Jump to content

Highgate

Member
  • Content Count

    1,980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Highgate

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,435 profile views
  1. That's a somewhat bizarre post. I wasn't commenting on the rally attendees as such, who would have been more comparable to the protesters. I was commenting on the man who organized the rally in his own interests. I think I did question the timing of the protests, or at least I agreed with the many others that did. I also suggested that anyone engaging in violence or vandalism during them was doing the undoubtedly worthy cause more harm than good. But you are not comparing like with like for so many reasons. The BLM protests happened in response to a brutal killing by the police,
  2. The problem will be that he may just refuse to believe the result and claim voter fraud or whatever. He's been laying the groundwork for that for months now, stating that mail in voting is riddled with cheating and so on. Of course he would simply be removed from government, the army won't back him or anything like that...but the problem what will his most loyal supporters do (of which there are inexplicably large numbers), when he will tweet that their rightful president has been cheated out of office. After witnessing Trump hold an indoor election rally in a state with a considerable
  3. So like @Van Wolfie then. A) with a big explanatory plaque. ? The Hitler/Stalin comparison is interesting. Even without their statues, it's fair to say they haven't been forgotten by history. I feel the slave trade is in a similar category.
  4. I really should had that choice as option d}. 😀 I'd find it difficult to choose between options b and c myself.
  5. So let's say if you lived in Bristol in 2020 and the city is having a vote on whether to keep the Colston statue where it is or not. Do you vote to; a) Leave it where it is. b) Take it down and put it in a museum somewhere. c) Take it down and roll it down the hill and dump it in the harbour.
  6. You are right, it's certainly not an ideal comparison and there are important differences. However, it is an example of another person who did awful things in the past as well as charity work. And another person of whom the general public's opinion of has changed over time. These are relevant similarities in my opinion. It was more appropriate than comparing the Colston statue to an historical building.
  7. I think it's a good question to ask. I would say at it's most fundamental that an individual is racist if they believe that people of another race are morally or intellectually inferior to their own. If someone believes that then they are a 'hardcore' racist. There are lesser forms of racial prejudices such as negative stereotyping along with issues that could be better classified as culturalist or xenophobia. Institutional racism is different again being the cumulative effect of individual racisms (even unintentional) practiced in social and government institutions that will over
  8. Fair enough, the statues are something of a digression anyway. Valid point about Saville's victims being living, unlike Colston's.
  9. And as far Marcus Rashford, I'm annoyed at him for making like and admire a Manchester United player. It doesn't feel right...
  10. At least I managed to use a human example 😉 I think we can safely say that the buildings themselves were blameless in the horrors that were committed within them or during their construction. They should stay put. The statue of Colston wasn't erected at his death, but 170 years afterwards in 1895 at a time when slavery and the slave trade was already abhorrent to many people, even if imperialism and racism (you can't have the former without the latter after all) were still depressingly in full swing. Did the contemporaries of Colston really know the true nature of the slave trade
  11. I think you risk trivializing the slave trade there if you are comparing it with frequent consensual sex and a weakness for the drink. That's not comparable to buying and selling human beings for profit. I know you didn't intend to belittle the awfulness of slavery, I'm just saying you chose a bad example in George Best. How about Jimmy Saville as an example? His crimes are much closer to the level of awfulness that Colston was guilty of. Let's say there was a statue erected to him in his Jim'll Fix It days, when most people just thought of him as a charitable eccentric rather th
  12. I think you are right, thankfully nowadays playing staff seem to be hired on their ability and not on their ethnic background. But management is an entirely different skill set. And whereas potentially excellent footballers are usually easy to spot at a young age, it's harder to know whether a manager or coach will actually make it until they have actually started working. If racism does still exist in the job market in the UK then it's far more likely to manifest itself in footballer manager/coach recruitment than in football player recruitment. The huge disparity in minority numbers p
  13. No, still nothing ironic there. It's the very fact that there are such high numbers of black players playing the game...and yet so few black managers/coaches that makes his point. Some barriers to minorities have been broken long ago, such as participation in professional sport, and black footballers have flourished as a result. But that doesn't mean that other barriers don't still exist, such as getting their first break in coaching or management.
  14. Why is that ironic? The notion that some races are suitable for certain types of work involving physical activity (such as playing football) but not suitable for jobs relying on mental skills (such as coaching or management) has been the underpinning of the racist mindset for centuries now. Where is the irony in what Sterling said?
  15. Isn't that a very strong argument though? You speak in very emotive terms about British history. About how it's being attacking, the need to defend it. How you wish people of all ethnicities would embrace it. But is all that really necessary? Shouldn't history just be known and understood, for it's own sake and to help us better understand how our societies got where they are now. What's all the need for defending? If the observations about the past have merit, let them be, if not, try to correct them. But learning history shouldn't be about attacking or defending in my opinion. A
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.