The Politics Thread 2020

[Archied]

22 hours ago, Eddie said:

Do what you normally do - wring your hands. And if that doesn't work, apply your usual plan B - which is to do nothing.

Seriously though, call it out, report it, wherever you see it, loud and often. If you feel that will reflect badly on you, say at work, tough titty. If you are in a position where you have to make a decision whether to interview somebody for the job, don't even look at the name - just look at the body of the CV. Do what you can - but never ignore or turn your back on racists or racism.

I've been banned from here at least twice for calling people racists. No names, but I stand by every word. You cannot ignore racism - there is no such thing as being neutral. Either black lives matter - or black lives don't matter. No middle ground.

I have heard it said that if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem and the above approach is very much part of the problem, it is just closed minded see things my way right away or your just a racist , it makes debate ,learning ,progress and understanding almost impossible and as long as we have people on both sides of the issue behaving that way the harder it will be for the moderate voices that just want to move forward and make things better to be heard and inspire , it’s the same closed minded offensive approach that was used by people on the other side who when we were younger and had mates or girlfriends of different colours couldn’t hear or see beyond calling you a such and such lover,

I really hope the mods do not remove this post as it really is not a personal dig at or insult to Eddie but rather a frustrated question as to how a certain approach can ever grab people ,bring them together and take us forward

[Alph]

46 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I think at the moment unfortunately people who make it out of poverty are the exception rather than the rule - I did a quite google search for social mobility and the articles than came back overwhelmingly said we've gone backwards over the last decade

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/30/social-mobility-in-uk-virtually-stagnant-since-2014

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/21/social-mobility-decline-britain-official-survey-finds

But why not review the things we choose to 'celebrate' in our towns and cities on a more regular basis? Just because some people years ago decided to build a statue doesn't mean we have to keep it

Using the football analogy - Just because one manager buys a player (say for £4m) and gives them a long deal (say 4 years) doesn't mean subsequent managers need to use him (yes, it's Anya)

Yeh, it would be really weird if the argument for not closing a Library in Derby was "All Libraries Matter"

If there's a societal problem which disproportionally affects one group then we need to address it as such - BLM brings focus to an important issue which we've not been addressing properly

I think we've had years and year and years of trying to address this with education - I'm willing to see if another approach might work better

For me leaving it to education makes it a 'quiet' issue - I think the more consistent and drawn out 'noise' there is around BLM and the movement keeping it front of mind the more likely we are as a society to make it a priority

In response to the statues thing. I agree we can review what we choose to celebrate. 

But firstly, Colston wasn't celebrated in history for slave trading.

Secondly, they did discuss it but got locked in a 17th century slavery vs Bristol's City history debate. 

Someone said there were plans to move it. That's fair enough. 

I'm just fed up of the suggestion that by defending British history and Colston's history or anything like that I'm anti anything. Or there are questions of why shed a tear for a slave trader. 

"Oh, so you think Colston the slave trader should have a monument" is the kind of argument I'm seeing, I think.

I don't think we should do things in his name now. I don't think he should be on trial in 2020. I don't think his name necessarily has to exist outside museums and books. I don't think his statue should be torn down by vandals. 

Are there genuinely people that find his name or his monuments and other such buildings offensive? Or oppressive? Or thinks it's in the way of racial equality today? 

I go on holiday to experience culture and history. I'm fascinated by people, lands and how we all came to be. Now I understand I have no idea what it's like to be a minority living in a country. Born a minority. I accept that it's not the same as travelling to Turkey and visiting statues there. 

Maybe I'm wrong. But I honestly believe if I was black British that I would embrace British history. I would want to see black history celebrated. I would want the full story told. I wouldn't want to see Colston be celebrated as a saint who gave to charity. 

No way on Earth would I attack a monument to history. That is an indirect attack on a culture or people imo. 

I would expect that if I started vandalising things belonging to other cultures, people that I'd get a good hiding. 

