The Politics Thread 2020

[ariotofmyown]

13 minutes ago, Archied said:

Really ? ,,, take a look back a few pages at the pic posted by someone of demonstrator Plackard duck the police ,, right next to that you will see the plackard stating WHITE SILENCE IS VIOLENCE,, now that’s not a one off , we are seeing that and hearing it from a large swathe and to be honest a lot from bloody young spotty middle class sham pain socialists who have not the first clue that being a decent non racist human being was a bloody dam sight harder for those of us that did it 30 years ago than it is in today’s far better and more pampered environment so yes I do take offence ,

vote boris and be a racist , vote Corbyn and be an anti Semite ,,, mmmm what’s a man to do ,,,,,, perhaps don’t vote for any of them

duck history , it can’t be changed and as a species is riddled with shame ,, deal with racism for what it is today and start from the premise that people are decent people no matter race , religion or sexual orientation until they show different 

In a mass gathering, there will always be a few idiots, either causing trouble or having signs you might not agree with. You can disagree with these people but still agree with the central message. I think that message is exactly what you said:

"start from the premise that people are decent people no matter race , religion or sexual orientation until they show different"

That premise is what minority groups are asking for now.

I clearly don't think that only racists voted for Johnson. My point was as a society, a large majority still seem perfectly comfortable with the Primeminister using openly racist language. Our rabidly left-wing identity politics obsessed media also seem fine with it too, as it's barely mentioned. 

 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

29 minutes ago, Archied said:

duck history , it can’t be changed and as a species is riddled with shame ,, deal with racism for what it is today and start from the premise that people are decent people no matter race , religion or sexual orientation until they show different 

I understand what you're saying here.

All I would say is that I'm not exactly proposing a radical new curriculum that focuses solely on the bad aspects of our history. I just think it's important that we don't brush over the darker sides of the likes of Churchill when we study them. It's important purely from a point of historical accuracy that we teach kids all of the facts (as opposed to airbrushing some of them), perhaps giving them an idea of the context in which events happened and, crucially, telling them that life isn't binary. You don't have to say 'this person was good and that person was bad', as it's impossible to categorise the complex beings that we are in such a manner. The positive side effects of this approach would be that kids are given a better understanding of how these current issues came to be, and therefore how they might be resolved. 

We should be looking at the here and now when dealing with racism 95% of the time. But I still think there's a time and a place for examining the past. Otherwise, what's the point in history as a subject? A big reason why it's given such an important place in children's education is so that we learn from the past.

 

[Eddie]

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Such an affront, that it appears he hasn’t done anything about it since taking office in 2016 other than argue about the wording of the plaque because he wanted it to mention that Colston was a Tory. 

Interesting that the previous City Mayor of Bristol, George Ferguson (Independent) said in 2013 that he wanted no part in any celebration of the life of Edward Colston, describing them as 'perverse'.

[TramRam]

3 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I understand what you're saying here.

All I would say is that I'm not exactly proposing a radical new curriculum that focuses solely on the bad aspects of our history. I just think it's important that we don't brush over the darker sides of the likes of Churchill when we study them. It's important purely from a point of historical accuracy that we teach kids all of the facts (as opposed to airbrushing some of them), perhaps giving them an idea of the context in which events happened and, crucially, telling them that life isn't binary. You don't have to say 'this person was good and that person was bad', as it's impossible to categorise the complex beings that we are in such a manner. The positive side effects of this approach would be that kids are given a better understanding of how these current issues came to be, and therefore how they might be resolved. 

We should be looking at the here and now when dealing with racism 95% of the time. But I still think there's a time and a place for examining the past. Otherwise, what's the point in history as a subject? A big reason why it's given such an important place in children's education is so that we learn from the past.

 

Churchill is one historical Person from our History, If we're to use your analogy then our Children will be pensioners when they leave school, We have 1000s of British People who've done good and bad through our time, Who chooses what's to be taught to those who would go to school about the British History?

If you've not, Watch "The British"  a 7 part episode from the Roman Invasion to the 20th Centuary...again on Sky.

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I understand what you're saying here.

