Removal of statues in New Orleans.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sat May 20, 2017 4:03 pm

New Orleans have removed the last of four statues erected after the civil war. The final one being of the leader of the confederate army Robert E Lee. what is the logic behind this " Purge " of the four statues. Modern thinking, applied to a time gone by, the result is to remove a statue that has stood on a plinth for 133 years. Where will it end? Recently we had students trying to have a Cecil Rhodes statue removed, in Austria, Hitler's house is to be demolished to stop it becoming a focal point for neo nazis. I realise that what they stood for is not acceptable in modern society, in Hitler's case it never was, but to destroy these statues and places of history, for me, is a pointless gesture to over sensitive groups of people and bordering on vandalism.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 20, 2017 4:12 pm

The ministry of truth are just trying to protect the feelings of snowflakes

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Sat May 20, 2017 4:40 pm

"Just take what you need and leave the rest, but they should never have taken the very best"

welsbyswife · Post by **welsbyswife** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:13 pm

Seem to recall David Cameron offering a formal apology for Britain's role in slavery. Just pandering to modern society. Like the OP says these things were clearly wrong but what's the point in someone apologising for what a completely different generation did hundreds of years ago. We need to learn from history, not airbrush things out because they are unpalatable to modern tastes.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:18 pm

welsbyswife wrote:Seem to recall David Cameron offering a formal apology for Britain's role in slavery. Just pandering to modern society. Like the OP says these things were clearly wrong but what's the point in someone apologising for what a completely different generation did hundreds of years ago. We need to learn from history, not airbrush things out because they are unpalatable to modern tastes.

Wasn't it Blair? Either way, it was ridiculous. Britain has had the best record against slavery of pretty much anywhere - hasn't been officially legal since the Romans left, and since the Black Death brought in labour shortages, it hasn't really been de facto legal; Britain took the lead in abolishing slavery throughout the Empire and then took to the high seas to prevent the world slave trade, even in countries not under our jurisdiction.

By no means a perfect record, but a lot better than many of the countries we were apologising to.

Virtually every major figure in history, up to only 100 years ago or so, was opposed to votes for women. Many of them were opposed to votes for anyone. Can we take down all their statues?

welsbyswife · Post by **welsbyswife** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:26 pm

Not heard too many politicians apologising because my ancestors had to work in the cotton mills sweeping out crap from under the looms when they were barely old enough to string a sentence together. But that wouldn't appeal to the trendy apologists. Not saying I would want an apology mind because it would do neither me or my ancestors any good what so ever.

daveisaclaret · Post by **daveisaclaret** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:55 pm

Typically statues are erected in honour of people who have earned recognition within society. In the past, enslaving blacks was seen as a positive and those who did it were venerated. Looking back now, it seems people who enslaves Africans were absolute *****. They used to be really famous but now they seem like bastards who don't deserve to be celebrated.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:58 pm

daveisaclaret wrote:Typically statues are erected in honour of people who have earned recognition within society. In the past, enslaving blacks was seen as a positive and those who did it were venerated. Looking back now, it seems people who enslaves Africans were absolute *****. They used to be really famous but now they seem like bastards who don't deserve to be celebrated.

Can you name anyone who has had a statue erected for being a successful slave owner? I doubt that has ever been the reason for a statue.

boiledclaret · Post by **boiledclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:04 am

This one seems to have enslaved a fair few.

Very unnerving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZhrqOwA2C4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

john'sroseyspecs · Post by **john'sroseyspecs** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:12 am

When are the Normans going apologise for stealing my land and enslaving my family?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:06 am

I'm going to hazard a guess that the removal of the statue is because it is in a city where the man being honoured with it believed that over 60% of the people inhabiting that city were so inferior humans that they should be enslaved by him and people who looked like him, and that he literally led a civil war in order to keep that being true.

If there was a Hitler statue in a majority Jewish city in Germany would you be posting a topic about its removal? Or would you perhaps think actually, that's a bit shitty for those who live there.

And as for denying neo-nazis their own Mecca, were you this vocal when the U.S. decided to bury Bin Laden at sea in order to deny his supporters somewhere to congregate? Of course not. So stop being a whiney little bitch for the KKK-wing of the right. Or at least just come out and declare your support rather than just be like an SJW for their cause.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:08 am

welsbyswife wrote:Seem to recall David Cameron offering a formal apology for Britain's role in slavery. Just pandering to modern society. Like the OP says these things were clearly wrong but what's the point in someone apologising for what a completely different generation did hundreds of years ago. We need to learn from history, not airbrush things out because they are unpalatable to modern tastes.

