Black Lives Matter and the American Protests

Because this issue is seeping into other threads, why not talk about it here instead? I don't really have anything particularly pithy to say, so write your own bloody topic intros.

Treat this thread very carefully and consider what you post.

As for many in the privileged position of learning about racism by discussing it, reading about it and on occasion witnessing it rather than through experiencing it I must admit to having gone through a lot of introspection over how the UKs ingrained racism and a privileged, white upbringing has sculpted my world view.

In particular to do with my time spent working in the hospitality industry in the UK which is rife with racism as well as misogyny. I can remember many occasions as a teenage commis chef when I would hear reprehensible things from senior chefs aimed at black coworkers. Those coworkers being almost exclusively kitchen porters or housekeeping - two of the most brutal parts of the industry - staff as well, which in and of it's self says a lot.

In particular I remember a point when a hotel I worked at in Edinburgh was critically short staffed due to there being no chefs about anymore - it's often a rank gig after all. A black Jamaican immigrant came in for a trial with a great CV and excellent skills. For the first half of his trial he worked in pastry alongside a female Polish chef who is one of the friendliest people I've ever met. He was excellent, skilled and professional. Chatting away with said pastry chef about their different upbringings and cooking experience. The bloke was frankly more talented than all but two chefs in the kitchen, which was Michelin listed at the time.

Then for dinner service he moved into the main kitchen which was solely white and male, predominantly older chefs that came through kitchens in the 90s and the 80s in the Executive Chefs case. The bloke was practically not talked to for 5 hours. Shoved in the worst corner to work in, given grunt work and shunted by older chefs. One chef in made a point of shaking the two white trial chefs hands but not his. When he walked in the sous chef loudly stated "great that's the racist jokes for today done" as if the best part of his day was finished. Myself and a KP briefly tried to raise it with the executive chef but were greeted with the usual 'what do you expect, this is hospitality industry' attitude. Needless to say he took a job elsewhere and we continued to be short staffed working 70-80 hour weeks. Tough times starting my training but nothing compared to what people such as that talented Jamaican chef have to deal with on a routine basis. Looking back now I am truly embarrassed to have not pushed it further.

The scale and scope of the current protests do seem to mean that many more people are becoming introspective in that manner. Running a small coffee kiosk in Edinburgh over the last few weeks I have chatted with many residents who due to lockdown haven't been able to socialise in their normal circles. As such most are friendly and happy to chat. It's been really interesting to hear that introspection from people of many backgrounds.

Whilst legislative change is direly to address the institutionalised discrimination in our criminal justice systems I believe that introspection is important in addressing those ingrained discriminatory views within society. Often the view is put forward that only generational shift can change these inequalities. Clearly that isn't good enough though given the horrendous injustices still seen in 2020. All of us questioning our viewpoints and addressing these issues is required regardless of race, age and upbringing. 

10 days into the George Floyd protests now and curfews have seemingly failed to quell them as they are being relaxed in many cities. As I type this 'black lives matter' is being painted in 35-foot letters on a DC street close to the White House. In terms of scale these are the largest protest seen in the US since 1968. Given the scope of the internet the message could be even further reaching.

One thing thats worth noting about the British education system is that theres very little mention of the Empire, let alone the atrocities commited during the time. There is definitely a great level of whitewashing going on around the darker side of Britain, so its no wonder British exceptionalism is so easy to exploit and people defend the country feverishly.

I've learned quite alot over the past couple of years reading into it and listening to various different sources. One of my favourites is a guy called Akala. His book "Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire" is well worth a read. He uses his own experiences to explore the racial and class imbalances left over from the era of the Empire.

Akala is a fantastic rapper, author and activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIbN5C6z-v8

I agree on education in UK being whitewashed with regards to the Empire. Similarly if you look back to the 60/70s the scope of religious education was tiny in the UK and attempts to expand it were met with fervour by the largely christian establishment.

The more I see of Trump during the protests the more it looks like his seemingly erratic behaviour is a calculated strategy to play tough on law and order and appeal to his base to get re-elected. However, such tactics are extremely divisive and dangerous, and if this succeeds in November it sends a pretty bleak message to rest of the world on the state that the US is in.

Moving on to the UK, despite a couple of dramatic scenes from Whitehall yesterday the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful and good-natured so far (just 4 arrests yesterday). Here's hoping our politicians listen for a change to the voices of those who are normally marginalised.

