... weren’t the people of that era convinced they had the moral highground over those they knew to be lesser than themselves.
That's why I want to know who / what is next.
If moral high ground is related to Christianity will the religion be targeted next? If one religion is targeted will other religions be targeted too since they also have moral high ground? Where do they stop?
One has tO assume that every statue of a Roman will be removed as well then. How about a few Vikings. Nope, just another cheap dig this. .
Politcis aside, this has given the go ahead for vandalism. Destruction of someone elses property is NEVER acceptable. The courts have condoned a criminal offence to be politically correct.
I assume that in this case the building linked to this person will also be raised to the ground or at very least ignored completely by those who objected to the benefactor.
No, that won't happen either. Just another bit of nasty political selfishness. Far more respect would be achieved by a little bit of self sacrifice on behalf of these criminals. Can I safely assume that I can go and vandalise some other statue just because I don't like something? I dare any of those waiting to shoot me down to condone someone doing the same to a picture of Mandela.
Please note, I am not condoning the actions of Colston so don't even bother going on about that. Completely different issue.
the truth is we were central to the slave trade, one of the biggest slave traders and late to abolish slavery.
Destruction of someone elses property is NEVER acceptable.
Really?
From a locked gate on a right of way - you can break the lock legally to breaking a window in a hot car to save a child, to all sorts of things it can be both morally and legally correct to damage someone property
How about a nazi flag with a racist saying on it displayed publicly?
Can I safely assume that I can go and vandalise some other statue just because I don’t like something?
Just in case that is a serious question, no, you can't. You've massively misunderstood what has happened.
Destruction of someone elses property is NEVER acceptable.
Assuming that a human’s own body and life is their own property, that would make all war, slavery, etc “NEVER acceptable”.
Not “not acceptable now”, “NEVER”.
And would military action against another country be acceptable? What if they were doing some bad things like killing people? Genocidy things maybe?
It’s all shades of grey in a myriad of colours. No monochrome posterised view works.
Don't forget that Richard Drax, the MP for South Dorset still owns and operates the sugar plantation in Barbados that an estimated 30,000 slaves died on over 200 years. That land, like all plantations, was stolen from indigenous people in the first place.
One has tO assume that every statue of a Roman will be removed as well then.
The whataboutery is strong with this one.
the truth is we were central to the slave trade, one of the biggest slave traders and late to abolish slavery.
But the Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade.
Slavery continued on much longer in various parts of the world including Africa, the Barbary slave trade, the Ottoman Slave trade, the Arab slave trades, slavery in India, slavery in China etc. Indeed the Arab slave trade started centuries before the Atlantic slave trade and continued into the 20th century. It was only gradually reduced in scale because of Britain and France tackling it. The Ottoman's didn't start to abolish slavery until late in the 19th century. Slavery in India was abolished by Britain.
That land, like all plantations, was stolen from indigenous people in the first place.
I don't doubt that but all land is stolen in one sense. The alternative of revolutionary tribunals seizing land is even worse.
Don’t forget that Richard Drax, the MP for South Dorset still owns and operates the sugar plantation in Barbados that an estimated 30,000 slaves died on over 200 years. That land, like all plantations, was stolen from indigenous people in the first place.
That story is now 2 years old. What has happened about reparations ?
Zilch.
No surprise the man in question is a tory.
@duckman - there you go then. The numbers you're throwing around aren't dissimilar to the sailors' death rates and no doubt those rates are skewed by the better food and conditions the officers had. By any measure, the age of sail was incredibly dangerous for anyone on a ship by modern standards.
No doubt the slave traders would also say that if they didn't purchase the slaves then someone else would. They'd also ask where their next meal would come from if they didn't partake in the slave trade. Things aren't morally black and white yet we're teaching kids that they were according to a simple binary where slavery was something only done by white people to black people.
What’s your goal here i_scoff_cake? Who are you trying to convince, and of what?
Well, he's keeping the thread going if nothing else. Though perhaps he doesn't realise that we aren't arguing with him, we're laughing at him.
I scoff cake - you really are displaying huge ignorance. do you want to learn the truth?
this is a particularly ridiculous assertion "The alternative of revolutionary tribunals seizing land is even worse. " is that the only alternative?