If the apology means nothing then why be so opposed to it? Why whine about it if it's a pointless gesture?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:09 am

dsr wrote:Can you name anyone who has had a statue erected for being a successful slave owner? I doubt that has ever been the reason for a statue.

No, he just believed so much in the right to own other people as slaves that he led a war defending the right.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:17 am

The existance of this thread is hilarious. Apparently it's OK to argue against the removal of a statue that celebrates a truely terrible and evil person, but not ok to argue for its removal.

One more thing. The people who are whining about the removal of this statue based on the argument that we shouldn't judge this guy based on modern morality are a lot of the same kinds of people who will condemn all Muslims for reverring someone they say is a paedophile. The hypocrisy is hilarious, yet unsurprising.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun May 21, 2017 4:45 am

Few on this thread should try reading a couple of British history books. Maybe start with Liverpool and their connection to the slave trade.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 7:10 am

you try to ease your consciences if you want but we all know we are still benefiting from the slave trade - even if we weren't responsible for it.

Even the billions we give each year in foreign aid can't make up for the trillions we made from it.

Edit - when I say we I'm talking about all UK Citizens.

canalking · Post by **canalking** » Sun May 21, 2017 8:33 am

Clearly Imploding Turtle knows absolutely anything about the American Civil War and in particular Robert E Lee. First he did not lead the Civil War and he was certainly not a truly terrible and evil person. He fought to defend his State of Virginia and was generally opposed to slavery. Try getting your facts straight before making sweeping statements about a subject or person you know nothing about.

Bertiebeehead · Post by **Bertiebeehead** » Sun May 21, 2017 8:35 am

Burn them, burn them all.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 8:50 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm going to hazard a guess that the removal of the statue is because it is in a city where the man being honoured with it believed that over 60% of the people inhabiting that city were so inferior humans that they should be enslaved by him and people who looked like him, and that he literally led a civil war in order to keep that being true.

If there was a Hitler statue in a majority Jewish city info Germany would you be posting a topic about its removal? Or would you perhaps think actually, that's a bit shitty for those who live there.

And as for denying neo-nazis their own Mecca, were you this vocal when the U.S. decided to bury Bin Laden at sea in order to deny his supporters somewhere to congregate? Of course not. So stop being a whiney little bitch for the KKK-wing of the right. Or at least just come out and declare your support rather than just be like an SJW for their cause.

I often read your posts, sometimes I agree, often I don't. Not sure of the parallel of the Bin Laden example. You can hazard a guess all you want, it remains a guess. I don't understand how people's sensibilities are affected by a statue, I would merely see it as a reminder of an episode in history that should never be repeated. I think to remove the statue is pointless. Regarding the Hitler statue question, yes,I would question the validity of its removal. The removal of the statue does not remove the events from history.

Thanks for calling me whiny little bitch for the KKK, an assumption that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't know what an SJW is so I can't comment. If you didn't resort to petty name calling, you may receive more respect from people. A small piece of advice, your point of view and mine differ, you will encounter differing opinions in life, try to learn from this. Sometimes other people's views are worth listening to and the way forward is not to name call, this makes you look silly.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:19 am

If it was a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, then yeah, it should be taken down.

Robert Lee though is a very tough one. Like has been said, slaves and the civil war were essential what made the modern USA.

welsbyswife · Post by **welsbyswife** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:33 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:The existance of this thread is hilarious. Apparently it's OK to argue against the removal of a statue that celebrates a truely terrible and evil person, but not ok to argue for its removal.

One more thing. The people who are whining about the removal of this statue based on the argument that we shouldn't judge this guy based on modern morality are a lot of the same kinds of people who will condemn all Muslims for reverring someone they say is a paedophile. The hypocrisy is hilarious, yet unsurprising.

Completely missed the point of the thread. Where do you stop with that line of thinking? Demolish the pyramids because the Egyptians used slave labour and you disagree with their moral compass? Oh, hang on, that's what ISIS are doing in Palmyra SK maybe you are more like them than you think. It's history and you can't change it by pretending it didn't happen. Learn from it.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:34 am

canalking wrote:Clearly Imploding Turtle knows absolutely anything about the American Civil War and in particular Robert E Lee. First he did not lead the Civil War and he was certainly not a truly terrible and evil person. He fought to defend his State of Virginia and was generally opposed to slavery. Try getting your facts straight before making sweeping statements about a subject or person you know nothing about.