For a football analogy it's more like Leeds fans damaging the Clough Statue. Or us doing it to Bremner. It's purely a statement. It's vandalism. It would piss off the rival fans. Statues represent somebody or something. 

I don't even think the people at the heart of BLM want to tear down statues. I think it's ducking idiots doing it on their behalf. 

I'm not 100% but I think it was a group of white people that brought down the statue. I would like to ask them if they felt oppressed by it, knew people who were offended by it or simply decided that it SHOULD be offensive. I'd really like to ask that. 

I'm not saying stand by unless it effects you either. I'm very specifically talking about doing something so aggressive. 

[jono]

38 minutes ago, Archied said:

Something I have argued for a long time with friends who are less socialist inclined is that it’s also luck of the draw ,, I know lots and lots of people who are decent ,very hard working ,diligent and honest but they are never really ever going to make much more than a living and often a poor one at that , some people just don’t have the brain or personality to turn they’re hard work into money or build a business, ,doesn’t make them any less deserving of a good standard of living

That is so true. At the same time it doesn’t need to mean that those who got the luck of the draw have to be abject or be entirely altruistic in their everyday lives - does it ?  . I suppose that is where the religious or moral imperatives to be charitable come from ? It’s an interesting conundrum. Life ! 
 

 

[Eddie]

53 minutes ago, jono said:

And Penny lane. ? How many here sang that song or even listened to it ? shame on you. Tear yourself down and throw yourself in the Mersey. And apologise on your knees. 

The 'Penny Lane' thing is just sheer stupidity of the 'burning 5G towers' level.

Perhaps the 'patriots' supported by some on here will now create vigilante patrols to preserve street signs.

[i-Ram]

24 minutes ago, Norman said:

Think it's just a case of rich white man telling others what the problem is. All very Corbynista.

Enjoy it for what is is Norm. The Gastropubs of Derbyshire will soon be open again, and Stephen, Nigel, Julian and Crispin will have much to agree upon, being able to pat each other’s backs over a nice glass of Chardonnay, and a platter of charcuterie and artisan cheese.

[Archied]

Just now, jono said:

That is so true. At the same time it doesn’t need to mean that those who got the luck of the draw have to be abject or be entirely altruistic in their everyday lives - does it ?  . I suppose that is where the religious or moral imperatives to be charitable come from ? It’s an interesting conundrum. Life ! 
 

 

God no ,I’m not advocating a communist system, just a bit more of a balance ,and most times I have the debate it’s about certain friends pointing to the people who struggle and saying I’ve got what I have by working hard so they should work harder and all we be ok ,,,,,it’s not that simple 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

If only that was the reason. Now come on, fill me in on your experiences of racism in the Allenton job market.

Why though? It's a poor deflection. Why don't you just explain to me, like I grown up, why you think I'm wrong.

Except you can't because my actual point is that a poor white guy can disguise his background and his skin colour won't count against him - but a poor black guy can disguise his background as much as he wants but he's still black. Good luck

[Sith Happens]

I see the Derby man who sent Stan Collymore a racist email over the weekend has been identified and charged. 

Good news, I don't understand why someone would do something like that. 

 

[Highgate]

58 minutes ago, Alpha said:

In response to the statues thing. I agree we can review what we choose to celebrate. 

But firstly, Colston wasn't celebrated in history for slave trading.

Secondly, they did discuss it but got locked in a 17th century slavery vs Bristol's City history debate. 

Someone said there were plans to move it. That's fair enough. 

I'm just fed up of the suggestion that by defending British history and Colston's history or anything like that I'm anti anything. Or there are questions of why shed a tear for a slave trader. 

"Oh, so you think Colston the slave trader should have a monument" is the kind of argument I'm seeing, I think.

I go on holiday to experience culture and history. I'm fascinated by people, lands and how we all came to be. Now I understand I have no idea what it's like to be a minority living in a country. Born a minority. I accept that it's not the same as travelling to Turkey and visiting statues there. 

