Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 12 hours ago, TuffLuff said: I’m not gonna go round naming people in a big ‘gotcha’ style post, that’s not my style and I’m not really interested in the spats or the blame game. Also ofcourse I’m not making the Rashford story about race, that would completely undermine not just what he’s done but the BLM protests etc. I just wanted to mention that we have a bit of ‘i don’t see race as a problem’ on this thread and the silence over a positive story on a young black footballer is also noticeable. I’m just using it as a clear example of what’s going on. Hopkins is whatever, but she’s not the story here. Problem is guess who’s name is trending no.1 in the UK right now? Guess why Rashford was brought on this forum? We talk about not having an issue with race on this thread and the general conversation, but who on here was interested in discussing his his point in the last 72 hours? Problem was, we were talking about statues which itself was a distraction from what the Black Lives Matter protests. We’ve been here before, many times. When I posed the question that did anyone know what racism was I kinda presumed responses (with apologies to @Eddie and @Curtains) would be low. The point is, no one really wants to know or understand what racism is. We want to some righteous or that ‘we don’t see colour’ but maybe these responses are wrong. For example to ignore colour is to ignore identity. To ignore colour we don’t care to understand the reasons behind covid deaths being higher in ethnic minorities. We don’t care to discuss the windrush scandal and we look to move on against the injustices involved in Grenfell. To not see colour is basically saying ‘this doesn’t effect me’. I’m going on and on again so I’ll stop, again I don’t want to undermine what Rashford did today because that’s the important story. Applaud what he did and leave Hopkins out of it. What is racism to me ? To make a judgement /generalisation on someone purely based on the colour of they’re skin and or their cultural background/ heritage ,,, too simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 12 hours ago, TuffLuff said: I think I explained it but simply put. I’m talking about the forum and that posters are saying that racism isn’t a problem and I’m using it as a example to point out what they aren’t seeing. It’s not really about Rashford, I’m using it as an example. Hence why I don’t really go on about it in detail? Name one poster who has said that racism isn’t a problem ? there really is no difference in you choosing to bring his skin colour in to the story of a good deed as somebody bringing skin colour into a bad deed , all This underhand won’t name names implied accusations unspoken in the shadows is the same rubbish tactic used by the racist s you say you deplore , can’t just come out and say it as it’s going to be shown for the rubbish it is and disproved , you think it s so ,so it’s right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 12 hours ago, TuffLuff said: Isn’t that the point though? No one really knows what it really is, i include myself in that because I haven’t experienced it. So why are posters so certain it’s not an issue? Or that they don’t see colour? We are talking about pages and pages of debate here not an off the cuff little discussion. Mate what a load of guff , complicated my backside ,,,,,,,, that’s what you and others want to put out in this day and age we ALL see colour , personal racism is a question of whether that colour plays any part in your feelings towards them and as for the haven’t experienced it bit you do realise that black people experience it very differently from each other too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 24 minutes ago, Curtains said: I think rewriting history is very dangerous. Take the Church for instance. Take the story of Thomas Becket for instance The story of Becket is a story that must have been rewritten hundreds of times. Who's to say how much of it is accurate? Our history constantly needs re-evaluating in light of new evidence, changing attitudes and so on. Macaulay's History of England would never be written now (or at least would not be treated as a serious work if written today); no modern historian would approach history in the same way as Bede; the history we learn at school is set by government and is a reflection of what they say is important. The history my grandparents learnt at school glorified empire. The history I learnt at school took into account the loss of empire, another world war, independence movements in India, Kenya, Nigeria and so on. New things happen, new things come to light which broaden our understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Archied said: Mate what a load of guff , complicated my backside ,,,,,,,, that’s what you and others want to put out in this day and age we ALL see colour , personal racism is a question of whether that colour plays any part in your feelings towards them Like I said earlier it’s really more about discrimination isn’t it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: The story of Becket is a story that must have been rewritten hundreds of times. Who's to say how much of it is accurate? Our history constantly needs re-evaluating in light of new evidence, changing attitudes and so on. Macaulay's History of England would never be written now (or at least would not be treated as a serious work if written today); no modern historian would approach history in the same way as Bede; the history we learn at school is set by government and is a reflection of what they say is important. The history my grandparents learnt at school glorified empire. The history I learnt at school took into account the loss of empire, another world war, independence movements in India, Kenya, Nigeria and so on. New things happen, new things come to light which broaden our understanding. What is clear is that he was murdered for his views by 3 knights of Richard 11 although it was never proven that Richard asked for him to be killed directly. The Catholic Church suffered in England particularly when Henry V111 came to