As time moves on, people can use certain things for their own purposes, the raising of the statue to celebrate an individual, over time, can change to remind people of something else, good or bad, should Robben Island be razed to the ground for what happened to the prisoners there or should it be kept, as it is now, as a reminder to South Africa's history, Auschwitz, couldn't it be used as a pilgrimage for Nazis, does that mean it should be destroyed. Is the removal of the statue, any different, than what has happened in Palmyra? Although, I concede on a different scale. Was Lee a bad man, I don't know, I don't think he was, he was a man of his time, who didn't believe that any man should be enslaved, at this point it becomes more complicated and I think if you read more about him it's easier to get an understanding of his character, it can't be discussed on this forum as bickering and name calling is bound to ensue. The slave trade is a dark time in the USA's past, but for me, the treatment of the indigenous population is far worse, one that continues to this day, add to this the treatment of the Aboriginal people in Australia and the Maori people in New Zealand, now there are three wrongs waiting to be corrected.

As for the comments about easing our consciences, do you really believe we should feel bad about something we had nothing to do with. History is something we should learn from, we, as a species, seldom do, not something we should beat ourselves with. There is an Argentinian Journalist who once said " we must stop digging and start building " his meaning was, there comes a time when you have to look to the future, to stop things happening as opposed to looking backwards for someone to blame. My mother was in a Japanese concentration camp in Indonesia, along with her mother and sister, she doesn't blame the Japanese people she has met during her life for the treatment she received during the war, she has moved on. Perhaps we can learn from people like her.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:36 am

If people getting offended by a statue is silly, why isn't being offended by the removal of a statue also silly. Now if they were redacting people from history books that would be something else.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:49 am

I'm not offended. You are misunderstanding the point. Perhaps the removal of a public monument is the first step in the redacting of people from history books, who knows. As WW has written, how far back will be far enough. I'm not comfortable with the erasing of history for the appeasement of public sensibilities. Just to add, I would feel the same if it was a statue of someone who I felt was a bad/wicked/evil person if their life was historically important.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:51 am

Not sure I called anyone silly for being offended by a statue. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:55 am

Something similar is the arguments about the Cecil Rhodes statue at Oxford University.

It doesn't change anything, and how the hell will that make anyone feel any better about it, or help people remember what was done?

welsbyswife · Post by **welsbyswife** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:58 am

I don't think offended is the right word. I think it's an interesting point in terms of historical significance v sensitivity. If something is in living memory i.e. Hitler I can well understand people ripping down a statue. The more time passes, the more pointless it becomes to me. The civil war is a massive part of their history and quite some time ago. I can fully understand why some people might want to get rid of the statues but really question what good it will do anyone.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 9:59 am

welsbyswife wrote:Completely missed the point of the thread. Where do you stop with that line of thinking? Demolish the pyramids because the Egyptians used slave labour and you disagree with their moral compass? Oh, hang on, that's what ISIS are doing in Palmyra SK maybe you are more like them than you think. It's history and you can't change it by pretending it didn't happen. Learn from it.

Are the pyramids a monument celebrating someone who literally thought that 60% of the population of the city they're in should be slaves, and fought a war to keep them that way?

Do you honestly not see how it is insensitive to a majority African-American or black city that it celebrates a man who fought such a war? And from how far up your own arse did you pull the idea that removing this statue is an attempt to change history? In a dumb post that suggestion stands out as extraordinarily stupid.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:00 am

Just modern day political correctness in the extreme. It will soon be illegal to fart in a lift so no need to worry about a few statues.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:04 am

You can't re write history and there is far too much pandering to modern sensitivities. History should be learned from.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:08 am

As long as there is consistency - Removing a statue of Martin Luther King because he was homo-phobic or Malcolm X because he was a wife-beater (not saying they were) just as an example.

I don't like Peter Sellers as a person because he was a nasty piece of work, and a lot of his behaviour was inexcusable - particularly towards his family but I wouldn't go round burning copies of Dr. Strangelove

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:09 am

welsbyswife wrote:Completely missed the point of the thread. Where do you stop with that line of thinking? Demolish the pyramids because the Egyptians used slave labour and you disagree with their moral compass? Oh, hang on, that's what ISIS are doing in Palmyra SK maybe you are more like them than you think. It's history and you can't change it by pretending it didn't happen. Learn from it.