Destruction of someone elses property is NEVER acceptable.
What utter bollocks. Property rights are always secondary to what is morally right.
The courts have condoned a criminal offence to be politically correct.
No it’s morally correct. Stop being an arse.
you really are displaying huge ignorance.
Feel free to explain that. Just where exactly is he showing this great ignorance ?
Or is it that he's showing theres two sides to every coin. And more to that evil trade than the slaves themselves.
He could be quite naturally saying its the rich who have caused this, and the poor, which includes sailors, are mere pawns in the game of wealth and power.
But we already know the rich were the ones who profited directly from it. Ideal tory world- The employees arent entitled to pay.
But at least I scoff Cakes' has the balls to point out the other sides, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with the baying mob nodding in parrot fashion.
The fact that all the right people are upset about the toppling of a slave trader's statue is of some amusement to me. The best response to the faux outrage from the likes of the Telegraph, Express and jingoists everywhere is probably this:
There are indeed two sides to every coin, aggressor and victim, right and wrong, good and evil, etcetera, etcetera.
There's also two sides in a culture war, and your side lost this battle by approximately eleven to one at the last count.
Of course there is more to "that evil trade than the slaves themselves", I believe tj has already provided some 'context' by pointing out the fact that when slavery was abolished, those with shares in slaves were remunerated handsomley and that many of those beneficiaries as ruling and lording over us to this day.
Ignorance as a character trait isn't not knowing something, it's not understating it.
There’s also two sides in a culture war, and your side lost this battle by approximately eleven to one at the last count.
'My side' 😕
Slavery was abolished 188 years ago and plays no part on anyone alive today, nor does it harm or hinder.
I couldnt give a flying f for something that happened 188 years ago. It did not and does not effect me. The only sides you are referring to, is the side you appear to want to be on and to be seen being on.
This thread is a D E L I G H T
Was expecting the same "you can't erase history!!" nonsense..... but no! SO much more than that!
Slavery was just as bad for the white people perpetrating it as it was for black enslaved people, and (I think!): racism didn't exist until [insert date here] so slavery wasn't racist - have been my particular favorites so far.
But I feel like there's so much more to come! Where did I leave the popcorn GIF?
edit: Oooooo, a late entry:
Slavery was abolished 188 years ago and plays no part on anyone alive today, nor does it harm or hinder.
Really? R E A L L Y? Jesus wept
Or is it that he’s showing theres two sides to every coin. And more to that evil trade than the slaves themselves
No he isn't;in this case he is equating the experience of sailors being as bad as slaves. Crewing a slave ship was a risky but very well paid job( twice the pay of a merchant ship) that sailors decided to take on, being a slave; not so much.
Slavers lives matter!
Really? R E A L L Y? Jesus wept
Well dry those eyes dear boy and feel free to explain how and who are the oppressed slaves you're clearly referring to.
Slavery was just as bad for the white people perpetrating it as it was for black enslaved people, and (I think!): racism didn’t exist until [insert date here] so slavery wasn’t racist – have been my particular favorites so far.
But I feel like there’s so much more to come!
Oh indeed there is and for all your words, were we to step back 200 years, you would have the same attitude as those who considered slavery ok. You would consider those who came from Africa or Australia or such to be lesser people than yourself.
Attitudes are so different today, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend in private or public that we were any different to those of that time.
Would we find you on your singletrack soapbox up there in Hyde park shouting to all who is willing to listen how wrong and backward such attitudes are.
I think not.
No he isn’t;in this case he is equating the experience of sailors being as bad as slaves. Crewing a slave ship was a risky but very well paid job( twice the pay of a merchant ship) that sailors decided to take on, being a slave; not so much.
Slavers lives matter!
Taken from the History of Bristol.
" Slave ships’ captains had a reputation for hardness. This varied from ship to ship, but the captain did have absolute power over the ship and his men. The captain could whip, flog and otherwise punish crew members as he wished. Even minor faults could be harshly punished by the captain.
Many of the crew could not read or write. The sailor, Edward Mapham, wrote his will before he sailed for Africa on the ship the Greyhound in 1749. He left all his belongings and money to his friends George and Elizabeth Gore.