All I would say is that I'm not exactly proposing a radical new curriculum that focuses solely on the bad aspects of our history. I just think it's important that we don't brush over the darker sides of the likes of Churchill when we study them. It's important purely from a point of historical accuracy that we teach kids all of the facts (as opposed to airbrushing some of them), perhaps giving them an idea of the context in which events happened and, crucially, telling them that life isn't binary. You don't have to say 'this person was good and that person was bad', as it's impossible to categorise the complex beings that we are in such a manner. The positive side effects of this approach would be that kids are given a better understanding of how these current issues came to be, and therefore how they might be resolved. 

We should be looking at the here and now when dealing with racism 95% of the time. But I still think there's a time and a place for examining the past. Otherwise, what's the point in history as a subject? A big reason why it's given such an important place in children's education is so that we learn from the past.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying too ,,, I’m more than happy with an honest look at history and historical figures and in the main  most don’t come out too well but what they were in very different times does not describe what we secretly or subconsciously are at heart now as is being peddled by many ,

everytime I watch braveheart I’m not out on the streets cutting English heads off with a claymore 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 minutes ago, TramRam said:

Churchill is one historical Person from our History, If we're to use your analogy then our Children will be pensioners when they leave school, We have 1000s of British People who've done good and bad through our time, Who chooses what's to be taught to those who would go to school about the British History?

If you've not, Watch "The British"  a 7 part episode from the Roman Invasion to the 20th Centuary...again on Sky.

I think you've misrepresented my argument there. I made no such analogy.

I never even suggested that we should teach everything that has ever happened in the history of this country; obviously that would be impossible. The key idea is to encourage kids to avoid binary thinking and and be able to comprehend the idea that someone can simultaneously do great and terrible things.

The process of choosing what gets taught wouldn't really change. It's how it's taught that important.

[Archied]

18 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I understand what you're saying here.

All I would say is that I'm not exactly proposing a radical new curriculum that focuses solely on the bad aspects of our history. I just think it's important that we don't brush over the darker sides of the likes of Churchill when we study them. It's important purely from a point of historical accuracy that we teach kids all of the facts (as opposed to airbrushing some of them), perhaps giving them an idea of the context in which events happened and, crucially, telling them that life isn't binary. You don't have to say 'this person was good and that person was bad', as it's impossible to categorise the complex beings that we are in such a manner. The positive side effects of this approach would be that kids are given a better understanding of how these current issues came to be, and therefore how they might be resolved. 

We should be looking at the here and now when dealing with racism 95% of the time. But I still think there's a time and a place for examining the past. Otherwise, what's the point in history as a subject? A big reason why it's given such an important place in children's education is so that we learn from the past.

 

Also re new radical curriculum,not to be offensive but a hell of a lot of us old farts educated ourselves about figures like Churchill long before you were taking o levels ,, this stuff is not some new discovery by the young 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

It doesn't. It was just a statue. Shouldn't have done it, but you can see why it happened. It was a pretty symbolic image all the same. People are reacting as if a hospital was fire bombed.

As a temporary measure, perhaps they should have painted it pink, like the Czechs did to the Russian tank that was set on a plinth to glorify the 1968 invasion, until it was got rid of properly Definitely needed to go through and now it is gone..

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think you've misrepresented my argument there. I made no such analogy.

I never even suggested that we should teach everything that has ever happened in the history of this country; obviously that would be impossible. The key idea is to encourage kids to avoid binary thinking and and be able to comprehend the idea that someone can simultaneously do great and terrible things.

The process of choosing what gets taught wouldn't really change. It's how it's taught that important.

So should the Bristol statue stay up? 
should Churchill statues come down ?  Is not Churchill statues an affront to our Asian population?

personally think statues are a load of old bull anyway ,,,,, people are just not designed or wired to be put on pedestals in the main

[King Kevin]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think a glorified revenge mission that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians when the war was almost won was morally reprehensible. I probably should have left that out of my argument though, as I concede that it's open for debate.

You picked a wrong one there ,first off it was Bomber Harris not Churchill that ordered that raid although it was afterwards that Churchill distanced himself from the action .