Maybe I'm wrong. But I honestly believe if I was black British that I would embrace British history. I would want to see black history celebrated. I would want the full story told. I wouldn't want to see Colston be celebrated as a saint who gave to charity. 

No way on Earth would I attack a monument to history. That is an indirect attack on a culture or people imo. 

I would expect that if I started vandalising things belonging to other cultures, people that I'd get a good hiding.

I don't even think the people at the heart of BLM want to tear down statues. I think it's ducking idiots doing it on their behalf. 

I'm not 100% but I think it was a group of white people that brought down the statue. I would like to ask them if they felt oppressed by it, knew people who were offended by it or simply decided that it SHOULD be offensive. I'd really like to ask that.

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 lot of people seem to take the criticisms of aspects of their nation's history personally.  Why so?  Nothing that happened in the past is the fault of anyone living now.  Having an excess of pride in a person's own country (which after all is just an accident of birth) tends to lead to people being hyper-sensitive when that nation, or it's past, is criticized in some way.  I'm not directing that last statement at you.

I applaud your stance on not vandalizing statues and your respect for, and interest in, other cultures.

I agree, technically, that a slave trader need not necessarily be racist.  A slave trader may, I suppose, be happy to trade all ethnic groups, provided there was a profit in it.  But I think it is safe to say that the European slave traders, of which Colston, was a prominent example, were profoundly and shockingly racist in their attitudes towards Africans.  That's pretty clear from contemporaneous records.  They seemed not only to consider Africans to be lesser humans....but to be sub-human, almost a different species entirely.  Otherwise how could they have justified their trade, while many of them claimed to be Christians?  So is that the sort of legacy the people of Bristol should be honouring?  We can pick and choose who we put on a pedestal, why leave someone such as him up there?  He clearly gave a lot of money to charity and as you say that's why he is remembered, but where the money came from is surely critically important.  Also, from my meagre research into the man it seems that he made sure that only those that shared his religious and political views should benefit from his charitable donations.  So not only a slave trader and racist, but also a divisive bigot. Honestly, I still find it hard to believe that his statue was allowed to stand there for so long.

From the pictures I saw there were people of all ethnicities involved in bringing down that statue and dumping it in the harbour. 

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I see the Derby man who sent Stan Collymore a racist email over the weekend has been identified and charged. 

Good news, I don't understand why someone would do something like that. 

I don’t know why our ‘ultras’ sing a song about him 20 years after he kicked a ball in earnest.

[Sith Happens]

Just now, i-Ram said:

I don’t know why our ‘ultras’ sing a song about him 20 years after he kicked a ball in earnest.

its pretty embarrassing.

[jono]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

God no ,I’m not advocating a communist system, just a bit more of a balance ,and most times I have the debate it’s about certain friends pointing to the people who struggle and saying I’ve got what I have by working hard so they should work harder and all we be ok ,,,,,it’s not that simple 

I knew you weren’t. I agree wholeheartedly. I suppose I was enjoying discussion as I always do with you, where it’s philosophical, exploring and considering  rather than partisan. It’s always strikes me that we are weaker when we don’t meet in the middle and do a bit of both sides now. 

[i-Ram]

31 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Why though? It's a poor deflection. Why don't you just explain to me, like I grown up, why you think I'm wrong.

Except you can't because my actual point is that a poor white guy can disguise his background and his skin colour won't count against him - but a poor black guy can disguise his background as much as he wants but he's still black. Good luck

Poor deflection? Ha. I would remind you that your original point was: “the poor black lad can't change his skin colour and because of instutional racism is always going to find it harder to get that job”. 

A sweeping generalisation, which you cannot possibly evidence, but I would say is statistically and anecdotally untrue. To suggest every employer will take a white candidate rather than a better black candidate makes you, in my opinion, part of the problem.  Why exaggerate the position. Does it make you feel good or superior? There are no doubt some employers who might racially discriminate, and in those cases we as a society need to ensure the relevant laws are applied to eradicate such injustice.