The sailor signed the will with a cross as he was unable to write his own name. Even the more educated members of the crew could do little against a bad captain. Two Bristol seamen who suffered at the hands of very cruel captains were able to write about their experiences. Sailors Robert Barker and Silas Told both published accounts of their experiences onboard slaving ships, telling how they were treated. Silas Told was punished on one occasion for taking too much bread from the bread store for a meal for the crew. He was whipped so hard by the captain that his clothes were torn to pieces.
The captain could do as he wanted. Often sick men or men whom the Captain disliked were left behind in the Caribbean without their wages or belongings. They would have to beg or starve, or find another ship that would take them. This happened to Robert Dinely, a ship’s surgeon on the Bristol slave ship the Fame, who was ‘maliciously’ left on the Caribbean island of Jamaica.
Occasionally the crew responded to the captain’s cruelty by murdering him or by turning on him. John Westcott was the captain of the Bristol owned slave ship the William in 1767. One of the crew, Stephen Porter, committed an offence, and Westcott beat him severely for it. That night, Porter and another sailor named Hancock killed the captain with an axe and threw his body overboard. They then killed the mate (the captain’s assistant) and took control of the ship. In 1769, the crew of the slave ship the Black Prince rose up against the captain and officers, put them into one of the ship’s small boats and left them floating adrift in the ocean.
Many crew members often became ill on the West African coast. Being from Europe, the sailors were not used to the tropical diseases found in this part of the world, such as malaria. At the time of the transatlantic slave trade, no cure for malaria had yet been discovered. Conversely, the enslaved Africans were not used to European diseases, and the sailors would spread measles and smallpox amongst them. A number of sailors went blind, either from fever or from looking directly into the sun (which sailors did to find the position of the ship at sea). The death rate amongst the crew on board the ships was very high. On the slave ship the Jupiter seven men out of the 46 died. One man drowned, the other six died from ‘the fever’ (probably malaria) or ‘the flux’ (either gastroenteritis or dysentery, which spread quickly in the cramped conditions on board ship). What is often forgotten about the sailors, is that those men who died might have left behind people who were financially dependent on them. Mothers, widows and children of dead sailors would have been left poorer by the loss. Surviving letters written by the relatives show that they often had difficulty in getting the sailor’s wages and possessions back from the ship’s captain.
The sailors on board the slave ships were supposed to be given certain provisions each day, such as food and water. It was up to the ship’s captain to make sure that this happened. The contract signed by the sailors before joining each slaving voyage was called the ‘Articles of Agreement’. This contract shows what the crew of the slave ship the Fame were to get on the 1790 voyage. It was a pound and half of beef (about 700g) and half a pint of flour (about 200g) on Sundays. On Tuesday they had two ounces of butter (about 60 g) and four ounces of cheese (about 120 g) as part of the day’s food. In addition, the crew were to be given six pounds (about 3 kilos) of bread each week, and a quarter of a pint (about 100 ml) of spirits or half a pint of wine (about 200 ml) every day.
The death rate amongst the crew of slaving ships was high. This discovery shocked the people who started the campaign for the end of the slave trade. They had thought that it was only the slaves who tolerated awful conditions and were cruelly treated by the ship’s captains and officers. But the death rate amongst the enslaved Africans in the holds of the ships was also high. The cause of death was usually sickness. The enslaved Africans were exposed for the first time to common European diseases such as measles and smallpox, carried by the crew. In the cramped conditions of the ships, serious stomach upsets such as gastroenteritis and dysentery could spread quickly. One or two deaths out of every 10 slaves was common on a voyage. It could be more, or it might be less. On that same voyage of the slave ship the Jupiter, some 28 out of the 299 enslaved African men, women and children died on board. "
Certainly doesn't sound like the well paid, plus expenses pleasure cruise you're referring to does it ?. In fact it confirms much of what @I scoff Cake has been saying.
Well dry those eyes dear boy and feel free to explain how and who are the oppressed slaves you’re clearly referring to.
If you are so horrendously ignorant to think that modern slavery doesn't exist, or that there is no ongoing legacy associated with the slave trade, then nothing I say is going to convince you. Maybe google it?