Regarding the pyramids, after the Islamic conquest of Egypt, the Muslims tried to dismantle the great pyramids on the pretext that they were built in the pre Islamic era known as 'Jahiliyyah' the 'age of ignorance'. Starting with the smallest Pyramid, the pyramid of Menkaure, after months of trying they only managed to leave a jealous bit@h scar down one of its faces, it was too much like hard work for them.
This failed operation was nothing to do with any objection to slavery of course because to object to something divinely encouraged and sanctioned by their deity would be seen as blasphemy.
So yes, the pyramids have been the focus of destruction in the past, (and allegedly in more modern times by the new Caliphate [so-called]) but for different reasons than the subject of this thread.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:11 am

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:As long as there is consistency - Removing a statue of Martin Luther King because he was homo-phobic ...

Sorry, i didn't know there were MLK Jnr statues in cities that had populations who were majority homosexual, or that MLK ever killed any of them. Find me one such statue and i'll support it's removal.

The idea that the personal opinion of someone can in any way measure up comparably to a man who fought a war to keep slaves is so stupid that i can't find words to describe it adequetely.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:14 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Are the pyramids a monument celebrating someone who literally thought that 60% of the population of the city they're in should be slaves, and fought a war to keep them that way?

Do you honestly not see how it is insensitive to a majority African-American or black city that it celebrates a man who fought such a war? And from how far up your own arse did you pull the idea that removing this statue is an attempt to change history? In a dumb post that suggestion stands out as extraordinarily stupid.

Actually, I believe Mr Pharaoh probably thought he was slightly superior to his 51,379 slaves when he had them construct his giant monument to himself

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:18 am

morpheus2 wrote:Actually, I believe Mr Pharaoh probably thought he was slightly superior to his 51,379 slaves when he had them construct his giant monument to himself

And if the descendants of those slaves decide that they don't want to honour Mr. Pharaoh with these structures any longer then i'd be happy to wish them well in their campaign to get rid of them. But i think we both know that isn't going to happen.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:27 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:And if the descendants of those slaves decide that they don't want to honour Mr. Pharaoh with these structures any longer then i'd be happy to wish them well in their campaign to get rid of them. But i think we both know that isn't going to happen.

Thought you might like the totally random figure I plucked out of the air for the number of Mr Pharaoh's slaves, made me look as if I knew what I was talking about and saved you the Googling time.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 10:35 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Sorry, i didn't know there were MLK Jnr statues in cities that had populations who were majority homosexual, or that MLK ever killed any of them. Find me one such statue and i'll support it's removal.

I doubt Martin Luther King was homo-phobic he probably thought Homo-sexuality was wrong but wouldn't have gone round persecuting them.

I often use hyperbole

I was talking about consistency and using two respected figures from recent history as an example. I was talking about statues in general around the world from an historical perspective not just linked to one city.

I agree about removing statues of controversial (murderers, slave owners, polygamists, rapists, FGM practitioners) figures - even from Cities & Countries where they are seen as heroes. I'm just saying there needs to be consistency [MLK & Malcolm X are fine figures I was just using them as an example]

If it were found that JFK had links to organised crime for instance I'd want any of his statues removed.

The Belgians still have a statue of Leopold II (link below to an interesting discussion) This must be one of the most controversial statues in the world, and it's near The Palace in Brussels.

Whilst most of The World remembers Leopold II as one of the evilest men ever they still look on him fondly in Belgium.

http://www.brusselspictures.com/2007/12/29/leopold-ii/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:22 pm

I'm surprised these protesters haven't gone right back to what the Romans got up to with slavery.
Or doesn't that count?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 21, 2017 12:31 pm

White people, contrary to what the self loathing , ethno masochists , on the politically correct liberal left believe, do not have the monopoly on slavery.

The turkish/ottoman empire did well off enslaving Europeans.

https://youtu.be/_ednt48rcwo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But you won't hear much about it as it doesn't fit the anti white agenda of the liberal left.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 1:25 pm

Makes no sense what so ever taking down Robert E Lee's statue. Yes he was the Commander in Chief of the Army of Northern Virginia, but he was opposed to slavery and released his own slaves before the war and as such was far more against slavery than Lincoln who was happy for it t0o continue below the Mason Dixon line until the need for men for the Union Army and the need to keep Britain out of the Civil War led to him coming up with the Emancipation Declaration. This modern spin that Lincoln was fighting slavery is utter shite, he wanted to stop its expansion, but he had no plans to end it.

I'm sick of Liberals re-writing histoy. All Southerners were not raving fascists, all Northerners were not abolitionists. All British Imperialists were not evil and all Empire subjects were not poor and down trodden. Utter UTTER tosh and simply not true what we're being taught today even in respected classrooms.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 1:31 pm

Lots of people have been slaves over the years.