power and established the Church of England. The point is our History is very complicated. Racism is a scourge that should be eradicated but lots of people in the world are discriminated against . World peace and harmony should be the goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 44 minutes ago, Archied said: Not quite sure your example works either , what saville did was against the law at the time he did it , done secretly because of this , imprisonable and behaviour universally deplored by everyone the world over at the time it was done not saying Colston statue is right just that your example doesn’t work either 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Curtains said: Take the Church for instance. This church? Institutionalised racism '...for your own good' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53064929 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 58 minutes ago, GboroRam said: I find the arguments about tearing down coliseums and art installations a bit spurious. Statues are monuments to celebrate people. Literally taking a person and putting them on a pedestal. Art has it's own function. Buildings have their own function. Statues are a celebration of a person. We wouldn't celebrate them today, so why do we need statues to celebrate them if we later decide their actions weren't worthy of celebrating? The wider discussions are fine - but solely on making an image of a slaver and putting him on a pedestal for all to see how much you revere him, I do think pushes the line. Quietly pull down the statue, put it in a museum dedicated to life in that period and explain to people the two aspects to this person - the philanthropist who built hospitals for the poor, and the slaver who made the money to pay for it in human blood. I find the spouting of we are all talking about statues instead of blm as a well constructed smoke screen a bit flawed as well ,, who pulled the bloody thing down in the first place in such a dramatic and emotive way ? unless the implication is it was pulled down by infiltrators to cloud and weaken the BLM message then there’s not really a leg to stand on , perhaps on the day placards and chanting for its removal in the context of BLM demos would have shone the light needed to have it removed peacefully and legally whilst garnering more support ,,,, there really is a very dangerous attitude around that anybody can do anything and escape blame by blaming it being reported in the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 18 minutes ago, Highgate said: 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. I actually took note of your earlier post regards the Timing of the Colson statue being erected when slavery had been outlawed and it’s very valid, for me I have no problem with statues being reviewed and either removed , put in museums or being properly placarded to tell the full true story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Curtains said: I say well done to Rashford and I say well done to Starmer but most of all well done Johnson for changing his mind and doing the right thing. And well done to Matt Hancock for calling him Daniel Rashford live on TV. Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: And well done to Matt Hancock for calling him Daniel Rashford live on TV. Hmmm Or just mcock for short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 What should be banned on here is people quoting selective parts of peoples posts for ridicule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, Archied said: Or just mcock for short I'll settle for 'Mock'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Curtains said: What should be banned on here is people quoting selective parts of peoples posts for ridicule It wasn't to ridicule you, Curtains. It was an article which is very relevant to the point that I have been making for days on here. There is a racism problem which is just as relevant and immediate as a bunch of low-life thick skinheads wanting to guard statues or fling insults at an entire movement - and that is the problem of institutionalised racism. You mentioned the church - and not five minutes before, I had read the article which I quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: And well done to Matt Hancock for calling him Daniel Rashford live on TV. Hmmm Of all the people to get someone's name wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 36 minutes ago, Eddie said: It wasn't to ridicule you, Curtains. It was an article which is very relevant to the point that I have been making for days on here. There is a racism problem which is just as relevant and immediate as a bunch of low-life thick skinheads wanting to guard statues or fling insults at an entire movement - and that is the problem of institutionalised racism. You mentioned the church - and not five minutes before, I had read the article which I quoted. I wasn’t referring to you Eddie in particular. I just hate the fact that people quote me on specific pieces of my posts. I don’t deny racism is a problem and shouldn’t be tolerated in any form but what I don’t agree with is violent protests . I think discrimination and bullying in any form is wrong. Law and order is vital otherwise we would have anarchy and who wants that in a civilisation As for voting and democracy well we could argue until the cows come home who is right and who is wrong. We should all be willing to learn but we often have entrenched views often learnt from our predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anag Ram Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 43 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: And well done to Matt Hancock for calling him Daniel Rashford live on TV. Hmmm God it looks like Daniel. Must be the clouds in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said: And well done to Matt Hancock for calling him Daniel Rashford live on TV. Hmmm Perhaps all Rashfords look the same to Matt Hancock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Curtains said: What should be banned on here is people Totally agree mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.