International News Black Lives Matter

[chuckbert]

The point shines through though. How many more years for places like Chicago before they change the party they vote for?

Maybe if at some point they cease to be able to distinguish causation and correlation?

 

[unification]

Re the Bristol statue etc.

Personally I think there is quite a difference between having a chequered history (which of us hasn't!) and people like Colston. His fortune was (from what I have read) largely based on the slave trade - the Royal African Company transported 84,000 people from Africa to the Caribbean and 19,000 of them died on route. The money he so generously bought respectability with was earned that way. I don't think that toppling his statue is trying to rewrite history - I think it is looking history in the eye and saying that (no matter how he spent the proceeds) what he did was wrong, and having a statue celebrating him in a modern multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country is simply wrong as well.

So - is pulling the statue down justified? In my eyes, it is. It sounds as if there have been multiple attempts to get it removed which have been thwarted by people who are keen to excuse the sins of the past - uncaring that a statue celebrating him must be a constant reminder to some sections of society of wrongs past and present, both elsewhere and in this country.

Prof Kate Williams provided a neat potted history of the discussions about removing the statue yesterday:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269713381973516290

I think we're all surprised that a statue of someone so controversial was still standing in 2020. Why so much trouble was about the wording on a plaque when it was clearer that a complete removal and inclusion in a museum was the obvious choice is a debate for the people of Bristol and the local authorities who run the place. Quite frankly it should have been removed years ago.

But what makes me feel uneasy is that a partisan mob is the final arbiter in the decision to take it down. Is that not a precedent to take down or trash other things that people may not like? If the dimwits at Britain First decide that they want 'Terrorist' printed under the statue of Nelson Mandela at Parliament Square and nobody heeds their call after a year, they'd have the same grounds to take his statue down and roll it into the Thames as the protestors did with Colston . Sure, it wouldn't be popular with all (or pretty much anyone) to remove a statue of Mandela, but that particular mob at that particular time were the arbiters. An argument of 'well, official channels haven't worked, let's take it into our own hands' is vigilantism.

This sort of decision, whether it takes minutes, hours, days or years, should be a collective decision to come up with a solution of best fit and, equally important, a right to challenge it.

 

[Essexyellows]

11,000 or so folk signed a petition to remove the statue.
724,000 folk live in Bristol.

And they have been balancing the see saw down there for years ...."done lots of good - he was a slave trader" etc etc. They even added a plaque describing how he made his money.

Do the rest of society who aren`t that bothered, because you can`t change what happened, now have to accept being rolled over by a minority of vandals?

 

[Essexyellows]

With the likes of Cromwell, Churchill, Harris etc it not about freedom fighting or terrorism, but state-sponsored war actions that could be considered crimes: death of up to half a million Irish civvies, gassing Kurds, or carpet bombing a German city.

War is war and that is how it was at the time. Can`t change it, can`t fix it you just hope we learn from it.

However we don`t "learn" especially when The West impose what we think is "right" on cultures we do not understand, that is where the real trouble starts.

 

[chuckbert]

War is war and that is how it was at the time. Can`t change it, can`t fix it you just hope we learn from it.

However we don`t "learn" especially when The West impose what we think is "right" on cultures we do not understand, that is where the real trouble starts.

Agreed to some extent. Just pointing out that it’s not all about freedom fighters vs terrorists as you suggested. Aside from our warmongers there are also the pirates like Clive of India, Drake etc.
It is an interesting aspect of the British psyche that we consider important to remember the good that these folks did for our economy rather than the harm they did to others ...

 

[Sheik djibouti]

In the interests of levity: https://newsthump.com/2020/06/08/li...oj0fA6ih4pT3nWC9353FURV6HGNR0hoMzVFmeG2xDS3lw

 

[tonyw]

The point shines through though. How many more years for places like Chicago before they change the party they vote for?

Probably about a millennium.

Seriously, if you think voting patterns are entrenched in parts of the UK - it's nothing on the US.

Look through the voting on Chicago's last mayoral election, last year. See if you can find a Republican candidate. I can't. At least the top half dozen candidates in terms of first round votes were all democrats.

And to take a different US city - Washington D.C. votes independently in the US presidential elections (and has three electoral college votes). In 2016, Trump received four percent of the vote there. FOUR!!

And of course, if you go to rural parts of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi etc. then it's flipped. They'd vote for literally anyone there as long as they were representing the GOP.

It's why all nationwide US elections are determined by the actions of the relatively few swing states - the Rust Belt (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan), a few states on the southern Eastern Seaboard (Florida, North Carolina, Virginia) and possibly a couple of states in the Southwest (Arizona, Nevada, Colorado......although the latter two are going a little more blue).
And even those states are swingy because they're a pretty even mix of cities and rural areas. Taking Pennsylvania for example - Philadelphia is still overwhelmingly Democrat, but there's some very rural counties that are big Trump areas. Which creates a balance that puts the state in play.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

11,000 or so folk signed a petition to remove the statue.
724,000 folk live in Bristol.

And they have been balancing the see saw down there for years ...."done lots of good - he was a slave trader" etc etc. They even added a plaque describing how he made his money.

