it says that you think the black players studied are dominantly about speed and power ? And lighter skinned players are much more likely to be “intelligent players”. Because that’s the scientific analysis of their findings....

As a minimum, it’s worthy of respect and further exploration....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Have a look at the list of the ten fastest players in the EPL.

[bigwheel]

Have a look at the list of the ten fastest players in the EPL.

read the analysis in more detail....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Lindy Remigino won in 1952 and Bobby Morrow won in 1956. They were both white Americans.


Sorry, you're right. So it's nine out of twelve

[Andy74]

The population sample is a decent size...the generalisations used by the commentators showed quite incredible consistency.

By refuting it, it says that you think the black players studied are dominantly about speed and power ? And lighter skinned players are much more likely to be “intelligent players”. Because that’s the scientific analysis of their findings....

As a minimum, it’s worthy of respect and further exploration....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’d need to actually see how many of the players were about speed and power and how many were ‘intelligent’ players and were they therefore wrong in their co,m,entry or just reflecting the actual characteristics of the players on show.

If you had Marvin Bartley and Scott Allan playing for example I’m fairly sure the findings will tell you that black players on show were largely referred to as being powerful and athletic.

Might have been different in a game with Latapy and Mixu.

[Hibrandenburg]

Picked to play for England and then dropped once the selectors realised he had black skin. It took another 50 odd years before a black player received a full cap for the national team. The first black player capped for Scotland was Andrew Watson back in 1881.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-devon-53095468

[Sir David Gray]

Picked to play for England and then dropped once the selectors realised he had black skin. It took another 50 odd years before a black player received a full cap for the national team. The first black player capped for Scotland was Andrew Watson back in 1881.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-devon-53095468

I read that this morning and although there's nothing that clearly states he was left out due to the colour of skin, I can believe that was almost certainly the case.

Regardless of any differing viewpoints we have all expressed on this thread, I'm sure everyone here will be in agreement that not picking someone to play for their country because of the colour of their skin was, and still is, completely and utterly wrong.

[hibsbollah]

I’ve decided I’m going to raise the lack of diversity at regional meetings with the Chair of the association. A small thing but it just doesn’t sit right with me anymore. He’s a relatively scary guy at the best of times so I’m not really looking forward to it. I’m confident there will be SFA guidance that can be referred to.

[Tomsk]

I’ve decided I’m going to raise the lack of diversity at regional meetings with the Chair of the association. A small thing but it just doesn’t sit right with me anymore. He’s a relatively scary guy at the best of times so I’m not really looking forward to it. I’m confident there will be SFA guidance that can be referred to.

Are you referring to the South East Region Youth Football Association meeting?

[hibsbollah]

Are you referring to the South East Region Youth Football Association meeting?

Do you think I’ll get a sympathetic hearing? :dunno:

[Tomsk]

Do you think I’ll get a sympathetic hearing? :dunno:

I doubt Mr Archibald will know how to spell diversity. :greengrin

What angle are you proposing to take?

[G B Young]

Just reading that the Simpsons is to stop using white actors to voice non-white characters, while the white actor who has voiced Cleveland on Family Guy for 20 years is stepping down, claiming "persons of colour should play characters of colour."

Is he right? Could it be argued that the rise in 'colour-blind casting' makes this less of an issue? For example, the smash hit musical Hamilton has black, Asian, Latino and mixed race actors playing America's all-white founding fathers, while the movie version of Les Miserables features actors of colour playing characters who, historically, would have been white.

[hibsbollah]

I doubt Mr Archibald will know how to spell diversity. :greengrin

What angle are you proposing to take?

Not sure. Definitely not involving standing up in front of a hostile crowd getting pelters kind of angle :greengrin

People like doing things the way they always have, and don’t like being told what to do, which is understandable. It’s best to appeal to self interest.

[G B Young]

Bit confused about the rationale for this statue's destruction:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53259409

I'd always been under the impression Selassie was seen as a reformer and a force for good. He's certainly revered as an African messiah among Rastafarians and his name is lauded in the lyrics of Bob Marley and many other reggae artists.

[CropleyWasGod]

Bit confused about the rationale for this statue's destruction:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53259409

I'd always been under the impression Selassie was seen as a reformer and a force for good. He's certainly revered as an African messiah among Rastafarians and his name is lauded in the lyrics of Bob Marley and many other reggae artists.

It's about the state's repression of an ethnic minority. Selassie is a symbol of the Ethiopian state.