I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
That the celebration of rebellion in defence of slavery is a part of the culture of our beautiful country that should not be ripped up ?
Non sequitur of the week.
What else is a statue of Lee ?
Like many symbols, it means different things to different people. In the same way that the national flag in which I take pride is hated by a substantial minority of the population in Northern Ireland. To a black American, Lee is a racist oppressor; to a white Southern American, he's a gallant soldier.
I certainly don't think that fighting for the Confederacy was any more reprehensible than participating in the wars of imperial aggression which the US government launched at various points of the 19th century.
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
And of course we have statues of Cromwell and Charles I in pretty close proximity to one another. But I am very much supportive of your opening sentence. There are many situations where I put my foot in it through misunderstanding historical context, and it is very important. Not helped I suppose by how much mythologising over their history they do in the USA (I suppose we do too, but its longer so more spread out).
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
That the celebration of rebellion in defence of slavery is a part of the culture of our beautiful country that should not be ripped up ?
Non sequitur of the week.
What else is a statue of Lee ?
Lee didn't rebel in defence of slavery. He opposed rebellion until it had already happened.
Had Lee not lead the rebel armies, he would be unknown today.
He'd be less famous but still famous amongst military or history buffs etc. He was already famous before the onset of the Civil War. In fact he was so well regarded that he was offered leadership roles by the original 7 state CSA (which didn't include Virginia) and the Union. He rejected joining the CSA until his native Virginia was at war.
It is also worth remembering too that at this stage the Union was explicitly not fighting to abolish slavery. While we rightly view slavery as the major issue behind the Civil War Abraham Lincoln was against federal abolitionism at first. That only came over a year into the war by which point it was justified as a military tactic rather than a civil rights one.
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
That the celebration of rebellion in defence of slavery is a part of the culture of our beautiful country that should not be ripped up ?
Non sequitur of the week.
What else is a statue of Lee ?
Lee didn't rebel in defence of slavery. He opposed rebellion until it had already happened.
Had Lee not lead the rebel armies, he would be unknown today.
It is also worth remembering too that at this stage the Union was explicitly not fighting to abolish slavery. While we rightly view slavery as the major issue behind the Civil War Abraham Lincoln was against federal abolitionism at first. That only came over a year into the war by which point it was justified as a military tactic rather than a civil rights one.
I recall an amusing instance in an episode of the Simpsons (revealed in the DVD commentary to be a true story) when Apu was trying to become an american citizen and was asked about the causes of the civil war, and started laying out how there were many factors both political and economic, to be interrupted and told just to say slavery.
That the celebration of rebellion in defence of slavery is a part of the culture of our beautiful country that should not be ripped up ?
Non sequitur of the week.
What else is a statue of Lee ?
Lee didn't rebel in defence of slavery. He opposed rebellion until it had already happened.
Had Lee not lead the rebel armies, he would be unknown today.
He'd be less famous but still famous amongst military or history buffs etc. He was already famous before the onset of the Civil War. In fact he was so well regarded that he was offered leadership roles by the original 7 state CSA (which didn't include Virginia) and the Union. He rejected joining the CSA until his native Virginia was at war.
It is also worth remembering too that at this stage the Union was explicitly not fighting to abolish slavery. While we rightly view slavery as the major issue behind the Civil War Abraham Lincoln was against federal abolitionism at first. That only came over a year into the war by which point it was justified as a military tactic rather than a civil rights one.
The rebellion was explicitly in defence of slavery - and not just its retention, but for the right to expand the institution into more states. That is not hindsight - it is what the rebel states said at the time.
And yes - he'd be about as famous as Cecil Rhodes, without the scholarships.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
The answer is not Tony Blair.
churchill
iran
Congratulations.
If he has statue in Westminster, then so should Blair.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
The answer is not Tony Blair.
churchill
iran
Congratulations.
If he has statue in Westminster, then so should Blair.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
I could argue that Attlee has more blood on his hand than Tony Blair.
Partition was a bigger disaster than invading Iraq.
So we had an Old Oxonian and a member of the Royal Family in charge, unsurprising disaster unfolded.
