I do think we need to teach more black history in schools. I imagine 14yr olds in Tower Hamlets not being too interested in 1066 etc but Windrush and the slave trade would be more appropriate.

The right is accused of ‘dividing us’ but otoh the left want a strict racial division enforced in this country through culture and teaching.

Why do we need a specific black history? Why not teach the history of slavery in a general sense from antiquity to modern slavery? Why racialise everything?

Kelleher and the Thatcher statue. As before, the judge essentially said in order for the defence to be valid, you’d have to demonstrate a direct harm.

Doesn’t that prove the point? That the defence needs to convince the jury that the relevant level of harm is demonstrated? Not that the damage itself automatically means the defendant is guilty.

Ironic that damaging a statue of someone who tried to eradicate poverty by eradicating the poor gets a jail sentence and damaging a guy who actually did try and help the poor gets nothing.

I think the world would be better off if Colston had never tried to “help” anyone.

@ tthew
Just back up a few hours here.

Actually, chewkw does make a valid point…

Now I know the country is truly knackered.

Knackered? We are all knackered.
Or may be sleepwalking into a “new wave of cultural revolution” (which I see the similarities with) which some do not know or pretend not to know but either way it is the way things work nowadays.

IMO one should Never change for anyone (referring to all sides in any political context) cause that’s just a waste of time and fight to the end.

I disagree with the destruction of whatever of statues because they are very similar to CCP brute force good or bad as I draw similarity with CCP’s actions. One day in the future in China Mao statue will face the same same outcome as they did when they (CCP) destroyed others’ “idols”. It will be their turn …

In the eyes of the CCP anyone or any thing that is famous dead or alive with followers are considered idols. The term idols is also used in certain religion(s) that prohibits the depiction of human feature. There is No way to convince them in anyway or form.

Life is short.

If anybody is interested in the actual reasons why they were not guilty, there was a Criminal Barrister on Adrian Chiles/5Live about 1230 (Matt Scott I believe his name) who gave a thorough but simple explanation.

FWIW there had been much un-happiness about this statue for years and no way it was going to be removed ‘officially’.

FWIW there had been much un-happiness about this statue for years and no way it was going to be removed ‘officially’.

Get a vote of some sort from the people whole live in that city before taking action perhaps is a better way.

This case was never about criminal damage, it was all about people daring to stand up to the wrongs of British history and the institution.

The right is accused of ‘dividing us’ but otoh the left want a strict racial division enforced in this country through culture and teaching

Dear god! You’re literally like a living Daily Mail editorial page 😂

Can you give us even a single solitary example of anyone proposing enforced ‘racial division’ through culture or teaching then, Peter Hitchins?

This case was never about criminal damage, it was all about people daring to stand up to the wrongs of British history and the institution.

Why does an interesting multi-faceted story have to be reduced to just one thing?

Can you give us even a single solitary example of anyone proposing enforced ‘racial division’ through culture or teaching then, Peter Hitchins?

What do you think black history is then?

What do you think black history is then?

er, history? Is this a trick question?

not racial division but an attempt to make history more relevant and accurate

I’ll ghive you one example of why this is needed.  Florence nightingale is seen as the hero of the Crimean hospitals and the inventor of modern nursing

Actually Mary Seacole was far more important in many ways but no one has heard of her – because she is black?

Black as an identity category is thoroughly modern, so it makes absolutely no sense, indeed is ahistorical, to ‘begin’ black history in antiquity (as is being done).

My issue is with framing history according to contemporary identity politics. It strikes me as not only divisive (since it will never end by itself) but ahistorical for reasons mentioned. What’s the aim here?

Black as an identity category is thoroughly modern

Wrong – it goes back centuries.

the aim is accuracy and representation of those ignored by history?

have you herd of Florence Nightingale?  I am sure you have but have you heard of Mary Seacole – at least as important a person

identity politics

What is that, roughly?

Wrong – it goes back centuries.

the aim is accuracy and representation of those ignored by history?

Race is a concept invented in the 17th century as the Age of Enlightenment begins. It’s then given a lot more valency by so-called scientific racism in the 19th century.

Political Blackness (note the capitalisation) then takes off in the US with the struggles against first slavery and then for civil rights.

It most certainly does not go back to antiquity and by pretending it does we essentialize it.

As for some ‘conspiracy’ to devalue the achievements of black Britons, it’s estimated that prior to the mass immigration of the 20th century there was never more than about 10,000 people in Britain who would now be classified as black.

So have you ever heard of Mary Secole?  a figure at least as important as Nightingale.

As for some ‘conspiracy’ to devalue the achievements of black Britons,

Who claimed there was a conspiracy?

@tjagain – I believe there is some controversy over that.

have you heard of Mary Seacole?

She featured in the recent Dr Who series

have you herd of Florence Nightingale? I am sure you have but have you heard of Mary Seacole – at least as important a person

That’s possible because Nightingale was a toff, you probably haven’t heard of Betsy Cadwaladr either and she was white. Just saying there may be more to it than colour.

I am trying to make a simple point to i scoff cake.

the reasons black history is useful are manyfold.  a key point is to give figures like Seacole their rightful place in history.