27 police officers injured doesn't suggest an overwhelmingly peaceful protest to me.

The timing for me is terrible, the week a report comes out that suggests people from BAME backgrounds are twice as likely to die with covid-19 does seem like an opportune moment for mass protesting endangering the lives of thousands.

27 officers injured. Projectiles launched at the police. Control lost towards the end. Ugly stuff.

Then you've also got the fact that the police should actually be issuing £100 fines due to breaches of lockdown, but Cressida Dick admitted that the police weren't able to enforce mass dispersal because it would lead to serious disorder.

The mainstream media is behaving hypocritically - Cummings was hauled over the coals due to driving to Durham, and questions have been rightly raised about whether or not Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool/Madrid game should have gone ahead. But these protests with tens of thousands of people crammed into small spaces have passed by largely uncriticised by the mainstream media, even though it will put tens of thousands at greater risk and a likely spike in infection and deaths.

And in the USA it's totally out of control. Over 11,000 arrests and at least 19 deaths during the rioting, including that of David Dorn, an African-American retired police captain.

Good to note, however, that even Shaun King has realised that the cities with the worst police brutality in the States are the ones run by Democrats. America, like the UK, will never get real change until the two tired main parties are brought down.

Please don't bring Covid-19 issues into this thread.

The small pockets of violence seem to being having the effect hoped for by those in power i.e. allowing people who don't want change to focus on it, instead of focussing on the need for change.

I think it’s going to be impossible not to discuss Covid in its link to the negativity around protests. I’d just rather that was done here than the thread and topic for discussion of the virus.

In my opinion, this is exactly why people were so mad at Cummings. It’s not just the arrogance and the heartbreak some of us have endured, but that once a mockery is made, it’s not serious any more. Certain people are making more effort to be outraged by this than by street parties for VE Day (which never has been a celebrated holiday) or trips to the beach cos they want a pint with mates.

Further to that, these are people making a point. To protest during all this shows it’s seriousness, and people will know they could well be risking their lives here. Unfortunately, the inequality is such that this is more important, whilst lecturing black people on how they should be reacting to death rates around the virus is a bad look, especially when the government’s own research has been quite frankly pathetic.

Comparing this to Cheltenham, football and Cummings is a bit infantile, let’s be serious. This isn’t a jolly jaunt to watch some horses allowed to go ahead cos MPs like their kickbacks, it’s something important.

Unless they’re all just talking a walk to test their eyesight

I think Duty's post sums up the thoughts of the old white man establishment pretty well, lads. Leave him alone.

Duty281 wrote:27 officers injured. Projectiles launched at the police. Control lost towards the end. Ugly stuff.

Then you've also got the fact that the police should actually be issuing £100 fines due to breaches of lockdown, but Cressida Dick admitted that the police weren't able to enforce mass dispersal because it would lead to serious disorder.

The mainstream media is behaving hypocritically - Cummings was hauled over the coals due to driving to Durham, and questions have been rightly raised about whether or not Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool/Madrid game should have gone ahead. But these protests with tens of thousands of people crammed into small spaces have passed by largely uncriticised by the mainstream media, even though it will put tens of thousands at greater risk and a likely spike in infection and deaths.

And in the USA it's totally out of control. Over 11,000 arrests and at least 19 deaths during the rioting, including that of David Dorn, an African-American retired police captain.

Good to note, however, that even Shaun King has realised that the cities with the worst police brutality in the States are the ones run by Democrats. America, like the UK, will never get real change until the two tired main parties are brought down.

Chicken and egg. As far as it goes I would bet the vast number of inner city areas with high poverty vote Democrat.

navyblueshorts wrote:Please don't bring Covid-19 issues into this thread.

Apologies, but it is linked.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Comparing this to Cheltenham, football and Cummings is a bit infantile, let’s be serious. This isn’t a jolly jaunt to watch some horses allowed to go ahead cos MPs like their kickbacks, it’s something important.

Unless they’re all just talking a walk to test their eyesight

I agree that it's important, but there will still be a spike in infections as a result of these continuing protests, and the news that thousands upon thousands are out in city centres will further weaken the idea that there's a 'lockdown' in place. People who went out to beaches during the nice weather, or had street parties for VE Day (which, on a separate note, was marked this year because it's the 75th anniversary) were rightly criticised.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:27 officers injured. Projectiles launched at the police. Control lost towards the end. Ugly stuff.