Absolutely. It is extraordinary that the Attlee government is not universally condemned for that horrendous disaster. They just abandoned India to its fate with no time for any preparation to be made. It was probably worse than Iraq, with the big difference that in Iraq Blair was a minor player, whereas Attlee's government bears the full responsibility for 1947.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
I daresay you do struggle. Aside from that, your point is?
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
I daresay you do struggle. Aside from that, your point is?
I don't really know what to think about these statues. I need to be furnished with a rational, sane and dispassionate opinion on them free of hysteria.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
I'm well aware of that. I'm not seeing how that's an argument for preserving statues of pro-slavery insurgents.
I don't really know what to think about these statues. I need to be furnished with a rational, sane and dispassionate opinion on them free of hysteria.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
I'm well aware of that. I'm not seeing how that's an argument for preserving statues of pro-slavery insurgents.
You tell them that they are pro-slavery insurgents.
Then you educate them about the people who defeated them, and about reconstruction.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
I daresay you do struggle. Aside from that, your point is?
made for me
thanks
All you've proven is that *you* find it a struggle to have a sane debate.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
I daresay you do struggle. Aside from that, your point is?
made for me
thanks
All you've proven is that *you* find it a struggle to have a sane debate.
Georgia: “….The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers….”
Mississippi: “..It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists…”
South Carolina: “The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue….”
Texas: “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States…”
Virginia: “The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States...”
The goid news is that it is very hard to build up speed approaching and driving up the Ramblas. Hopefully, that will keep the casualties down.
From reports I've seen, it appears that he mounted the pavement (in the middle of the road) from the Placa de Catalonia, and got half way down before he was stopped, ending up outside No.80 still in the middle, pedestrianised section. Google Maps reckons that's about 600 metres.
Reports now of at least two dead, I have a horrible feeling that number will rise.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
I'm well aware of that. I'm not seeing how that's an argument for preserving statues of pro-slavery insurgents.
You tell them that they are pro-slavery insurgents.
Then you educate them about the people who defeated them, and about reconstruction.
You can educate people about all those topics if they are willing to listen: the problem is that the people who most need the message, the people who treat the statues as symbols, will not be the ones who listen (or if they do, will take the wrong lessons).
The goid news is that it is very hard to build up speed approaching and driving up the Ramblas. Hopefully, that will keep the casualties down.
From reports I've seen, it appears that he mounted the pavement (in the middle of the road) from the Placa de Catalonia, and got half way down before he was stopped, ending up outside No.80 still in the middle, pedestrianised section. Google Maps reckons that's about 600 metres.
Reports now of at least two dead, I have a horrible feeling that number will rise.
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
I'm surprised to see LDs are not second in more of these - I knew their vote in Scotland was clustered, and they were jolly unlucky not to get Fife, and that traditional places of support in a few areas switched in a big way to SCON this time, but still a surprise. I didn't realise how much SLAB recovered in Glasgow either.
The massive LD to SCon switching was the story of the election in Scotland not the tiny SNP to SCon switch.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts....
In the case of the Confederate statues, is this really a consideration ? The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
Whilst the civil war might have ended in 1865, segregation and Jim Crow continued until quite recently in law.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
I'm well aware of that. I'm not seeing how that's an argument for preserving statues of pro-slavery insurgents.
You tell them that they are pro-slavery insurgents.
Then you educate them about the people who defeated them, and about reconstruction.
To which the response might be (and is, judging by the way local councils are voting) - why on earth are there (at least) an order of magnitude more statues of pro-slavery insurgents on the southern streets of a modern democracy than any other ones ?
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
Ironically, it is possible to argue that Lee did more than most to end slavery. His superb command led a hitherto reluctant North to declare total war, emancipate the slaves and utterly destroy the Southern economic system.
It is also possible to argue without the utterly inadequate system of FPTP and the Electoral College, it may not have come to that!
I don't really know what to think about these statues. I need to be furnished with a rational, sane and dispassionate opinion on them free of hysteria.
What does James Chapman say?
Looks like he's taken the day off - nothing for 16 hours. Hope he enjoys his break.
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
'Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park. Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said.'