Race is a concept invented in the 17th century as the Age of Enlightenment begins. It’s then given a lot more valency by so-called scientific racism in the 19th century.

Does that make it older than Britain then (1707)?
So Britain has always existed in a world that recognised race / racism?

@igm – The ‘final form’ of the UK may have come about in 1707 but the history of Britain is generally thought to go back to antiquity. The archaeology of Britain is even older.

The British isles are older, the British people are also older, the Scots older but not by as much, the English people too are older but again by less.

The country is pretty recent. (I’m not sure the archeology enslaved anyone or recognised race.)

Anyway let’s stick to easy questions.

Do we approve of slavery?
In that approval or disapproval, do we care who is enslaving whom?
Should we put statues up to great slavers?
If they are already up should they a) be removed, b) kept as they are, c) kept but with modifications to contextualise the individual and be clear about what they did good and bad, or d) something else?

For me
No,
No,
No, and
c)

I know lots of folk enslaved lots of other folk. I don’t approve of any of it.

So black people were only invented in the 17th century?

Was this because prior to that everyone was always covered in mud, so it was difficult to tell?

so I scoff cake – had you heard of Seacole?

TJ – for the record. I hadn’t. In my defence I’m pretty hazy on Florence Nightingale beyond having heard the name.
Not sure that’s a defence

This is the simple point.  Nightingale is venerated and seen as  a huge influence but Seacole is not despite what in many eyes is at least as notable a contribution

so I scoff cake – had you heard of Seacole?

Yes, I already addressed that and the controversy over her ‘importance’, particularly her autobiography.

If they are already up should they a) be removed, b) kept as they are, c) kept but with modifications to contextualise the individual and be clear about what they did good and bad

To what end? Without using google, can you name many of the significant street names, statues and monuments which memorialise someone in your city or town? Yet, supposedly, because some represent ‘bad’ people they exert some magic mind control over you? Just walking past a Colston statue, for example, could turn someone into a racist right? Unless of course, the ‘ward’ of a contextualising plaque is present?

Do we approve of slavery?

It was a norm long long time ago but has the practice been totally eradicated? Sex slave?
I do not approve of such practice but I cannot change the past/history.

In that approval or disapproval, do we care who is enslaving whom?

Enslaving is wrong regardless. Well, in my Buddhist belief anyway.

Should we put statues up to great slavers?

There were put there at a time where the society and belief were different.
Instead of using brute force to remove them, people can get a vote to decide what should be done or simply put a signage up explaining the disapproval of their past involvement.

If they are already up should they a) be removed, b) kept as they are, c) kept but with modifications to contextualise the individual and be clear about what they did good and bad, or d) something else?

Ans: C

So black people were only invented in the 17th century?

Actually kind of yes. From southern Europe through the middle east down through Africa there’s loads of ethnic groups. “Black” as a classification is closely linked to European colonialism and the slave trade. And it has no existence in genetics/anthropology/science outside social science. Not to in any way invalidate it, but it is a recent invention.

i scoff cake – so do you think Seacole has been given her rightful place in history?

there is a really simple lesson here if you want to learn it

but it is a recent invention.

In geologic times perhaps but its several hundred years old at least

It was a norm long long time ago but has the practice been totally eradicated?

Quite the opposite. Around 40 million people are estimated to be in slavery right now. Iirc it’s more than at any point in human history.

Comparing the Atlantic slacer trade with any other form of ‘slavery’ is rationalisation at its most obscene.

If the kind of ‘slavery’ you are talking about doesn’t conform in its entirety to the level of brutalisation and dehumanization, the severing of all familial, cultural, religious and linguistic ties and wholesale murder that the Atlantic slave trade entailed then stop making the comparison.

Or in other words, kindly shut your cake hole…

Doesn’t that prove the point?

No. Could 4 young, white middle ish class people prove a direct harm to them from colston participating int the slave trade?
Even if you accept their argument that the statue is indecent, which they didn not prove, there are lawful and legal remedies for that. Lets say that you accept that argument. They could have covered it with a tarp and ceased the harm caused by it’s indecency. Like painting over graffiti. However the symbolic dragging it thought he streets damaging the pavement and throwing it in the harbour, destroying a railing and ‘polluting’ the harbour were not necessary to cease the harm. So that damage is not covered by that defence. To use the argument put forward by one of them – indecent graffiti is removed by the council. However if they remove the graffiti by knocked down the building on which it is painted, there are gonna be consequences.

think the world would be better off if Colston had never tried to “help” anyone.

Right, I mean no one benefited from the almshouses and hospitals, right?
The fact that he was a participant in the slave trade does not mean he wasn’t a philanthropist. That he harmed some doesn’t mean he didn’t help others. It’s not binary. The world would be much better off if we stopped trying to paint everything as black and white.

their argument that the statue is indecent, which they didn not prove,

Except they did to a Jury which listened all the evidence and arguments? Did you?

Bristol is a better place with that statue at the bottom of the docks.

The world would be much better off if we stopped trying to paint everything as black and white.

Not least because one of those things is a relatively recent modern construct