I don't think anybody is arguing that slavery wasn't seen as acceptable at the time - so I'm not sure what your other point is? That attitudes have changed? Yes they have..... obviously, and that's the whole point of the debate about whether these statues should continue to stand..... obviously.
Were conditions of the slave ships appalling for the sailors? Yes, nobody is saying otherwise.
Certainly doesn’t sound like the well paid, plus expenses pleasure cruise you’re referring to does it ?
Nobody is saying that.
Should we acknowledge that that slave trade was also tough on the white sailors who signed-up to be part of it (as I'm sure being any kind of sailor was at the time)? Yes for sure. Should this be used as somehow a counterpoint to offset the suffering of the slaves themselves - either on the ships themsleves, or the generational misery and suffering that they endured after reaching their destination? No.
If you are so horrendously ignorant to think that modern slavery doesn’t exist, or that there is no ongoing legacy associated with the slave trade, then nothing I say is going to convince you
There is no slavery here in the UK.
Sorry Im going to hold you to within the bounds of Great Britain, as that what the entire thread was about.
What happens elsewhere is elsewhere's business, and Yes I do know slavery exists, though nothing like the well thought out, studied system we in Britain conducted. But abroad, slavery and bonded labour are often seen in the west as both being slavery when in fact they arent. Much of today's modern slavery elsewhere in the world has come about due to poverty, and this unrelenting human trait of not wanting your kids to die of starvation, which is where working for someone where no jobs or even a sound economy occurs.
You tie yourself to that employer and you dont starve.
Perhaps even like our own feudal system.
Trial decisions are always used as basis for subsequent case law
You're confusing Common Law and Criminal Law. Anyone using the phrase "set a precedent" or variations thereof are making the same mistake, as are the idiots on Twitter claiming this verdict "makes it legal to smash Marx's grave" (I'm not making that up).
Jury verdicts in criminal trials don't do any of that. No jury can be bound by the decision of another, and no jury decision can bind another.
What this verdict means is that it was not a crime for those four people to topple that one statue into that one harbour, that one time. No more than that, and no precedent for anything. It doesn't so much as guarantee that the same people toppling the same statue into the same harbour on a different occasion wouldn't be guilty of criminal damage.
There is no slavery here in the UK.
you sure about that? Don't even want to check before posting? Not even a quick google?
I was going to give you a couple of links, but I can't really be bothered. Modern slavery absolutely exists, it looks a bit different, but it certainly does exist..... even in the UK.
Far more interesting a conversation is whether the legacy of slavery is still relevant in the UK (and in the US) and whether something should be done to address that, and what that something might be. Taking down some statues, adding some plaques and renaming a few buildings is really the least that we should be doing
Be nice if we could talk about that, but it seems like we are still stuck on "why should I care about slavery...... it was ages ago"
There is no slavery here in the UK.
Modern slavery in the UK exists and is estimated at around 10,000 people on the low side.
Yes, it is not exactly the same as historical slavery hence the use of modern but people are being forced to work in many areas, some brought into the country to do so.
As suggested above, try Google.
There is no slavery here in the UK.
The occasional criminal prosecutions documented in the news media are what? Politically engineered show trials?
There is no slavery here in the UK.
You're making yourself look very silly.
No need for sarcasm eddie 🙄
Personally and this is in comparison to the type of slavery relating to the toppling of the statue - There is none of that institutionalized slavery here in the UK.
That sound a little less open to interpretation ?
Are you all happy now 😉
Sure we can give examples of bonded labour, or paying off debt, but none of which concerns 4 people pushing over a statue commemorating a chap who did wonders for Bristol in the 19th century who has since fallen from grace.
Ah, so there’s no slavery but there is bonded labour.
Righto.
Thats the 2nd baby comment off you Ranos.
Away and look up bonded labour and then come back with a debate on the matter. 🙄
Ah, so there's no slavery but there is bonded labour.
Righto.
Just to throw a little modern perspective into the debate here. Some of the house conversions I visited in Holland Park, Kensington and other well-to-do London Boroughs had smaller rooms "laughingly" referred to as the slave quarters by the site managers. Invariably these were properties owned by middle-eastern nationals and this was the mid-noughties..