Do the rest of society who aren`t that bothered, because you can`t change what happened, now have to accept being rolled over by a minority of vandals?

Out of interest, how many signed the petition to keep it?

 

[Aylesbury Rich]

With the likes of Cromwell, Churchill, Harris etc it not about freedom fighting or terrorism, but state-sponsored war actions that could be considered crimes: death of up to half a million Irish civvies, gassing Kurds, or carpet bombing a German city.

To be fair to the three people you mention, there were perfectly humane and legitimate reasons for some of the actions you cite.

Cromwell was a particularly unlikable character, but the noted sacks of Drogheda and Wexford had perfectly sound military reasons. And, in fact, were intended to save lives in the long run.

The RAF never actually 'gassed' any Kurds, although there were certainly plans to utilise lachrymatory gases in the 1920s. The ultimate intent being to save lives as a non fatal gas could achieve victory without excessive fatalities. Ironically, the efficiency of the RAF's conventional bombing made their use unnecessary. As you state, Churchill was particularly keen on the use of tear gas.

'Carpet' bombing is a much misunderstood term. In fact area bombing is a more accurate statement of what was undertaken. The intention, of course, was to defeat Nazi Germany by means of aerial assault on their industries- i.e. urban, industrialised areas such as the Ruhr. Until 1941 a policy of targeted attacks was pursued on factories which was found to be ultimately counter-productive. Aerial bombing by night being so inaccurate that fewer than 5% of bombers dropped their bombs within 3 miles of their target (cf the Butt Report). From 1942 Harris was mandated to attack German industrial cities to cripple their war industry. The aim was that the war could be won without a costly land offensive, thus preventing loss of life not only amongst Allied soldiers, but also the civilians of occupied Europe. To suggest that this was in some way a 'crime' is really quite disingenuous.

It is counter factual of course, but had the huge success of the Battle of Hamburg in 1943 been followed by 2 or 3 more similar blows then Germany may have capitulated that year. Had they done so, there would have been no Final Solution... and millions of lives could have been saved. A tantalising, but ultimately unprovable theory.

 

[chuckbert]

To be fair to the three people you mention, there were perfectly humane and legitimate reasons for some of the actions you cite.

Cromwell was a particularly unlikable character, but the noted sacks of Drogheda and Wexford had perfectly sound military reasons. And, in fact, were intended to save lives in the long run.

The RAF never actually 'gassed' any Kurds, although there were certainly plans to utilise lachrymatory gases in the 1920s. The ultimate intent being to save lives as a non fatal gas could achieve victory without excessive fatalities. Ironically, the efficiency of the RAF's conventional bombing made their use unnecessary. As you state, Churchill was particularly keen on the use of tear gas.

'Carpet' bombing is a much misunderstood term. In fact area bombing is a more accurate statement of what was undertaken. The intention, of course, was to defeat Nazi Germany by means of aerial assault on their industries- i.e. urban, industrialised areas such as the Ruhr. Until 1941 a policy of targeted attacks was pursued on factories which was found to be ultimately counter-productive. Aerial bombing by night being so inaccurate that fewer than 5% of bombers dropped their bombs within 3 miles of their target (cf the Butt Report). From 1942 Harris was mandated to attack German industrial cities to cripple their war industry. The aim was that the war could be won without a costly land offensive, thus preventing loss of life not only amongst Allied soldiers, but also the civilians of occupied Europe. To suggest that this was in some way a 'crime' is really quite disingenuous.

It is counter factual of course, but had the huge success of the Battle of Hamburg in 1943 been followed by 2 or 3 more similar blows then Germany may have capitulated that year. Had they done so, there would have been no Final Solution... and millions of lives could have been saved. A tantalising, but ultimately unprovable theory.

So instead of a freedom-fighters vs terrorists question it is a humane-act-of-war vs war-crime question.
The usual criticism of Harris is not about the Ruhr and 1942, it is about Dresden in 1945. Ironically it is the right-wing in Germany that was most vocal about his alleged crimes, so not always the progressives who complain ...

All of these points raise the question of how far do you go before you're so humane and legitimate that you're inhumane. Culloden? Hiroshima? I'm sure the use of Agent Orange and napalm was an attempt to shorten a war. Which side of the ledger does that get accounted on?

 

[Essexyellows]

Out of interest, how many signed the petition to keep it?

No idea, however they now seem to want it replaced with a statue of a black bus driver who fought against the more recent (1960`s) "No blacks employment policy".
The problem then becomes... well why a statue for him? We`ve moved on as a society and there aren`t "No Blacks, No Irish" signs on pub doors anymore.

I`m really upset that my ancestors,who were archers to the Kings of Ireland, were robbed of their rightful lands by King Henry in 1171..................... I`m off to protest at Gandhi`s statue with a bit of rope. ..........

 

[Essexyellows]

So instead of a freedom-fighters vs terrorists question it is a humane-act-of-war vs war-crime question.
The usual criticism of Harris is not about the Ruhr and 1942, it is about Dresden in 1945. Ironically it is the right-wing in Germany that was most vocal about his alleged crimes, so not always the progressives who complain ...

