15 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I have already said that interpretations on the extent of involvement may cause disagreement in the post you quoted earlier.

 

However whether they were involved or not can be deduced from the historical record. Historians may well disagree upon some points but if the preponderance of evidence points to being involved then that should be the end of it. 

 

How many ''marginal'' players in the trade have statues erected to them?

 

 

At its height, the slave trade was a huge part of the world's economy. If you had capital invested in stocks or funds, it is probable that some part of your investment would have benefitted in some way from the slave trade. There would have been far more "marginal players" than out-and-out slave traders.

 

The removal of Colston and Milligan's statues is no great loss, but where does it end? Why not expand the scope of statue removal to historical figures who had no connection to slavery, but held views that would be seen as bigoted today? It's a dangerous precedent to set.

 

1 hour ago, nkg said:

 

 

At its height, the slave trade was a huge part of the world's economy. If you had capital invested in stocks or funds, it is probable that some part of your investment would have benefitted in some way from the slave trade. There would have been far more "marginal players" than out-and-out slave traders.

 

The removal of Colston and Milligan's statues is no great loss, but where does it end? Why not expand the scope of statue removal to historical figures who had no connection to slavery, but held views that would be seen as bigoted today? It's a dangerous precedent to set.

 

The thread is about removing slave traders statues and I’ve told you where I’d like to see it end. 

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

The thread is about removing slave traders statues and I’ve told you where I’d like to see it end. 

 

Two days after Colston was toppled, thousands of people were protesting in Oxford, demanding to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes because of his racist views (he was born after slavery was abolished). Being involved in slavery isn't the only reason people want to remove statues.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52975687

 

 

3 hours ago, nkg said:

 

 

At its height, the slave trade was a huge part of the world's economy. If you had capital invested in stocks or funds, it is probable that some part of your investment would have benefitted in some way from the slave trade. There would have been far more "marginal players" than out-and-out slave traders.

 

The removal of Colston and Milligan's statues is no great loss, but where does it end? Why not expand the scope of statue removal to historical figures who had no connection to slavery, but held views that would be seen as bigoted today? It's a dangerous precedent to set.

 

Hyperbole is indeed dangerous.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hyperbole is indeed dangerous.

 

Nice of you to join in after giving all my previous posts your special "confused" emoticon. ????

 

How exactly was my statement hyperbolic? I gave an example illustrating my point, complete with a link to the BBC. No reply is necessary, one of your "confused" emoticons will be fine ????

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

Nice of you to join in after giving all my previous posts your special "confused" emoticon. ????

 

How exactly was my statement hyperbolic? I gave an example illustrating my point, complete with a link to the BBC. No reply is necessary, one of your "confused" emoticons will be fine ????

 

 

 

 

Actually you are correct, I owe you an apology.

 

You made two posts and I mistakenly responded to the second with my thoughts on the first.

 

Please accept my apology.

 

I’ll next address your posts in the right order, since they both deserve a response.

3 hours ago, nkg said:

 

 

At its height, the slave trade was a huge part of the world's economy. If you had capital invested in stocks or funds, it is probable that some part of your investment would have benefitted in some way from the slave trade. There would have been far more "marginal players" than out-and-out slave traders.

 

The removal of Colston and Milligan's statues is no great loss, but where does it end? Why not expand the scope of statue removal to historical figures who had no connection to slavery, but held views that would be seen as bigoted today? It's a dangerous precedent to set.

 

This is hyperbole.

37 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

Two days after Colston was toppled, thousands of people were protesting in Oxford, demanding to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes because of his racist views (he was born after slavery was abolished). Being involved in slavery isn't the only reason people want to remove statues.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52975687

 

 

What’s the problem with not wanting a statue of an imperialist and racist over a university college that welcomes students from all nations, all cultures and all races?

 

 

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s the problem with not wanting a statue of an imperialist and racist over a university college that welcomes students from all nations, all cultures and all races?

The rhodes scholarship

5 minutes ago, kingdong said:

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s the problem with not wanting a statue of an imperialist and racist over a university college that welcomes students from all nations, all cultures and all races?

The rhodes scholarship

You are obviously unaware that that too is being questioned.

Error deleted

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s the problem with not wanting a statue of an imperialist and racist over a university college that welcomes students from all nations, all cultures and all races?

 

 

 

Taken on its own, it's a perfectly valid point of view.