Then you've also got the fact that the police should actually be issuing £100 fines due to breaches of lockdown, but Cressida Dick admitted that the police weren't able to enforce mass dispersal because it would lead to serious disorder.

The mainstream media is behaving hypocritically - Cummings was hauled over the coals due to driving to Durham, and questions have been rightly raised about whether or not Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool/Madrid game should have gone ahead. But these protests with tens of thousands of people crammed into small spaces have passed by largely uncriticised by the mainstream media, even though it will put tens of thousands at greater risk and a likely spike in infection and deaths.

And in the USA it's totally out of control. Over 11,000 arrests and at least 19 deaths during the rioting, including that of David Dorn, an African-American retired police captain.

Good to note, however, that even Shaun King has realised that the cities with the worst police brutality in the States are the ones run by Democrats. America, like the UK, will never get real change until the two tired main parties are brought down.

Chicken and egg. As far as it goes I would bet the vast number of inner city areas with high poverty vote Democrat.

Yeah, probably. It's a similar story in England/Wales where areas of the highest social deprivation tend to vote Labour.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think it’s going to be impossible not to discuss Covid in its link to the negativity around protests. I’d just rather that was done here than the thread and topic for discussion of the virus.

In my opinion, this is exactly why people were so mad at Cummings. It’s not just the arrogance and the heartbreak some of us have endured, but that once a mockery is made, it’s not serious any more. Certain people are making more effort to be outraged by this than by street parties for VE Day (which never has been a celebrated holiday) or trips to the beach cos they want a pint with mates.

Further to that, these are people making a point. To protest during all this shows it’s seriousness, and people will know they could well be risking their lives here. Unfortunately, the inequality is such that this is more important, whilst lecturing black people on how they should be reacting to death rates around the virus is a bad look, especially when the government’s own research has been quite frankly pathetic.

Comparing this to Cheltenham, football and Cummings is a bit infantile, let’s be serious. This isn’t a jolly jaunt to watch some horses allowed to go ahead cos MPs like their kickbacks, it’s something important.

Unless they’re all just talking a walk to test their eyesight

Agree with this 100% Dolph. Particularly the point on people trying to compare Cheltenham, Cummings, beach visits and VE day celebrations to these protests.

I attended the Edinburgh protests in Holyrood Park this afternoon. Some extremely powerful words spoken by many speech makers within sight of Scottish Parliament.

VE Day was promoted wildly because it was something positively British to cling to during all this and invoke the Blitz Spirit that holds this country back. People who couldn’t name a battle and never asked their parents about the war suddenly listening to Vera Lynn in their gardens and waving little flags.

Lord hope that one day we take government hands off of education and curriculum guidance and get some actual British history taught

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:VE Day was promoted wildly because it was something positively British to cling to during all this and invoke the Blitz Spirit that holds this country back. People who couldn’t name a battle and never asked their parents about the war suddenly listening to Vera Lynn in their gardens and waving little flags.

Lord hope that one day we take government hands off of education and curriculum guidance and get some actual British history taught

Both the good and the bad.

I remember celebrations for VE day back in 1995 for the 50th anniversary, its something that gets more widely promoted on significant anniversiaries.

Great to see the people of Bristol doing the right thing and launching the statue of a slave trader straight into the harbour.

No need for any statues of such people in 2020

Here here. Leave those people in the history books. My hometown has an annual galaday and procession in the name of a guy called John Newland who spent a great deal of money investing in the town and building a school here. However he made all his money trading slaves. So this year the committee who organize it have chosen to finally remove his name from it. Should have been done years ago.

Pr4wn wrote:I think Duty's post sums up the thoughts of the old white man establishment pretty well, lads. Leave him alone.

What does this even mean?

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Please don't bring Covid-19 issues into this thread.

Apologies, but it is linked.

I'm not going to go against Ziggler, but the title of this Thread is 'Black Lives Matter and the American Protests', which doesn't seem to me something that needs to have any real reference to Covid in its contents.

BamBam wrote:Great to see the people of Bristol doing the right thing and launching the statue of a slave trader straight into the harbour.

No need for any statues of such people in 2020

Nice to see that you and I can agree on some things. Not sure I agree w/ the way this was done, but given the current climate, not surprised.

We're in a tub of hot water here.

I'm not sure if the world is polarising more or if this is a case of both sides of the argument are just getting louder.

Lets be clear here. 99% of the people protesting are law abiding citizens and their cause is being hijacked by a small number of muppets causing trouble. The same is said about the police though where 99% of them go about their duties perfectly well and a small number abuse that power.

