The Politics Thread 2020

[BondJovi]

12 minutes ago, Curtains said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/robert-baden-powell-statue-livid-poole-residents-vow-to-fight-plan-to-take-down-monument-of-scouts-founder-12004683

Aren't we in part fuelling a problem here, the problem of only seeing the bad in things? I don't see that action as helping anyone or helping people to learn anything.

Aspects of his life are less worthy? Isn't that all of us? 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, TramRam said:

Westerns seem not to be a film of your choice, May be the Apache Indians killed them all, Or maybe your using a failed racist argument.

There's plenty more if you care to look

 

 

This little collection rather proves the opposite of what you want it to.

One of the pictures is Blazing Saddles, a spoof western satirising racism.

Of the other 3, only Woody Strode was known for parts in westerns and of the few I recall, the only one that didn't require the character to be black was Once upon a Time in the West (where he is killed in the first 10 minutes). In The Man who shot Liberty Valance he plays a former slave who is schooled with the little kids. In Sargent Rutledge he is a black soldier (not cowboy) accused of raping a white woman.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

This little collection rather proves the opposite of what you want it to.

One of the pictures is Blazing Saddles, a spoof western satirising racism.

Of the other 3, only Woody Strode was known for parts in westerns and of the few I recall, the only one that didn't require the character to be black was Once upon a Time in the West (where he is killed in the first 10 minutes). In The Man who shot Liberty Valance he plays a former slave who is schooled with the little kids. In Sargent Rutledge he is a black soldier (not cowboy) accused of raping a white woman.

THE person who i would never cross movie knowledge swords with is your good self Andy.

Very interesting points and its surprising what middle-aged farts like me can still learn.?

[Curtains]

[King Kevin]

13 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well Churchill clearly was a racist, there is no point in ignoring it.  Even by the standards of his day apparently.  Not only a racist but a die-hard imperialist,

He did sacrifice the Empire to fight the Nazis so was that atonement?

[Van der MoodHoover]

To shift the topic of criticism, another quote from Bozzer that once more illustrates his preference for long words that people may not understand behind which he can hide his lack of thinking.

This is his response to why he won't consider opening up the "hospitality" industry before July 4th.

“What we don’t want to see is a roiling, bacchanalian mass of people that can spread the disease,” said Mr Johnson.

Given the date of July 4th was given now some weeks ago, presumably being "guided by the science" then should we not have had some indication as to whether the key statistics are behaving according to that projection?

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

The thing to remember about Churchill is that he was essentially a late Victorian cavalryman adventurer (see his gun toting Boer war correspondent antics).

This was a double -edged sword (a nice shiny 1890s one), it gave him the testicular fortitude to face down Hitler, but yes, he had some distasteful views by reasonable standards.

But he saved the world from a Dark Age. He could have accepted a sweeeeeet deal from Hitler (one day we will find out what Hess was doing), and Hitler would have eventually conquered most of the world. 

The Colosseum is a good case in point concerning old statues and the like.

Pulling it down now would be a bad thing, as it is a church - it's been consecrated by the Pope because so many Christians were killed there. The interpretation of the place is balanced - impressive miracle of engineering for the times, monolith to Roman imperials might - but also shows what Bamfords they actually were. Latin, roads, blardey blah, but liked nothing more than watching little kids fed to lions for a laugh.

I agree with Britain's first black prof, Sir Geoff Palmer - keep the stuff but explain it right - a balanced interpretation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52965230

Talking of monoliths .... Is it timer to moth ball this thread I wonder? Seems to be less and less visitors.

I understand the urge to defend the reputation of an understandably revered national hero, but I think you are sugar-coating his record somewhat.  It is more than merely his views that were distasteful it's many of his considered actions and prolonged policies were distasteful too.  Just take his record in Iraq, Kenya and India to name but 3 countries where his record is more than simply distasteful, it is horrendous.

I've no problem with the statue of Colston taking a dunk in the harbour, seems fitting enough to me, it should retire a to museum somewhere now I think. The most disappointing part of that whole story is that the people of Bristol hadn't taken his statue down long before now. 

Would anyone really consider pulling down the Colesseum?  That would be travesty.  It's an iconic building, and a good reminder in itself of the cruelty of the past, given that pretty much everyone knows what went on in there.

I agree entirely that Churchill deserves every credit for identifying, before many other, the threat presented by fascist Germany, and every credit for leading the fight against it.  Although I would say as soon as the US entered the war that it was over for Hitler and Germany, there was no way they could defeat the Red Army and the USA combined. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

I used to live in the Czech Republic. When I arrived there in 1996, they had been pulling down statues for over half a decade. When I left there for the final time in 2009, they were still pulling them down. 

I can guarantee that Czechs have neither forgotten who those people were nor their relevance to Czech history.

I find myself ambivalent to tearing down statues. On the one hand, nobody should be learning history from statues. On the other hand, the fact that statues exist tells us quite a lot about the society we are as well as giving us a snapshot of the times when they were put up. Who put these statues up? What kind of mandate for doing so? What was the motivation for doing so?

Here in Liverpool, we have statues of (eg) Edward VII, Victoria, the Duke of Wellington, Ken Dodd, Cilla Black, the Beatles. Would these people be forgotten without their statues? No, though I'm not sure Cilla Black will be especially well known in 100 years. Would the lived environment be a worse place without them? probably not. Are they works of art? No, though equestrian statues seem to do it for some people. (we even have a few people that want to change the name of Penny Lane because a successful slave trader was also called Penny)

What we should be asking, in my opinion, is why do we put these things up? What does it tell us about ourselves that we put statues up at all? Is it in lieu of something else? A case in point is the statue of Richard I outside parliament. It was put up in the 1850s? Why? Why him? He hated England, had no democratic credentials to speak of and we have no idea what he actually looked like. What does it say about us as a society that we should do such a thing? Are we still that kind of society?

