This is what needs doing to Churchill, Wellington, Coulston, slavers, racists and warmonger’s statues.
https://images.app.goo.gl/PpogJwdKzUEKeZgV7
A little harmless, but thought provoking, subversion.
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.
That the Atlantic slave trade was a particularly 'evil' form of slavery seems more of an assertion than anything else.
You believe the Arabs or Berbers (just one example of post-antiquity mass slavery) were much 'nicer'?
I’m directly descended from slaves forcibly removed from Mali and Senegal over 250 years ago to the Caribbean. One of my descendants ‘family’ names is that of a reknown privateer, slave-trader and no doubt I probably share some of his dna. My family faced racism and discrimination when returning from Guyana 100 years ago.
The likes of Colston profited immensely and the money generated from the slave trade continues to influence today as many of the landed gentry were rewarded handsomely with Government reparation payments with the abolition of slavery. Would David Cameron have had the same influence on UK politics if he grew up in Cowley? The lessons from history will never be learnt if we refuse to re-frame them through a different lens.
No. Could 4 young, white middle ish class people prove a direct harm to them from colston participating int the slave trade?
The jury thought so. Unlike you or me, they listened to all of the evidence.
Scoffer,
I said if it doesn't conform in its entirety then don't compare it.
Though really, why are you trying to compare the Atlatic slave trade with anything? Other than try to do diminish it, which you do by suggesting that seeing it as particularly evil is an assertion.
This trial wasn't a treatise on slavery in general, it was a trial related to a specific statue that loomed over my mates mum for 60 years. She moved to Bristol during the Windrush to work for the NHS whilst her husband served in the RAF.
She's in her 80s now but it didn't stop her tweeting out footage of the toppling like a social media obsessed teenager. She made sure she tweeted clips from every possible angle too!
Made her very happy and that's good enough for me. I'm sure she feels the same way about the verdict.
The lessons from history will never be learnt if we refuse to re-frame them through a different lens.
What lessons? I know of no movement to reinstitute the Atlantic slave trade. Such an idea wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
With slavery a universal across human history the remarkable thing is that the British not only banned it internally but enforced this ban worldwide at the cost of a lot of men and treasure. This is one reason for the decline in the Barbary and Arab slaves trade. The British (and later Americans too) were sinking or confiscating the slaving ships off the coast of North, East Africa, Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean.
I use the term 'black history' as it's relevant in this case. If you prefer; 'people from Africa were kidnapped and sold into bondage in America', then i'll say that. The point i'm making is there are aspects of UK heritage and history that are not widely known about, or glossed over. It may have been acceptable practice at the time but we know better now, so have a responsibility to educate our children - maybe they won't make the same mistakes. It's not nice, but it happened. We should try to stop it from happening again.
Though really, why are you trying to compare the Atlatic slave trade with anything? Other than try to do diminish it,
Context is key don't you think? The Atlantic slave trade is historically situated. It's a product of its times.
Chewkw – are you agreeing with my answers?!?
I take your point in your third answer by the way, but I think it really answers the question 4 I’d intended.Q3 was really meant as “if the Coulston statue didn’t exist today would you support putting it up tomorrow?”
Given it was put up a while back, your answer to Q4 feels about where I am too.
I do not agree with brute force removal, if it is already there, because that just open a can of worm. That's what I am trying to say.
If it is not there then there is really no need to support putting one up. What for? Common sense dictates that we should check the history or story before we erect something. A bit like people having tattoo and regret later ... (not a good example but that's so funny coz tattoo removal is making a roaring business now)
My whole disapproval is brute force or as my communist friend referred to as "direct action".
If brute force is the way forward are we really different to the followings?
The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue
The toppling of Lenin's statue
The bombing of Buddha of Bamiyan
etc
Who or what next?
What do they have in common? Brute force.
Can brute force be distinguished?
p/s: ... the CCP's action ... now that will cost them. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/deity-09072021110051.html
With slavery a universal across human history the remarkable thing is that the British not only banned it internally but enforced this ban worldwide at the cost of a lot of men and treasure.
that is an incredibly anglocentric version of history and nothing like the truth
The British Colonial Empire as international freedom fighters and the scourge of slave traders the world over?
We should try to stop it from happening again.
Very true, which is why I would prefer people to be focussing their attention on the slavery (or slavery-like conditions) still suffered by many, many people in the world today, including large parts of Africa.
Toppling statues but not protesting about modern day slavery leaves people open (rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure) to accusations of virtue signalling.