There was white slavery in The US
The Slavs in Russia and Eastern Europe.
The difference with African Slaves being the massive scale of it - The Huge distances involved the whole falsehood of White Supremacy that emerged with it and is still prevelant today - The fact that Most of UK wealth is tied up with it - The fact that we are still benefiting from the Institutions established off the back of The Slave Trade. All Western Economies are based around Ideals that sprang from The Slave Trade - it was the free trade. Cheap Labour massive profits for share holders, the core of the insurance industry.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Sun May 21, 2017 1:38 pm

There seems to be a myth that we were major powers in Africa - again modern liberal spin and not true. France, Italy, Holland and Portugal all had more of Africa than us. If you look at where the British contr0olled to this day they are among the wealthiest countries in Africa.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 21, 2017 1:48 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Lots of people have been slaves over the years.

There was white slavery in The US
The Slavs in Russia and Eastern Europe.
The difference with African Slaves being the massive scale of it - The Huge distances involved the whole falsehood of White Supremacy that emerged with it and is still prevelant today - The fact that Most of UK wealth is tied up with it - The fact that we are still benefiting from the Institutions established off the back of The Slave Trade. All Western Economies are based around Ideals that sprang from The Slave Trade - it was the free trade. Cheap Labour massive profits for share holders, the core of the insurance industry.

"Most of UK wealth is tied up with it"

Not the fact that working class British people worked damn hard for centuries. Building up their own and the countries wealth, organising themselves into trade unions to fight for better pay and conditions. Oh no don't give any credit to the British people will you.

My aunt passed away recently. She was 100 years old. Her first job as a young woman was admin in an office in accrington. The office overlooked the "labour exchange" where men went to sign on the dole. They had nothing on their f****** feet . Think about it. Accrington in the 1920s and men had nowt of their feet!

Research what conditions were like for generations of Welsh miners . The Slave-like conditions they had to endure. Their chances of fatalities or serious life changing injuries. They endured atrocious conditions.

Stop this garbage of only black people have had a rough time. Only black people have had a raw deal. Stopping airbrushing out the facts of poverty and impoverishment of millions of Europeans for centuries.

And if you want to talk about cheap labour having an adverse effect on the bargaining power of workers . Look no further than the EU sponsored open door policy of cheap labour of uncontrolled mass immigration.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:11 pm

Not airbrushing.

The Slavic people are probably the worst treated of all slaves throughout history.

It was the timing of The African Slave Trade that made it more economically significant and the subsequent nonsense of Eugenics in the 1800s that lead to the whole mistreatment of Jews, Russians, Asians, Southern Europeans, Africans, pretty much anyone who wasn't a civilized Northern European or North American of Northern European descent. But of all it was Those of African descent and The Jews who were singled out for most contempt.

Yes lots of people suffered.

But it was a sliding scale not many Welsh miners were lynched, yes a lot of slate miners had very hard jobs and also had land essentially stolen off them and were paid per piece of slate, but they were paid and they weren't someone elses property.

It comes down to dignity - a lot of poor people could still maintain their dignity up until they had to go into debtors prison or a work house - I'll grant you it was no life for orphans in Victorian Britain.

But the wealth the real wealth came from industries that involved slaves at one end, and poorly paid British workers at the other end - It comes down to the fact that one group had a degree of autonomy and the other group had none.

Why do you think Paul Robeson had affinity for the Welsh Miners?

Also Banks and Insurance companies and the whole economic edifice was established around the slave trade not for my great great great grandad and others in a similar position.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:33 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Not airbrushing.

The Slavic people are probably the worst treated of all slaves throughout history.

It was the timing of The African Slave Trade that made it more economically significant and the subsequent nonsense of Eugenics in the 1800s that lead to the whole mistreatment of Jews, Russians, Asians, Southern Europeans, Africans, pretty much anyone who wasn't a civilized Northern European or North American of Northern European descent. But of all it was Those of African descent and The Jews who were singled out for most contempt.

I'm sorry mate . But you're still not addressing my point that the wealth of this nation wasn't built off the backs of African slavery as you appear to be claiming. It was built on the blood sweat and tears of decent hard working class British people. Who for the most part lived in abject poverty for centuries.

Right here in Burnley, Mill workers would do 12 hour shifts all week. Then a Saturday morning for a pittance of a wage. Do you think they benefited from eugenics theories while they desperately tried to make ends meet in squalid filthy, slum conditions?