The problem we are having now is that we're almost in a siege mentality with covid on the go and many people are first and foremost looking out for themselves and their families. We're being told to stay at home and not meet up but then on the news you see thousands of protestors flocking together. What happens is the message of the protests gets lost and folk concentrate more on the threats to their own health than what the protestors are trying to get across. Sadly this leads to an escalated response from the other side and I hate to even mention his name, but Nigel "I've not been relevant for a while so I better say something" Farage has come out wanting the "protestor" who tried to light the union flag on fire, publicly tarred, feathered and shot by the Duke of Edinburgh and his testicles fed to the Corgis to stop possible new generations coming about. This means you have the usual brigade shouting to get "them" out of the country.

It's all a cluster feck. For generations people have been trying to get equality and stoking fires isn’t the way to go about it. Right now, we're all in a fire and pouring fuel on that fire isn’t helping anyone. Surely it's better not to enflame things but instead sit down and talk about how to get things better for everyone? But then I suppose talking has not been getting the job done up to now so more vocal measures are needed? But is now the right time given the situation we're all in? But then why should injustice be left to fester because its not convenient for some to talk about it just now?

Answers on a postcard please!

I think everyone on both extremes of the argument need to step back and think about what is the best way to get resolutions to things. It's like two kids fighting. One says they will stop punching you if you give them back their toy, the other saying they'll give the toy back if you stop punching them!

A great quote by the US President Woodrow Wilson....

"Only the Man swimming against the stream knows the strength of it"

None of us know what its like to be Black and the racism they face.....But violence and vandalism will play in to Trump's hands in November..

In Pennsylvania last week...Trump got 840,000 votes in his primary to Biden's 730,000 in his...Trump's base is more motivated regardless of the polls..

Trump will play on the law and order issue in November..

Rafael Nadal, of all people, inadvertently shone a light on the efficacy of a quiet protest, or even peaceful marches.

Having previously never commented on the situation facing black people in the United States (which is fair enough seeing as he neither black nor American), the events of the last two weeks caused him to tweet out a blacked out image on his Twitter page, and led to this comment,
“When you see all these disasters on the streets, my feeling is that’s not the way to protest or to… I don’t know, I don’t like… that’s not a good example either.”

So protesters have a chicken and egg situation. If the protests are all kumbaya, and they go home at 6pm after cleaning the streets and taking selfies with the police, nothing changes. If they burn a couple buildings... well people are forced to take notice. If you believe in a cause, then condemnation is better than ambivalence. You'd rather have to force people to pick a side than ignore, because at least picking a side forces discussion.

For me it's hearts and minds Kingraf

It's not just the leaders you need to effect change, its the entire population.

Especially in this day and age where situations can be used and twisted to fit someones motives. I look at people like Ghandi and MLK. They really knew how to call for change. They did it through reason, peacefully and without giving the other side ammunition.

Mass gatherings at a time when we are meant to socially distance from each other isnt going to win the hearts and minds of the masses. I know it's an emptive subject, but you need to take the emotion out of your argument if you want to win it. When you start shouting and bawlling at the other side, you'v elost the arguement. Unless you are already the holder of the power like Trump is and then you can shout and bawl your head off as you are already on top of the mountain.

To win, you need to be better than Trump and the rest of shouty society

tigertattie wrote:For me it's hearts and minds Kingraf

It's not just the leaders you need to effect change, its the entire population.

Especially in this day and age where situations can be used and twisted to fit someones motives. I look at people like Ghandi and MLK. They really knew how to call for change. They did it through reason, peacefully and without giving the other side ammunition.

Mass gatherings at a time when we are meant to socially distance from each other isnt going to win the hearts and minds of the masses. I know it's an emptive subject, but you need to take the emotion out of your argument if you want to win it. When you start shouting and bawlling at the other side, you'v elost the arguement. Unless you are already the holder of the power like Trump is and then you can shout and bawl your head off as you are already on top of the mountain.

To win, you need to be better than Trump and the rest of shouty society

To win you need to effect legislative change. People follow where they are forced to go. Martin Luther King had an approval rating of 23% in White America. The 2016 Black Lives Matter protests had little to no progress achieved. If winning hearts changed anything, this would have been solved then.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

88Chris05 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I think Duty's post sums up the thoughts of the old white man establishment pretty well, lads. Leave him alone.

What does this even mean?