Later this year we're going to see a World Cup played out in stadia built by people living in working in some truly inhumane conditions. Rather than "taking the knee" I'd love to see a generation of young players from all countries saying "No, we are not going to play there" which maybe would send a signal. Will it happen though, no it won't.
Cake...I LOVED your point about the death rate being higher among the sailors on a slave ship. A) NO IT WASNT!!!! B) what is the comparison between the slaves on the ship and the sailors? I am interested as I am one of those lefty teachers that is eroding your proud Britishness with my woke teaching. Oh; and I did my dissertation on the Scottish influence on Caribbean slavery( interesting fact; Burns had signed up to be an overseer until a Scots Quair took off) so am interested in the facts about British slavery you seem to have exclusive access to that my Uni missed such as the slaving nations of Africa that were TOTALLY there; just collecting slaves, waiting for the Europeans to start the plantation system.
What lessons? I know of no movement to reinstitute the Atlantic slave trade. Such an idea wouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.
Maybe not that, but slavery and human trafficking is going on right now, in this country and all over the world.
Are you not aware of this fact?
Later this year we’re going to see a World Cup played out in stadia built by people living in working in some truly inhumane conditions.
Pale in comparison to what CCP is going to do people of HK or certain parts of China.
that is an incredibly anglocentric version of history and nothing like the truth
What is the truth then?
A very rough and ready quote:
From this:
In surveying crew mortality for 350 Bristol and Liverpool slavers between 1784 and 1790, a House of Commons committee found that 21.6 percent of sailors died, a figure that was in keeping with Thomas Clarkson's estimates at the time and is consistent with modern research. Roughly twenty thousands British slave-trade seamen died between 1780 and 1807. For sailors as for African captives, living for several months aboard a slave ship was in itself a struggle for life.[4]
This is never mentioned when discussing the mortality rates of slaves on slave ships because it upsets the narrative. Thousand of white sailors died; white lives weren't more valuable than black lives. In fact, the owners had every incentive to let sailors die (from various diseases) because you can't pay dead men!
As for your other point. It hardly matters if Europeans provided the demand, the African kingdoms such as Benin and groups such as the Ashanti had as much moral culpability by providing the supply. Do we let drug dealers go free today because they only service a demand?
Some cracking “All Lives Matter” stuff going on here. 😀
I dont think theres any 'other evidence' outwith what we know.
4 people, amongst others ripped down a statue in an act of public disorder and rioting, and rolled it through the streets to dump it in the harbour.
Reason for doing so was they truly believed.
But that argument isnt an argument or if it is then it excuses all the actions from history, even slavery itself, after all, weren't the people of that era convinced they had the moral highground over those they knew to be lesser than themselves.
30-40% of slaves died on tight pack ships, 15-25% on loose pack, over 99.9% of slaves died as slaves. And being a sailor on a slave ship was very well paid( they got a % of the cargo value) and you got the pick of the woman, that's why they did it..I mean; that is if you are enough of a loon to compare sailors to slaves of course which you are. Oh; and the African nations were offered a choice of "you or somebody else." We then made their entire economy reliant on slaving to the point they imported food and needed guns to protect themselves from other states looking to prey on them. We actually supported friendlier states in mopping up ones that refused to get on board. but yeah; totally complicit. I still can't get my head round how you see the sailors experience as the same as the slaves. Even for an apologist for slavery and trying to dilute the impact and legacy of it; that is some leap.
... 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.
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.
Thats just it. They HAVE to change and the change will need to be countrywide with likely 90+% of all statues being pulled down.Tens of thousands of place names reworked, because like it or not the UK was built on slavery.
Churchill next. Like others of that era put britain above the rights of brown people. So his statue has to go. Hasn't it ?.
Maybe we should have a whip round on here, maybe a crowdfunding /giving page to pay the costs of an unruly mob to go down and sort all these problems the forum here believes should be sorted, and with the recent judgement, it would be perfectly legal.
No whips and chains to be seen anywhere.
Pretty sure modern day slaves get beaten and restrained and threatened and coerced.
Stop digging your hole.
Though picking up one thing from I scoff cakes earlier posts, it would be nice if the role of Arab slavers had the same level of attention, and those nations began to recognise their past, and maybe begin to reevaluate their present as well.
Feel free to explain that. Just where exactly is he showing this great ignorance ?