 

But I had been making the point that people might look beyond removing statues connected to the slave trade, and start removing statues of people who were regarded as bigots by modern-day standards.

 

I'm not sure how you can dismiss this suggestion as hyperbole - your next comment confirms that bigots should indeed have their statues removed ????

 

2 hours ago, nkg said:

 

Two days after Colston was toppled, thousands of people were protesting in Oxford, demanding to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes because of his racist views (he was born after slavery was abolished). Being involved in slavery isn't the only reason people want to remove statues.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52975687

 

 

I know and I have no problem with removing statues of racists who forced other nations into an empire they never wanted part of, but that is not what this thread is about...

31 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

Taken on its own, it's a perfectly valid point of view.

 

But I had been making the point that people might look beyond removing statues connected to the slave trade, and start removing statues of people who were regarded as bigots by modern-day standards.

 

I'm not sure how you can dismiss this suggestion as hyperbole - your next comment confirms that bigots should indeed have their statues removed ????

 

Rhodes was a little more than a ‘bigot’, he was an outright racist, who not only spread his racist views but acted on them and made them part of the public policies he promoted and enacted.

 

He’s by no means simply a ‘bigot’ by the standards of today.

 

I'd like to see the statue of that fake 'black' nurse toppled in London. Mary Seacole was never a nurse and ran a bar for officers in the Crimea. She would have been horrifiie

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rhodes was a little more than a ‘bigot’, he was an outright racist, who not only spread his racist views but acted on them and made them part of the public policies he promoted and enacted.

 

He’s by no means simply a ‘bigot’ by the standards of today.

 

So racist he set up an Oxford University Scholarship for any including blacks, a large percentage of Americans winning one are black, the first being in 1907.

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

13 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Not for much longer I hope.

 

Note that it's Wilfried Zaha and other Black players that are saying that taking the knee is degrading and well beyond it's use-by date.

 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/crystal-palace/story/4318940/black-lives-matter-uk-back-zaha-comments-on-taking-a-knee

 

I wonder what their reaction will be when spectators are allowed back in and the monkey chants when a black player has the ball start again!

 

Yes, I know it's only a mindless minority who make these chants; but it still happens.

 

Are you suggesting that Zaha and some of his peers aren't thinking this through?

 

Isn't it better to listen to how a black guy actually feels rather than listening to a white guy thinking about how a black guy feels?

28 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

I'd like to see the statue of that fake 'black' nurse toppled in London. Mary Seacole was never a nurse and ran a bar for officers in the Crimea. She would have been horrifiie

So racist he set up an Oxford University Scholarship for any including blacks, a large percentage of Americans winning one are black, the first being in 1907.

I suggest you take another look at the ‘Rhodes Scholarship’ its stated aims and the actual history of who receives and does not benefit from its largesse.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you take another look at the ‘Rhodes Scholarship’ its stated aims and the actual history of who receives and does not benefit from its largesse.

On your reply to my post who is questioning the rhodes scholarship? And perhaps you could elaborate on your post of 9 minutes ago,have you ever been to rhodesia,now zimbabwe?

57 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I know and I have no problem with removing statues of racists who forced other nations into an empire they never wanted part of, but that is not what this thread is about...

 

Exactly. This thread is all about hand-wringing.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are obviously unaware that that too is being questioned.

 

Is it the name that's questioned, or receiving the monies. Do past recipients line up to return funds, while current and future ones reject them?

 

My point is not that Rhodes was righteous or anything like that. Just that the public debate on these matters is not quite as straightforward, honest and bereft of political interests.

8 minutes ago, kingdong said:

...have you ever been to rhodesia,now zimbabwe?

 

Relevance?

9 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

Exactly. This thread is all about hand-wringing.

Nope

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s the problem with not wanting a statue of an imperialist and racist over a university college that welcomes students from all nations, all cultures and all races?

 

 

So same students will refuse to accept a Rhodes scholarship I guess?

Many of us were recipients of them, enabling further study and suppport

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I wonder what their reaction will be when spectators are allowed back in and the monkey chants when a black player has the ball start again!

 

Yes, I know it's only a mindless minority who make these chants; but it still happens.

Theres laws in place to tackle this type of behaviour and is up to the po!ice to enforce them.

9 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Relevance?

Wondered if he,d personally witnessed the state of the country since independence,freedoms a wonderfull concept to an armchair revoulutionary sitting in his des-res,unfortunat!y you can,t eat it.a scholarship is the on!y way out of poverty to millions of people.