advertisement


Edward Colston: Bristol slave trader statue 'was an affront'

I'll take your word for it ;)

Aye I know it sounds mental doesn’t it?

Religion I mean, particularly the catholic kind, I can absolutely see why the song makes fun of the mass doesn’t make it right though.

Btw London’s streets and buildings are chock full of anti-catholic symbols and there’s a lot of Masonic symbolism too.
 
If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?

https://twitter.com/afuahirsch/status/1270331795557486592

Seriously people moaning about the manner in which the statue was taken down need to seriously rethink their priorities. The clip above (from a year or two ago) shows what happens when BAME people raise the issue in a polite manner - laughter, condecension and, yes, outright racism.

Sadly I’d expect nothing more from the flabby red-faced embodiment of racist gammon that is Nick Ferrari. He knows his audience, it just involves looking in the mirror.
 
Seriously people moaning about the manner in which the statue was taken down need to seriously rethink their priorities.

[reposted to reword]

My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim :)) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.

So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
 
They don’t believe in transubstantiaton (bread being turned into flesh) however they do believe in the virgin birth and our lady.
Some do, some don't. In the words of the Bishop of Durham
"I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don't think he did."
 
"Liked" and quoted as well because this post is absolutely spot on.

[reposted to reword]

My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim :)) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.

So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
 
That's not what I stated nor what I implied.

You made the statement that the statue was erected "to his evil doing" and that was factually incorrect. It was "Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895" (from the plaque), not for him being a slaver. Apologies for being such a pedant.

More importantly, the issue I have is a question about the good / evil balance in a person. When someone stops being 'net good' and worthy and more importantly, who decides that? As I stated but seem to have missed, I think that Colston is an easy case; 20000 dead and the enduring legacy you describe pretty much rules him out as a good guy. For many others memorialised in building names, plaques or statues, once once you've got the Ghandis and Mandelas out of the way, it won't be so clear cut. Do we allow an angry mob to decide in those cases what should or shouldn't remain? If not, who decides and how? As I mentioned in my response to Gav, a more democratic process seems to have failed on an 'easy' case like the Colston statue.

So, earnest question ('cos I don't know) does it matter about all the other memorials in the UK and what do you do about it? Is the proposal from Sadiq Khan about establishing a committee, the way ahead but not just for London?
No. I get that. I also accept that I took your argument to an extreme.

Nevertheless, I don’t get this relativist excuse that a man’s bad stuff could be off set by his good stuff. Now while there’s good and bad in all of us, my question about how much good stuff do you need to balance out being a slave trader(?) remains.
 
[reposted to reword]

My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim :)) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.

So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
Is direct action legitimate in the circumstances of people who have been deported into slavery?
 
Sadly I’d expect nothing more from the flabby red-faced embodiment of racist gammon that is Nick Ferrari. He knows his audience, it just involves looking in the mirror.
It wasn't just Ferrari though was it? The rest of the panel shared a nice patronising chuckle at the "uppity ******". Pretty revolting stuff all round.
 
Nevertheless, I don’t get this relativist excuse that a man’s bad stuff could be off set by his good stuff. Now while there’s good and bad in all of us, my question about how much good stuff do you need to balance out being a slave trader(?) remains.

That was my question :) Apologies if I didn't articulate it too well, I'd expanded the group of bad people beyond just slave traders.

However, if we consider slave trading alone, how far removed from the actual deed do we need to stop being bad by association? It's more of a 'philosophical' question than any challenge to your point.
 
[reposted to reword]

My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim :)) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.

So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
I sympathise with what you say.

I'm not exactly cheering these people on, but I refuse to get all hot under the collar about the statue of a racist and, ultimately, I'm delighted that it's fallen. Good riddance.

I also think there is a useful distinction to be made about damage to things and physical violence directed at people. The latter bothers me, the former, not so much.
 
I also think there is a useful distinction to be made about damage to things and physical violence directed at people. The latter bothers me, the former, not so much.

So where do you draw the line? OK to damage business premises? OK to damage people's property because you don't agree with what they do?

You and KS just don't get how I feel about this at all. Let me explain in simple terms - this is leading to a world where it's going from just being a highly unsettling place I no longer feel I can belong to one where I am going to be genuinely scared.
 
[reposted to reword]

My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim :)) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.

So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.

So your saying here that you would rather keep the status quo in case black/ethnic people gain the upper hand then we (white people) will have the shoe on the other boot i.e. walk in a black man's shoes?

Man that really is a pish way to look at this issue apologies if I'm reading you wrong here but that's the way it's coming across to me.
 
So your saying here that you would rather keep the status quo in case black/ethnic people gain the upper hand then we (white people) will have the shoe on the other boot i.e. walk in a black man's shoes?

Man that really is a pish way to look at this issue apologies if I'm reading you wrong here but that's the way it's coming across to me.

That is not what I'm saying but hey, as everyone seems to think that I'm obviously a white supremacist and an apologist for slavery, f**kin' pile on.
 
Some do, some don't. In the words of the Bishop of Durham
"I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don't think he did."
I had a friend who was an Anglican vicar- he didn’t believe in life after death/ heaven & hell, the resurrection etc. He did believe though that Christian teaching was an excellent thing.
 
That is not what I'm saying but hey, as everyone seems to think that I'm obviously a white supremacist, f**kin' pile on.

Well you are coming across like that frankly so maybe try to explain yourself better.

Black people gaining the upper hand might actually be better than this carry on who knows, they've never had a proper chance, have they?

I remember watching Notting-hill/that hugh Grant movie last year with my wife and there was one black person in the entire movie, a bouncer/security guard, this film was a depiction of life in London in 1999 and there's only one black person in the entire movie, unreal.
 
That is not what I'm saying but hey, as everyone seems to think that I'm obviously a white supremacist and an apologist for slavery, f**kin' pile on.
It's clear as day that isn't what you're saying, so no, that's not how you come across at all.
 
It's clear as day that isn't what you're saying, so no, that's not how you come across at all.


"So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me"

Must be me then cause that definitely reads pretty dodgy.
 


advertisement


Back
Top