That, rather typically, he is refusing to engage with the reasons behind the protests and is more interested in chastising those in attendance for being disorderly.

He also compared these protests with a jaunt to Barnard Castle, which would be hilarious were it not so depressing.

Minneapolis city council have pledged to disband the police force, replacing it with a community led model. It seems that legislative change may finally be coming.

Not sure pulling down a statue counts as anarchy, but yes, it is technically a crime. Whereas having a statue of a slave trader is not a crime. Kind of sums up what the problem is.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

Again though there is the law of the land and then there is what is right or wrong morally.

You cannot go around pulling down statues because you do not agree with what they represent morally (however immoral that representation and slavery is about as immoral as they come). Would it be ok for someone to tear down a statue of Adam Smith because they dont agree with his veiws on economics? Can someone destory the statue of Donald Dewer because they dont agree with devolved powers?

Yes the slaver statues should come down. But they need to come down offically. It would be a far more powerful message if a statue was taken down by the establishment as they agreed with the sentiment of change rather than a handful of people taking it down themselves.

Two wrongs dont make a right and mob justice can't be allowed to run.

Pr4wn wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I think Duty's post sums up the thoughts of the old white man establishment pretty well, lads. Leave him alone.

What does this even mean?

That, rather typically, he is refusing to engage with the reasons behind the protests and is more interested in chastising those in attendance for being disorderly.

He also compared these protests with a jaunt to Barnard Castle, which would be hilarious were it not so depressing.

Being unimpressed by disorderly behaviour isn't exclusively a trait of old white blokes, I'd imagine. Everyone is familiar with the reasons behind the protesting - doesn't mean there has to be uniform admiration for the way it's being carried out on both sides of the water. Using the condescending 'old whitey' trope just serves to encourage the idea that it's a binary black versus white issue.

Duty can speak for himself, mind you, but it looks to me as if he didn't 'compare' or equate the protests and rioting to Cummings' travels or the beach visits by the wider public - more that he contrasted the difference in media coverage and how many have shown a pretty relaxed attitude to the issues of infection, social distancing etc. here, but couldn't highlight those issues enough when it came to Cummings or other lockdown breakers. If you want to argue that the context here is different, then fine and I'm sure most would agree. But a virus can't identify context and isn't going to be more lenient on certain groups just because they're exposing themselves and others for different reasons. The virus doesn't care about politics. People shouldn't be expected to suddenly drop the Covid-19 issue altogether with regards to this - and when they do mention it, provided they're at least being reasonable and acknowledging the tricky context, they shouldn't simply be met with the usual dismissive attitude that you doled out and have their opinion discarded purely because it goes slightly against the grain.

But the establishment have been lobbied for quite a while to remove the statue and have refused. They don't want change.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But the establishment have been lobbied for quite a while to remove the statue and have refused. They don't want change.

Thats my point Groucho. If a handful of people tear down the statue it's seen as a mob enacting their will. They havent brought about change, they've just given the right wing bams another excuse to put up the barriers.

If you get the establishment to take it down, its a signal that finally the message is being heard and that action is being taken to bring about equality.

As kingraf alluded to above calls for the statue to be removed officially have been ignored for years. The establishment clearly don't agree with the sentiment of change. There are many people who do agree with Adam Smith's economics for justified reasons tiger. There aren't people who reasonably agree with celebrating a man who ran the Royal African Company.

If people feel backed into a corner and ignored for long enough then we will see acts of anger. As far as unlawful acts during protests go the tearing down of a statue that should have been removed years ago really isn't one that threatens law and order.

Just a couple of points but theres always people who will make an argument against any protest no matter what. The point of MLK doing it the correct way is something that the majority now applaud as there really isnt a good way to publically stand against civil rights. https://images.app.goo.gl/9v2svRRH1vzDQmrAA
That's a political cartoon of the time though. Similar that rosa parkes is applauded now: she was breaking the law then though and it was a planned move. Kaepernick copped loads of flack for simply sitting then kneeling in protest.

As for churchill I have no doubt that police would step in. Doesnt make churchill a particularly nice person. Not much if anything was taught to me at school about him bar a couple of speeches and the fact he stood against fascism. Dig a little deeper and up comes some very unpleasant things.

I did read a wider point from the whole statue incident regarding johnsons response (thuggish, and let's face it he would know after trying to get a journalist beaten up) that if he does agree theres a right way to do things he should in the short to medium term set about a national review of statues. We can start with Cromwell outside of parliament.