It was a vital marshalling yard and transit  base for the Eastern front and the Russians requested the raid to save allied lives .In any case it was just deserts for Coventry  London etc and seeing as racism  is  a hot topic atm the Germans deserved all they got for murdering 6 million Jews mainly women and kids .I also seem to remember they started it so no sympathy here I'm afraid.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

9 minutes ago, Archied said:

Also re new radical curriculum,not to be offensive but a hell of a lot of us old farts educated ourselves about figures like Churchill long before you were taking o levels ,, this stuff is not some new discovery by the young 

And good on you. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be covered though. A lot of people could probably learn a lot of things for themselves (maths, English, geography, etc) but the purpose of the education is to provide a grounding for everyone, including those curious enough to educate themselves further.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

So should the Bristol statue stay up? 
should Churchill statues come down ?  Is not Churchill statues an affront to our Asian population?

personally think statues are a load of old bull anyway ,,,,, people are just not designed or wired to be put on pedestals in the main

I think the statue deserved to come down. As for bringing it down like they did yesterday, I’m in two minds.

I mentioned in an earlier post that lines have to be drawn somewhere. If you always say ‘Yeah but this could lead to that’, you’d never do anything in the first place. I haven’t really got the answers as to where the lines need to be drawn.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

It doesn't. It was just a statue. Shouldn't have done it, but you can see why it happened. It was a pretty symbolic image all the same. People are reacting as if a hospital was fire bombed.

Mate there really is no such thing as it was just a statue ( no matter the issue of should it be there in the first place) 

it was just a ,,,, is the starting point excuse which opens the doors for far far far worse 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

You picked a wrong one there ,first off it was Bomber Harris not Churchill that ordered that raid although it was afterwards that Churchill distanced himself from the action .

It was a vital marshalling yard and transit  base for the Eastern front and the Russians requested the raid to save allied lives .In any case it was just deserts for Coventry  London etc and seeing as racism  is  a hot topic atm the Germans deserved all they got for murdering 6 million Jews mainly women and kids .I also seem to remember they started it so no sympathy here I'm afraid.

I bow to your superior knowledge in the first paragraph. It seems I was misguided in my statement.

But I have huge, huge problems with the stuff in bold. The innocent civilians and war refugees had next to nothing to do with the German government’s Final Solution and the declaration of war. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

I'm dipping out now as this is taking up a lot of time and we've moved away from the BLM topic, which I was particularly passionate about.

I've largely enjoyed the debate.

[Stive Pesley]

On the subject of historical nuances - it's interesting that a few yards from where the BLM protest was in Derby yesterday there is a blue plaque to Herbert Spencer. A great thinker but one that was a proponent of scientific racism back in his day.

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think the statue deserved to come down. As for bringing it down like they did yesterday, I’m in two minds.

I mentioned in an earlier post that lines have to be drawn somewhere. If you always say ‘Yeah but this could lead to that’, you’d never do anything in the first place. I haven’t really got the answers as to where the lines need to be drawn.

In two minds ?

so in two minds whether it ok for a mob to go out next weekend and pull down a Churchill statue? 
 

 

[King Kevin]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

But I have huge, huge problems with the stuff in bold. The innocent civilians and war refugees had next to nothing to do with the German government’s Final Solution and the declaration of wa

I which case mate you really need to expand on your history because if you are referring to innocent civilians it's quite a well known fact and pretty well documented that  German civilians knew about the extermination camps and turned a blind eye to it all.

Having said that children are the unfortunate casualties for wars started by adults and war mongers like Adolf Hitler. German civilians were out on the streets celebrating when it was all going their way in the low countries and France etc plenty of civilians being killed then.

You reap what you sow they got exactly what the deserved IMO. 

[Comrade 86]

4 hours ago, jimmyp said:

 

I asked you because you went to the effort of writing a reply to my post.

Is a quote still the same when words  have been removed that possibly change the meaning. Is it not important to retain the exact wording, spelling, and punctuation of the original source whilst quoting.

I didn’t ask half a dozen times.

The article that has been written commenting on a small snippet of the original column Boris wrote is very easy to find on google. I originally asked if uttoxram could post the rest of the column Boris wrote that day. 

Do you have the full column Boris wrote? Perhaps google isn’t my friend. 

 

 

Yes I do

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I bow to your superior knowledge in the first paragraph. It seems I was misguided in my statement.

But I have huge, huge problems with the stuff in bold. The innocent civilians and war refugees had next to nothing to do with the German government’s Final Solution and the declaration of war. 

Yep much like government s and slave traders back in the day but we are somehow ALL guilty of they’re sins now