All of these points raise the question of how far do you go before you're so humane and legitimate that you're inhumane. Culloden? Hiroshima? I'm sure the use of Agent Orange and napalm was an attempt to shorten a war. Which side of the ledger does that get accounted on?

Culloden - Thats how war was then.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki - attempt to foreshorten the war.....and do some nuclear research at the same time.
Agent Orange, Napalm- Inhumane.

Think that shows how society changes and see`s conflict rather well.

Try this.........
Isis extremists destroy statues of "false prophets" in ancient temples and cities......they are desecrating history.
Tear down a statue, throw it in a harbour ...... "black lives matter"......

 

[Marked Ox]

There is a difference with a statue, the whole point of a statue is to honour a person, a building isn't.

Then put a very clear and significantly large plaque (or board) explaining the good and bad they have done on the statute (ie. with Colston, his investment in Bristol but countered with his slave trading). This means that history isn't being whitewashed out and the history remains in the consciousness.

 

[Sarge]

Then put a very clear and significantly large plaque (or board) explaining the good and bad they have done on the statute (ie. with Colston, his investment in Bristol but countered with his slave trading). This means that history isn't being whitewashed out and the history remains in the consciousness.

I agree with that @Marked Ox .... though I understand the issue in Bristol was the powers that be and those behind the anti statue petition couldn't settle on how to actually word / articulate the good and the bad on the plaque

 

[Aylesbury Rich]

So instead of a freedom-fighters vs terrorists question it is a humane-act-of-war vs war-crime question.
The usual criticism of Harris is not about the Ruhr and 1942, it is about Dresden in 1945. Ironically it is the right-wing in Germany that was most vocal about his alleged crimes, so not always the progressives who complain ...

All of these points raise the question of how far do you go before you're so humane and legitimate that you're inhumane. Culloden? Hiroshima? I'm sure the use of Agent Orange and napalm was an attempt to shorten a war. Which side of the ledger does that get accounted on?

Yes, Dresden is an interesting one. Of course, it is important to put it into context. The RAF and USAF raided it in mid February 1945 at the request of the Russians. At that time the Battle of the Bulge was just petering out, the Rhine had not been crossed at any point and there was still plenty of fight left in the Nazis. In fact, they were still busy herding Jews into the gas chambers at Auschwitz et al.

So what really is the objection to the bombing of Dresden? It was a perfectly legitimate military target, a railway centre for the movement of troops, a military depot, and a producer of munitions and poison gas. POWs present at the time detailed extensively how soldiers and munitions were pouring out of Dresden to the Eastern Front. In fact, Dresden was one of four cities which the Russians requested be bombed, the others being Chemnitz, Berlin and Leipzig. As it happened the raid was highly successful and large areas of the city were burnt out.

Yet Dresden was by no means the last air raid of the war. In fact March 1945 saw the heaviest bomb load dropped by the RAF in the war- purely due to the rapidly increasing strength of Bomber Command. No one now remembers the raids on Chemnitz (Feb 15th), Dortmund (Feb 21st) Cologne (2nd March) Essen (11th March) and so on. The Luftwaffe shot down many British bombers after Dresden too. On 14th March, for example, the RAF lost 41 heavy bombers- hardly a trifling loss.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree that the bomber offensive was in any way a war crime. Aerial bombing was a legitimate act of war (still is!). The RAF never targeted any purely non industrial cities (obviously, non industrial areas of industrial cities were bombed though). If the Germans did not want their cities bombed they could have done the following-

1) Not invaded the neutral countries of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway etc without any provocation.
2) Not have bombed the cities of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc
3) Have evacuated their industrial cities of civilians
4) Have surrendered prior to May 1945

They chose to do none of these things, but fought on to the end, inflicting incalculable loss on so many innocent people.

 

[Marked Ox]

In some areas of the world, slavery is still happening. Not that many protesting over the weekend would realise that...

Slavery is still happening in this country although on a comparatively small scale.

 

[Marked Ox]

I agree with that @Marked Ox .... though I understand the issue in Bristol was the powers that be and those behind the anti statue petition couldn't settle on how to actually word / articulate the good and the bad on the plaque

Then both need to learn about compromise and the Authorities leading this should have actually led it.

 

[Marked Ox]

Maybe they should move the Cecil Rhodes statue to the carpark at the Kassam. With Mackie’s shooting its sure to get toppled at some point.

Would WIll Grigg's penalty finally come down and hit it?

 

[Essexyellows]

Drake and Ariana Grande's record label drops the term 'urban'

Republic Records, one of the most powerful labels in the US, says the term is outdated.

www.bbc.co.uk

Petition is launched to call for removal of historic pub sign

Some feel the historic, protected sign should not exist in 2020

www.derbytelegraph.co.uk

So a word and a pub sign................... is this what they want to achieve?

By all means educate, by all means don`t repeat history but don`t just wipe it away as though it never happened.

 

[PottersRightBoot]

Yes, fair enough got my phrasing slightly wrong there. I respect your postings usually but to note that you infer criminal damage as being acceptable Is faintly shocking.