Re. Trump, this issue and his 'response', I'm not a massive fan of 'The Rock' as an actor (although I did like his voice-over in Moana), but he seems like a good bloke. Sure many have seen this, but couldn't help but be impressed. Eight minutes or so, but worth the listen. Powerful:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CA_tVdXnWr1/

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

As well as Churchill being a savage warmonger - one of the leading proponents of the UK going into the First World War, and drawing up plans to attack the Soviet Union not long after VE Day, and later encouraging Truman to nuke Soviet cities - he also displayed strongly racist attitudes ('keep England white', "I hate Indians" and several more) and was at least partly responsible for the Bengal famine which killed up to three million. I suppose a certain amount of leeway for his racist views is acceptable if you take the view that he was a man of his time. Whilst some respect is no doubt due for his wartime leadership, his time in office is greatly overrated and largely myth (e.g. his 'fight on the beaches' speech was never heard by the British people).

There's easily an argument that if it's acceptable to tear down Colston's statue, you could tear down Churchill's.

88Chris05 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I think Duty's post sums up the thoughts of the old white man establishment pretty well, lads. Leave him alone.

What does this even mean?

That, rather typically, he is refusing to engage with the reasons behind the protests and is more interested in chastising those in attendance for being disorderly.

He also compared these protests with a jaunt to Barnard Castle, which would be hilarious were it not so depressing.

Being unimpressed by disorderly behaviour isn't exclusively a trait of old white blokes, I'd imagine. Everyone is familiar with the reasons behind the protesting - doesn't mean there has to be uniform admiration for the way it's being carried out on both sides of the water. Using the condescending 'old whitey' trope just serves to encourage the idea that it's a binary black versus white issue.

Duty can speak for himself, mind you, but it looks to me as if he didn't 'compare' or equate the protests and rioting to Cummings' travels or the beach visits by the wider public - more that he contrasted the difference in media coverage and how many have shown a pretty relaxed attitude to the issues of infection, social distancing etc. here, but couldn't highlight those issues enough when it came to Cummings or other lockdown breakers. If you want to argue that the context here is different, then fine and I'm sure most would agree. But a virus can't identify context and isn't going to be more lenient on certain groups just because they're exposing themselves and others for different reasons. The virus doesn't care about politics. People shouldn't be expected to suddenly drop the Covid-19 issue altogether with regards to this - and when they do mention it, provided they're at least being reasonable and acknowledging the tricky context, they shouldn't simply be met with the usual dismissive attitude that you doled out and have their opinion discarded purely because it goes slightly against the grain.

Thank you, Chris, that was indeed my point.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

As well as Churchill being a savage warmonger - one of the leading proponents of the UK going into the First World War, and drawing up plans to attack the Soviet Union not long after VE Day, and later encouraging Truman to nuke Soviet cities - he also displayed strongly racist attitudes ('keep England white', "I hate Indians" and several more) and was at least partly responsible for the Bengal famine which killed up to three million. I suppose a certain amount of leeway for his racist views is acceptable if you take the view that he was a man of his time. Whilst some respect is no doubt due for his wartime leadership, his time in office is greatly overrated and largely myth (e.g. his 'fight on the beaches' speech was never heard by the British people).

There's easily an argument that if it's acceptable to tear down Colston's statue, you could tear down Churchill's.

Topic's getting wide, I see. On balance, I think Colston's statue should have been removed and Starmer's comment on it was both spot on and very astute. Colston was of his time. Do we need public statues commemorating him now? Absolutely not. Was he evil through and through? Guess it depends on one's perspective (and I completely understand those who think he was, now we're in the 21st century), but his charitable donations suggest perhaps not.
As Obama (I think) recently said, good people do bad things - the black/white lack of nuance in conversations is stupid and we really need to understand that it's of limited value to look at past deeds though modern ethical principles when condemning historical figures. Wonder if anyone fancies tearing down the odd Ghandi statue?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

As well as Churchill being a savage warmonger - one of the leading proponents of the UK going into the First World War, and drawing up plans to attack the Soviet Union not long after VE Day, and later encouraging Truman to nuke Soviet cities - he also displayed strongly racist attitudes ('keep England white', "I hate Indians" and several more) and was at least partly responsible for the Bengal famine which killed up to three million. I suppose a certain amount of leeway for his racist views is acceptable if you take the view that he was a man of his time. Whilst some respect is no doubt due for his wartime leadership, his time in office is greatly overrated and largely myth (e.g. his 'fight on the beaches' speech was never heard by the British people).