This constant self-loathing that some people get off on, and this misguided idea that we , as a nation, some how owe generations of Africans for their overwhelming contribution to our current economy is as ludicrous as it is economically unfounded.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:34 pm

The Jews owned most of the slave ships,they also had an extremely high percentage of slaves compared to white Americans.As for Southern Europeans I think we can safely say they did their fair share of slavery from Africa to South America.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:35 pm

Interesting article
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.newsta ... ions%3Famp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:42 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Interesting article
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.newsta ... ions%3Famp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should the great great great grand children of the Pakistani grooming gangs, feel guilty and be expected to pay compensation to the great great great grandchildren of their victims?

It's the same answer.

No.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 3:03 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I'm sorry mate . But you're still not addressing my point that the wealth of this nation wasn't built off the backs of African slavery as you appear to be claiming. It was built on the blood sweat and tears of decent hard working class British people. Who for the most part lived in abject poverty for centuries.

Right here in Burnley, Mill workers would do 12 hour shifts all week. Then a Saturday morning for a pittance of a wage. Do you think they benefited from eugenics theories while they desperately tried to make ends meet in squalid filthy, slum conditions?

This constant self-loathing that some people get off on, and this misguided idea that we , as a nation, some how owe generations of Africans for their overwhelming contribution to our current economy is as ludicrous as it is economically unfounded.

Honestly I'm not

It's all to do with the timing.

Pre-African Slave trade - Slavery rife involving many people - particularly bad in Russia where slaves were often tortured to death on the whim of their rich owner who could do what they liked to their slaves - but didn't have vast amounts of money involved.

African Slave Trade - occurring as Banks and Insurance Companies are establishing - new investors wanting to invest - Slaves Bought and sold - a commodity not just for working the land but also for breeding and selling the new slaves born in slavery - at this time White slavery still occuring in the colonies (illegal in The UK of course but legal in the colonies - very bad time - particularly for White Female Slaves)

Banks and Insurance Companies now have money to invest - build infrastructure in the UK, expand slave trade but also invest in other areas - this helps to fuel the industrial revolution and the capitalist model - In the UK forced movement of people from rural to urban areas - Exploitation of the Working population with horrendous working conditions - high risk of death for very low pay/ no education or chance of social mobility.

If it had been European slaves who had been the ones exploited at that key moment - Capitalism would have been powered by them.
And possibly the worst level of slavery (in terms of scale and historical impact would have involved Europeans - particularly if it hadn't been illegal in The UK to own slaves)

So yes a big contribution from Working Class Britons - but they weren't slaves - as it was illegal and if the African Slave trade had not happened the would not have been the investment made.

Hence I'm not airbrushing out any history - All Injustice is Injustice. All terminal health problems are as bad as each other but we focus on Heart Disease & Lung Cancer because they are the bigger threats not because they are more worthy. - The Establishment has always exploited people but the Way The African Slave trade was controlled by them is just a little bit more extreme.

You are doing a noble thing In highlighting other historical injustices - and my arguments are badly argued I'm sure - heartfelt, but I must apologise if I've caused any offence I wasn't trying to minimise any suffering - I know the long history of human exploitation by other humans - It all leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Even shocking to think the houses we live in might have been build on land that was stolen from our ancestors who worked so hard just to provide for themselves and their families in an unjust world. We might very well have had to pay twice for land that was originally ours.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun May 21, 2017 3:18 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Should the great great great grand children of the Pakistani grooming gangs, feel guilty and be expected to pay compensation to the great great great grandchildren of their victims?

It's the same answer.

No.

Did you read it?

What's wrong with asking questions - so what If huge corporations and mega wealthy individuals pay back money they exploited - they might even pay back money to your ancestors for exploiting them - They seem happy enough to pay back PPI to people who didn't bother reading the small print.

Should we not ask questions of a system that has always under-valued the working classes - why do cleaners still get ridiculously small pay compared to investment bankers -is it because the system is set up to exploit the many so a few can get mega-rich - if a system is set up to give as little as possible to the worker and as much as possible to the investor be questioned - If you understand the slave trade and it's relationship to capitalism surely you can understand modern work place problems.

And surely Grooming gangs were going on in the 1960s and 1970s - weren't young girls raped by their fathers and passed around other men, and hushed up by The Police - I'm pretty sure the raping of young men in boarding schools and young women in places like The Manchester School for Music (Northern College of Music) was done by White men - or was that a case of another era.

No we might not be able to afford to make reparations for past crimes - but we don't need to airbrush these things out of history either.