It think its been adequately expressed
the idea that sailor on slave boats were as at risk as the slaves
the idea that the UK was some great reforming good guys over slaving
The idea that slave owners wealth based on slavery has no effect today
the idea that the wealth and power of the UK was not based on slavery
all expressed by i scoff cake, all utter nonsense
Criminal enterprise being the main reason. No whips and chains to be seen anywhere.
More utter horseshit
In all honesty.
I really couldn't give a flying f as to what drugged up crowds of today's society does. I dont care about what happens today or 200 years ago, frankly I dont give a damn. It doesnt affect me so sod it.
Why such a passionate defense then? And the idea it does not effect you is horseshit - its the reason why the UK is such a wealthy country. Without slavery we would not be so rich
this might be of interest
I thought we’d peaked at “it’ll be Churchill next!”
But this is the thread that keeps on giving.
with the recent judgement, it would be perfectly legal.
Oh dear.
the idea that sailor on slave boats were as at risk as the slaves
the idea that the UK was some great reforming good guys over slaving
The idea that slave owners wealth based on slavery has no effect today
the idea that the wealth and power of the UK was not based on slavery
all expressed by i scoff cake, all utter nonsense
Maybe run back over the thread a bit. Theres been much dissent while you were off in the land of nod.
Nice piece taken directly from the history of Bristol(the city in question) giving an account fo the horrors suffered by crews on slave ships. Sure nothing like being kidnapped, raped or murdered and sent off to help keep a tory mp in gravy, but still like all of that era who we not landed or even literate, they were put upon, and put upon heavily.
Interesting p[passage concerning the shock the abolitionists found when they looked into the treatment of sailors from those ships. The were shocked at the extremely high death toll. Sailors literally beaten to death.
Sure, nothing to compare with the slaves themselves, but is it any better to deny such actions took place and the sailors suffered. is it not a blow to them and their rights
Its a all there and more. We've been calmly discussing what exactly constitutes the term slavery, and if criminal exploitation is exactly the same thing.
So pretty much if your boss isnt paying you enough, you could have grounds to bring him to court on enslavement laws.
Why such a passionate defense then? And the idea it does not effect you is horseshit
It's been a slow night, and tbh i was giving I_scoff_cakes a bit of respite from the baying mob. Theyre easily wound up like an old clock, and i felt a bit sorry how he was being treated.
Especially as much of what he was saying had basis in fact. But try telling that to the closed of mind 😉
As to not affecting me. Nothing does. not the worst crime ever perpetrated. No matter what happens it isnt something ill be losing sleep over.
ASD remember. Most people with autism are aloof in that way.
If you look up narcissistic in the dictionary it says - See under autism.
Maybe run back over the thread a bit. Theres been much dissent while you were off in the land of nod.
Oh I have - the dissent is horseshit. You have also denied that slavery still exists
Especially as much of what he was saying had basis in fact.
Unfortunately it really does not. It has its basis in history written by the slavers not the reality
Interview with one of the acquitted yesterday. She said that the destruction of property was lawful protest and without the similar actions of the suffrage movement, she would not be able to vote. A fair point except she ignored the fact that the suffragettes were prosecuted, convicted and served their punishment.
The first Suffragette arrived at Holloway in 1906. To begin with, the Suffragettes were bound over to keep the peace, asked to promise not to re-offend, and given a fine. When they refused to pay the fine, they were sent to Holloway. As they escalated from minor acts of street protest to criminal damage, they received more severe sentences.
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/suffragettes-holloway-prison
This obvious point was missed by the interviewer. As I said before, I don’t think that prosecution was in the public interest, but having brought the prosecution, the accused were undoubtedly guilty. A trivial sentence was the other obvious solution to an ethical problem.
Weeeellll I wanted to make the point that the slavery that so impassioned the Colston 4 wasnt the same as today, as its in the forms of exploitation and criminal enterprise.
Plus try to make the mob remember that poverty plays a gigantic part in what is termed slavery elsewhere in the world by us in the west, embarrassed by our own history i shouldnt wonder. but(from the programs ive watched) the people themselves didnt acknowledge themselves as slaves and see it as a way out of modern difficulties.Starvation isnt something any of those relish as an alternative.
Sure clearly in some strange faraway places slavery does exist. But not the slavery concerning Colston, and certainly not anything we can do about it.
Weeeellll I wanted to make the point that the slavery that so impassioned the Colston 4 wasnt the same as today, as its in the forms of exploitation and criminal enterprise.
Cite? this is pure horseshit.