There's easily an argument that if it's acceptable to tear down Colston's statue, you could tear down Churchill's.

Topic's getting wide, I see. On balance, I think Colston's statue should have been removed and Starmer's comment on it was both spot on and very astute. Colston was of his time. Do we need public statues commemorating him now? Absolutely not. Was he evil through and through? Guess it depends on one's perspective (and I completely understand those who think he was, now we're in the 21st century), but his charitable donations suggest perhaps not.
As Obama (I think) recently said, good people do bad things - the black/white lack of nuance in conversations is stupid and we really need to understand that it's of limited value to look at past deeds though modern ethical principles when condemning historical figures. Wonder if anyone fancies tearing down the odd Ghandi statue?

I agree with you, especially with lack of nuance in conversations, particularly those on social media. No one is a universally evil person, and no one is a one-dimensional good person. The problem of applying today's morals to yesterday's people is also a tough one.

To steer it back onto the topic, by allowing a mob to tear down a statue and dispose of it in the harbour represents a failure of policing. The relevant police force said they didn't intervene because they feared being drawn into violent confrontation and of injuries to suspects and officers -  that's unfortunately the job sometimes, particularly with mobs. That they've now identified 17 suspects - who they may or may not prosecute - is policing after the fact.

And that's why I asked earlier about whether the police would intervene if a mob tried to pull Churchill's statue down. It would be the same risk of injury and violent confrontation, so would the police again acqueise to mob rule? Or would this be a line that couldn't be crossed? If the latter, does this mean there's a hierarchy of statues, some of which the police won't bother to defend?

Of course the lines are blurry. Life would much easier if there was a wee lightbulb above our heads that only went on when we were "right"

I'm pretty sure that it is universally accepted on these boards that slavery is wrong, but I'm also pretty sure there is at least a large percentage of posters here who happily or naively buy cheap clothing which is made by workers who are working for such little pay that it's almost slave labour.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

As well as Churchill being a savage warmonger - one of the leading proponents of the UK going into the First World War, and drawing up plans to attack the Soviet Union not long after VE Day, and later encouraging Truman to nuke Soviet cities - he also displayed strongly racist attitudes ('keep England white', "I hate Indians" and several more) and was at least partly responsible for the Bengal famine which killed up to three million. I suppose a certain amount of leeway for his racist views is acceptable if you take the view that he was a man of his time. Whilst some respect is no doubt due for his wartime leadership, his time in office is greatly overrated and largely myth (e.g. his 'fight on the beaches' speech was never heard by the British people).

There's easily an argument that if it's acceptable to tear down Colston's statue, you could tear down Churchill's.

Topic's getting wide, I see. On balance, I think Colston's statue should have been removed and Starmer's comment on it was both spot on and very astute. Colston was of his time. Do we need public statues commemorating him now? Absolutely not. Was he evil through and through? Guess it depends on one's perspective (and I completely understand those who think he was, now we're in the 21st century), but his charitable donations suggest perhaps not.
As Obama (I think) recently said, good people do bad things - the black/white lack of nuance in conversations is stupid and we really need to understand that it's of limited value to look at past deeds though modern ethical principles when condemning historical figures. Wonder if anyone fancies tearing down the odd Ghandi statue?

I agree with you, especially with lack of nuance in conversations, particularly those on social media. No one is a universally evil person, and no one is a one-dimensional good person. The problem of applying today's morals to yesterday's people is also a tough one.

To steer it back onto the topic, by allowing a mob to tear down a statue and dispose of it in the harbour represents a failure of policing. The relevant police force said they didn't intervene because they feared being drawn into violent confrontation and of injuries to suspects and officers -  that's unfortunately the job sometimes, particularly with mobs. That they've now identified 17 suspects - who they may or may not prosecute - is policing after the fact.

And that's why I asked earlier about whether the police would intervene if a mob tried to pull Churchill's statue down. It would be the same risk of injury and violent confrontation, so would the police again acqueise to mob rule? Or would this be a line that couldn't be crossed? If the latter, does this mean there's a hierarchy of statues, some of which the police won't bother to defend?

Interesting last point - try and draw a line in the right place there!

I think the police were/are on a hiding to nothing re. things like the Colston statue. Can you possibly imagine the furore if they stopped it? What happened was criminal damage, but I think the police did what they had to do there. A bit of criminal damage and after-event arrests vs. an all-out riot, maybe?