Slavery was abolished 188 years ago and plays no part on anyone alive today,
Unless you paid taxes before 2015, in which case you paid for the slave owners to be compensated for the end of slavery (but not for any reparations for the enslaved). Incidentally much of the money was used by this families who received it to fence in common land following the Enclosures Act, something which still has a major effect on English land access and which may play a part in the lives of mountain bikers today.
Unless you paid taxes before 2015, in which case you paid for the slave owners to be compensated for the end of slavery (but not for any reparations for the enslaved). Incidentally much of the money was used by this families who received it to fence in common land following the Enclosures Act, something which still has a major effect on English land access and which may play a part in the lives of mountain bikers today.
See that Ranos ?, thats a well constructed answer.
Not like your literary fumblings.
Thats a well put bit of info @Riksbar. I didnt know that. Certainly interesting to know
Not that I pay much tax anyhow 😆
Here, I’ve googled it for you:
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
Not really sure what this achieves, other than demonstrate that you’re wrong about that too
Edit:
Certainly interesting to know and a bit heartwarming to understand that despite all that went on, some help is being offered even this far down the line.
Ok, I’m calling troll. Or maybe you just didn’t read what he wrote?
See that Ranos ?, thats a well constructed answer.
Not like your literary fumblings.
I see that you're not a keen student of irony.
I hear that Colston was kind to animals. If we'd had public transport back then, doubtless he'd have made it run on time.
other than demonstrate that you’re wrong about that too
Is that what this is about for you 😕 A points scoring exercise..
I did point out that slavery exists in other countries and we have zero control over that, and certainly reading that entry I cannot compare what is happening elsewhere in the world as to what you say is going on here.
Nor do I see what that has to do with the shocking display we witnessed of social unrest.
I did point out that slavery exists in other countries
It exists here. There's a whole section about it in the website batfink helpfully linked to, so there's no excuse for your continued ignorance.
Ok, I’m calling troll. Or maybe you just didn’t read what he wrote?
I removed it as I didnt rewad it correctly. I thought he was meeaning like the payments made to peole like the widnrush generation, which is what that was referring to. As to paying the slave owners int he 19yth century. Everyone knows about that but it is part of the 'yesteryear' over which we have no control except to pour scorn and claim in the loudest of voices(and always in public) that we would never have acted that way.
As to calling troll. Have you read the nasty and sarcastic posts on this thread to other members who only wish to discuss. Its like woke central mixed with the daily mail comments section in here.
As ever, the usual suspects. but this is the playground isn't it 😕
so there’s no excuse for your continued ignorance.
:z
Sure. If its triggering you into nasty postings then it must be worth it 😉 Fumble away old chap, fumble away.
There is no slavery here in the UK.
Given that various government agencies, including HMRC, have anti-slavery teams, I think you need to take a step away from the forum and come back when you have done some research.
Is that what this is about for you 😕 A points scoring exercise.
No, just an optimist. I thought that maybe demonstrating that your opinions are based on being wrong about very easily verifiable facts might cause you to rethink your views. I see now that this was a futile effort, and I concede to letting you wallow in your own ignorance.
Get a vote of some sort from the people whole live in that city before taking action perhaps is a better way.
Or not if you don’t want to take it down 🙂
I’d rather not rename stuff like the colston hall tbh it’s just the colston hall to most as it’s been called that all their lives and the new names pretty random but the statues fine in the museum as a piece of history.
I’d rather put a Wallace and Grommit statue on the plinth.
Here you go. Slavery int he uk, not slavery in the world. Might as well get the correct link and stop tracking world statistics into British ones. But either way, the 'slavery' that exists in the UK has nothing to do with the slavery as seen in the antislavery report. Criminal enterprise being the main reason. No whips and chains to be seen anywhere.
" The number of potential victims referred to the NRM has risen from 2,340 in 2014 to more than 10,000 in 2020. The profile of victims and the worst threats have also changed, with labour and criminal exploitation now the most prevalent forms of modern slavery identified in the UK."
Labour slaves - low paid. Im sorry, but the comparison many of you are making to what constitutes slavery and giving examples from outside the UK as proof of slavery here in the UK are completely different concepts
And a concept of being paid(albeit extremely low wages) is not the one and the same thing.
What happens here in the UK is called EXPLOITATION.
There we have it: Britain has the wrong kind of slaves.