Walk around any city in the UK and you will see statues of generals and lords who did what exactly? Were born there and went on to do generally and lordy things that their class would lead them into anyway? A statue is a form of veneration. Next time you are out and about look at the statues you can see there and ask yourself why we venerate that individual.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Alpha said:

An attack on British history is tragic imo. Completely stupid way of creating equality. Teach me the history of Black Brits. 

(I'm not sure if I'm arguing at this point or just really angry about any of our (humanity) history being attacked.)

I can see you love history and that's to your credit in my opinion, but I don't understand why you consider of full re-examination of some historical figures to be an attack on British history or an attack on history in general.  Shouldn't historians and the general public want to tell the full story of a person's past and not gloss over their negative actions and beliefs.  History should be about telling the whole story as much as possible....including the uncomfortable truths...not just creating and protecting icons for the sake of it.  People can take pride in their nation by all means,  or at least have affection for it, but the real nation and it's real past....not a fictional version. 

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I used to live in the Czech Republic. When I arrived there in 1996, they had been pulling down statues for over half a decade. When I left there for the final time in 2009, they were still pulling them down. 

I can guarantee that Czechs have neither forgotten who those people were nor their relevance to Czech history.

I find myself ambivalent to tearing down statues. On the one hand, nobody should be learning history from statues. On the other hand, the fact that statues exist tells us quite a lot about the society we are as well as giving us a snapshot of the times when they were put up. Who put these statues up? What kind of mandate for doing so? What was the motivation for doing so?

Here in Liverpool, we have statues of (eg) Edward VII, Victoria, the Duke of Wellington, Ken Dodd, Cilla Black, the Beatles. Would these people be forgotten without their statues? No, though I'm not sure Cilla Black will be especially well known in 100 years. Would the lived environment be a worse place without them? probably not. Are they works of art? No, though equestrian statues seem to do it for some people. (we even have a few people that want to change the name of Penny Lane because a successful slave trader was also called Penny)

What we should be asking, in my opinion, is why do we put these things up? What does it tell us about ourselves that we put statues up at all? Is it in lieu of something else? A case in point is the statue of Richard I outside parliament. It was put up in the 1850s? Why? Why him? He hated England, had no democratic credentials to speak of and we have no idea what he actually looked like. What does it say about us as a society that we should do such a thing? Are we still that kind of society?

Walk around any city in the UK and you will see statues of generals and lords who did what exactly? Were born there and went on to do generally and lordy things that their class would lead them into anyway? A statue is a form of veneration. Next time you are out and about look at the statues you can see there and ask yourself why we venerate that individual.

That’s not the point.  Why not tear down all the museums then. 

For goodness sake where does this all end. 

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

That’s not the point.  Why not tear down all the museums then. 

For goodness sake where does this all end. 

When every single statue and building is pulled down of course. 

[Curtains]

 

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

When every single statue and building is pulled down of course. 

Ok no history.  Let’s stop teaching it then. 

[cstand]

3 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye
Cheerio, here I go, on my way.   ?

[Curtains]

Nearly 30k self isolating from track and trace 

[Curtains]

Editing

[TramRam]

53 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

This little collection rather proves the opposite of what you want it to.

One of the pictures is Blazing Saddles, a spoof western satirising racism.

Of the other 3, only Woody Strode was known for parts in westerns and of the few I recall, the only one that didn't require the character to be black was Once upon a Time in the West (where he is killed in the first 10 minutes). In The Man who shot Liberty Valance he plays a former slave who is schooled with the little kids. In Sargent Rutledge he is a black soldier (not cowboy) accused of raping a white woman.

 

Herb Jeffries (who darkened his skin) and Spencer Williams in Harlem on the Prairie (1937)

Woody Strode in Sergeant Rutledge (1960)

Bill Cosby and Yaphet Kotto in Man and Boy (1971)

Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte in Buck and the Preacher (1972)

Cleavon Little in Blazin' Saddles (1974) tho you took joy in metioning "a spoof western satirising racism" I do believe Mel Brooks saw it as a Film.

The post was..".I wad reading something recently about how a large proportion if cowboys were black, but they didn't seem to make the cut in those old Westerns"

I merely showed THEY DID, Now if you're infering i'm mistaken or " proves the opposite of what you want it to"

How so?

Are they black, Are they actors, Are they in cowboy films?

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, Curtains said:

 

Ok no history.  Let’s stop teaching it then. 

Nobody teaches history via statues. 
We should be teaching it better in schools. 

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

 

Ok no history.  Let’s stop teaching it then. 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - George Santayana, 1905.

Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it - Winston Churchill, 1948.

Even Churchill learned from the past - or at least plagiarised it.

[Curtains]

 

[Highgate]

27 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

He did sacrifice the Empire to fight the Nazis so was that atonement?

I guess he was definitely was willing to weaken the Empire (ultimately make it so weak that it would collapse) to defeat Hitler and yes that is enormously to his credit. 

But he never seemed to regret Empire building or maintenance and all it's associated atrocities.  In fact he was quite willing to continue with the denial of self determination for nations of the Empire after WWII and their brutal and murderous suppression where deemed necessary.  Kenya for example ( I'd recommend Caroline Elkins book on the subject, although it's not an easy read ).  

So shouldn't atonement only come with an admission of wrongdoing or regret for those actions in the first place? If so, then I guess atonement is the wrong word to use in his case.