Assuming the job of the police is to maintain law and order, I suspect you could argue they weighed it up and decided the best for all involved would be what they did.

I quite like that. Common sense in policing is something many believe a lot of the world is lacking

I see Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has crawled out from whatever rock he was hiding under to call on all "patriots" to go to London next Saturday to protect statues, especially the Churchill one.

Dont know why he's waiting til next week when he could go tomorrow.

tigertattie wrote:Of course the lines are blurry. Life would much easier if there was a wee lightbulb above our heads that only went on when we were "right"

I'm pretty sure that it is universally accepted on these boards that slavery is wrong, but I'm also pretty sure there is at least a large percentage of posters here who happily or naively buy cheap clothing which is made by workers who are working for such little pay that it's almost slave labour.

An excellent point.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/08/keir-starmer-edward-colston-bristol-statue-wrong

“It shouldn’t have been done in that way, completely wrong to pull a statue down like that,” Starmer said. “Stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. We can’t, in 21st century Britain, have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people.

“That statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.”

Respect to Keir Starmer, I agree with him on this.

Can't agree with the Bristol mayor who praised the lack of action from the police, however, as it will only lead to attempts to pull other statues down and risks further anarchy - I wonder if the police would intervene if the statue of Churchill was being pulled down?

If Churchill had been a slave trader responsible for 100,000 African slaves, 20,000 of which died on slave ships and were thrown in the sea then the Bristol police may have taken the same view as they did with the Edward Colston statue. That is a completely irrelevant comparison Duty.

As well as Churchill being a savage warmonger - one of the leading proponents of the UK going into the First World War, and drawing up plans to attack the Soviet Union not long after VE Day, and later encouraging Truman to nuke Soviet cities - he also displayed strongly racist attitudes ('keep England white', "I hate Indians" and several more) and was at least partly responsible for the Bengal famine which killed up to three million. I suppose a certain amount of leeway for his racist views is acceptable if you take the view that he was a man of his time. Whilst some respect is no doubt due for his wartime leadership, his time in office is greatly overrated and largely myth (e.g. his 'fight on the beaches' speech was never heard by the British people).

There's easily an argument that if it's acceptable to tear down Colston's statue, you could tear down Churchill's.

Topic's getting wide, I see. On balance, I think Colston's statue should have been removed and Starmer's comment on it was both spot on and very astute. Colston was of his time. Do we need public statues commemorating him now? Absolutely not. Was he evil through and through? Guess it depends on one's perspective (and I completely understand those who think he was, now we're in the 21st century), but his charitable donations suggest perhaps not.
As Obama (I think) recently said, good people do bad things - the black/white lack of nuance in conversations is stupid and we really need to understand that it's of limited value to look at past deeds though modern ethical principles when condemning historical figures. Wonder if anyone fancies tearing down the odd Ghandi statue?

I agree with you, especially with lack of nuance in conversations, particularly those on social media. No one is a universally evil person, and no one is a one-dimensional good person. The problem of applying today's morals to yesterday's people is also a tough one.

To steer it back onto the topic, by allowing a mob to tear down a statue and dispose of it in the harbour represents a failure of policing. The relevant police force said they didn't intervene because they feared being drawn into violent confrontation and of injuries to suspects and officers -  that's unfortunately the job sometimes, particularly with mobs. That they've now identified 17 suspects - who they may or may not prosecute - is policing after the fact.

And that's why I asked earlier about whether the police would intervene if a mob tried to pull Churchill's statue down. It would be the same risk of injury and violent confrontation, so would the police again acqueise to mob rule? Or would this be a line that couldn't be crossed? If the latter, does this mean there's a hierarchy of statues, some of which the police won't bother to defend?

Interesting last point - try and draw a line in the right place there!

I think the police were/are on a hiding to nothing re. things like the Colston statue. Can you possibly imagine the furore if they stopped it? What happened was criminal damage, but I think the police did what they had to do there. A bit of criminal damage and after-event arrests vs. an all-out riot, maybe?

Yes, I agree that the police were in a bit of a no-win situation with regards to the Colston statue. Defend it from the mob and they could have been accused of defending the glorification of slave traders, or something silly like that.

I worry, though, that by failing to uphold the rule of law in this instance that they've opened the door to more instances of statues being pulled down (or attempted to be pulled down), and there's also the possibility of EDL/Britain First types going into vigilante mode and causing more violence and disruption.