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, jono said:

I knew you weren’t. I agree wholeheartedly. I suppose I was enjoying discussion as I always do with you, where it’s philosophical, exploring and considering  rather than partisan. It’s always strikes me that we are weaker when we don’t meet in the middle and do a bit of both sides now. 

Me too , it’s interesting though that if you are the type to try to listen to both sides of an issue and question both sides the partisan on both sides just label or actually see you as full blown opposition, it’s a bit more understandable with the young but I really believe those of us that are older should be wise enough to understand that if things are worth having you do sometimes have to go around the houses because even when your right ( believe) butting heads and ignoring just doesn’t get the job done ,suppose it really depends how important you think the end result is 

 

[B4ev6is]

Once again in these protests football fans are being picked on perhaps black lives matter had not destroyed brittish history or uk goverment let them get away with it maybe people would not take law intp own hands.

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Once again in these protests football fans are being picked on perhaps black lives matter had not destroyed brittish history or uk goverment let them get away with it maybe people would not take law intp own hands.

Which football fans are being picked on, and why? Surely you aren’t going to defend the Spurs fan who urinated next to a police memorial?

[B4ev6is]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Which football fans are being picked on, and why? Surely you aren’t going to defend the Spurs fan who urinated next to a police memorial?

No he just idout banker

But what I am going on about church hill statue being covered up statued being pulled from buliding smash and statues put into rivers it is no wander why so much tensions being shown.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

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 lot of people seem to take the criticisms of aspects of their nation's history personally.  Why so?  Nothing that happened in the past is the fault of anyone living now.  Having an excess of pride in a person's own country (which after all is just an accident of birth) tends to lead to people being hyper-sensitive when that nation, or it's past, is criticized in some way.  I'm not directing that last statement at you.

I applaud your stance on not vandalizing statues and your respect for, and interest in, other cultures.

I agree, technically, that a slave trader need not necessarily be racist.  A slave trader may, I suppose, be happy to trade all ethnic groups, provided there was a profit in it.  But I think it is safe to say that the European slave traders, of which Colston, was a prominent example, were profoundly and shockingly racist in their attitudes towards Africans.  That's pretty clear from contemporaneous records.  They seemed not only to consider Africans to be lesser humans....but to be sub-human, almost a different species entirely.  Otherwise how could they have justified their trade, while many of them claimed to be Christians?  So is that the sort of legacy the people of Bristol should be honouring?  We can pick and choose who we put on a pedestal, why leave someone such as him up there?  He clearly gave a lot of money to charity and as you say that's why he is remembered, but where the money came from is surely critically important.  Also, from my meagre research into the man it seems that he made sure that only those that shared his religious and political views should benefit from his charitable donations.  So not only a slave trader and racist, but also a divisive bigot. Honestly, I still find it hard to believe that his statue was allowed to stand there for so long.

From the pictures I saw there were people of all ethnicities involved in bringing down that statue and dumping it in the harbour. 

Lots of good points and I'd like to respond later on. 

I just like history! All of it. And it's all racist, xenophobic, cruel, sexist, homophobic etc. 

It's taught me so much compassion for other cultures. I think only someone like Voltaire would be able to defend himself on twitter!! 

Probably get on my high horse defending it. 

[jono]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

The 'Penny Lane' thing is just sheer stupidity of the 'burning 5G towers' level.

Perhaps the 'patriots' supported by some on here will now create vigilante patrols to preserve street signs.

Of course it is but some people have been “offended” haven’t they ? .. your playing switcheroo there mate 

[djfred84]

54 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Once again in these protests football fans are being picked on perhaps black lives matter had not destroyed brittish history or uk goverment let them get away with it maybe people would not take law intp own hands.

They are not football fans, hooligans or fascist maybe but not fans.