NB McIntire commissioned 4 sculptures from the same bloke: one of Stonewall Jackson and one of George Rogers Clark (revolutionary war hero) which is criticized for showing Native Americans abasing themselves before the White Man. The fourth was of Lewis and Clark gazing at the Pacific. Not enough information on wikipedia to make a definitive judgment but it seems quite plausible that these were just chosen as stock run of the mill historical figures. Certainly he sculpts a very impressive horse, and it is a shame the 3 equestrian statues can't be redesignated as Napoleon retreating from Moscow or something.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
The parallel closer to home is Orange Order marches. A venerable cultural tradition in some contexts, but when following "traditional parade routes" that are intimidating to Catholic communities, more problematic. Many of these confrontations are deliberately constructed to demonstrate hegemony over minority communities, and rub their faces in continuing grievances.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
'Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park. Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said.'
Fair enough - I can, occasionally, be wrong. Washington will almost certainly remain, though I suppose it's just possible that the statue might be moved. Jackson wasn't a founding father, was a seriously unpleasant piece of work, and I wouldn't lose any tears over his memorials - though I'd not advocate for their removal.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents nfrom India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
The parallel closer to home is Orange Order marches. A venerable cultural tradition in some contexts, but when following "traditional parade routes" that are intimidating to Catholic communities, more problematic. Many of these confrontations are deliberately constructed to demonstrate hegemony over minority communities, and rub their faces in continuing grievances.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
of course it is
and have we done anything about it ? No.
so why do we think we have the right to tell other people to adapt their behaviour ?
The parallel closer to home is Orange Order marches. A venerable cultural tradition in some contexts, but when following "traditional parade routes" that are intimidating to Catholic communities, more problematic. Many of these confrontations are deliberately constructed to demonstrate hegemony over minority communities, and rub their faces in continuing grievances.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
The problem is it not the whole town that doesn't want it, otherwise it would never have blown up the way it has.
Ironically, it is possible to argue that Lee did more than most to end slavery. His superb command led a hitherto reluctant North to declare total war, emancipate the slaves and utterly destroy the Southern economic system.
It is also possible to argue without the utterly inadequate system of FPTP and the Electoral College, it may not have come to that!
The 1863 Emancipification proclomation has an interesting quirk. It Emancipates slaves only in Confederate controlled areas. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and occupied parts of the Confederacy such as New Orleons were not freed until after the war ended in 1865. Presumably this was so as to get the bill through the legislature.
I did a lot of Civil War history at High School in Atlanta in the Seventies.
The parallel closer to home is Orange Order marches. A venerable cultural tradition in some contexts, but when following "traditional parade routes" that are intimidating to Catholic communities, more problematic. Many of these confrontations are deliberately constructed to demonstrate hegemony over minority communities, and rub their faces in continuing grievances.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
The problem is it not the whole town that doesn't want it, otherwise it would never have blown up the way it has.
It was a national gathering of Nazis from across america.
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
'Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park. Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said.'
Fair enough - I can, occasionally, be wrong. Washington will almost certainly remain, though I suppose it's just possible that the statue might be moved. Jackson wasn't a founding father, was a seriously unpleasant piece of work, and I wouldn't lose any tears over his memorials - though I'd not advocate for their removal.
Andrew Jackson's role in the genocide of "the five civilised tribes" by expelling them on the Trail of Tears to what is now Oklahoma is pretty damning.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
Charlotteville voted 79% Democrat in 2016. It was by democratic decision of the council to remove the statue. It would be in order for a different administration to alter the policy, but should be accepted as it stands.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
My point is, history does not change by the removal of a statue. Trump is wrong on this as he is on so many things and I am surprised that you agree with him on this point.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
It defines the boundaries of what is acceptable history or not. And when you do that you end up shutting down debate and discussion.
Plenty of human history doesn't measure up to today's standards. But, it's shaped who we are today, and it's important it's in the public eye, debated and not forgotten.
That's plainly not so.
Do we need statues of Hitler to ensure is legacy is understood?
To my knowledge there are no statues of William the Conqueror in this country but his impact on our country is still taught, studied and debated.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
That doesn't mean the local town wants the statue, even if Americans as a whole are supportive of the statues. We know that university towns vote differently from their hinterlands.
I must admit I'm surprised the margin in favour of keeping the statues is so great.
@Nigelb - I'm just waiting for demands from certain quarters for statues of the founding fathers to be destroyed, their faces removed from coins etc, because they were slaveholders.
'Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park. Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said.'
Fair enough - I can, occasionally, be wrong. Washington will almost certainly remain, though I suppose it's just possible that the statue might be moved. Jackson wasn't a founding father, was a seriously unpleasant piece of work, and I wouldn't lose any tears over his memorials - though I'd not advocate for their removal.
Andrew Jackson's role in the genocide of "the five civilised tribes" by expelling them on the Trail of Tears to what is now Oklahoma is pretty damning.
Public broadcaster TVE has reported in the last few minutes that a car hit a police officer after failing to stop at a checkpoint on la Diagonal street, close to Las Ramblas.
Sources told TVE that the occupants of a white Ford Focus got out and fired at police before fleeing the scene
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
Understanding history is all about context, pretending it didn't happen is almost as bad as misrepresenting the facts.
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
The problem is not the history; in fact, the history is probably irrelevant. It is what the statue represents now that's the problem.
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
given we cant have a sane debate on a far away country I struggle to see how one closer to home will be more rational
The parallel closer to home is Orange Order marches. A venerable cultural tradition in some contexts, but when following "traditional parade routes" that are intimidating to Catholic communities, more problematic. Many of these confrontations are deliberately constructed to demonstrate hegemony over minority communities, and rub their faces in continuing grievances.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
The non-Scots Irish too. John Mitchel, the Irish Nationalist leader, was a fervent propagandist for slavery in the 1850's, and two of his sons died fighting for the Confederacy. He viewed the cause of Confederate as being similar to the cause of Irish freedom.
I blame the University of Oxford for all this nonsense and their acquiescence to the Rhodes must fall nonsense.
How does removing a statue change history TSE?
It defines the boundaries of what is acceptable history or not. And when you do that you end up shutting down debate and discussion.
Plenty of human history doesn't measure up to today's standards. But, it's shaped who we are today, and it's important it's in the public eye, debated and not forgotten.
That's plainly not so.
Do we need statues of Hitler to ensure is legacy is understood?
To my knowledge there are no statues of William the Conqueror in this country but his impact on our country is still taught, studied and debated.
I am not sure if that's meant to be a pastiche on Owen Jones's article but if it is it seems pretty silly to me.
Jones's article presents a Corbynista view of centrism. I happen to disagree with it but in itself it is fairly reasonably argued. I am sure the rightwing tories would argue even more fiercly (and probably no more coherently) against a centrist party, albeit from the other side of the spectrum.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it
Are we sure the town doesn't want it, though? If you're still polling 62% - 27% in favour of keeping the statues (66% -23% in the South, and 44%-40% even among African Americans), then perhaps the town doesn't mind the statue any more than the majority of Oxford minds the statue of Rhodes.
Charlottesville voted 79% Democrat in 2016. It was by democratic decision of the council to remove the statue. It would be in order for a different administration to alter the policy, but should be accepted as it stands.
Big step back from 'the town doesn't want it' to 'the council doesn't want it'. Unfortunately, it wasn't a manifesto commitment and the city council basically ignored the results of their own public consultation. Said consultation offered the public two options: leave the statue in place, or move it to an unspecified location in Mcintire Park. Three public meetings found broadly equal support for both propositions. Subsequently, by a vote of 3-2, the council decided to remove the statue completely from Charlottesville instead.
Ironically, it is possible to argue that Lee did more than most to end slavery. His superb command led a hitherto reluctant North to declare total war, emancipate the slaves and utterly destroy the Southern economic system.
It is also possible to argue without the utterly inadequate system of FPTP and the Electoral College, it may not have come to that!
The 1863 Emancipification proclomation has an interesting quirk. It Emancipates slaves only in Confederate controlled areas. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and occupied parts of the Confederacy such as New Orleons were not freed until after the war ended in 1865. Presumably this was so as to get the bill through the legislature.
I did a lot of Civil War history at High School in Atlanta in the Seventies.
No no no. It was justified as a war measure by Lincoln so it could only apply to the states in rebellion. As President he did not consider he had the power to impose emancipation to loyal states.
Ironically, it is possible to argue that Lee did more than most to end slavery. His superb command led a hitherto reluctant North to declare total war, emancipate the slaves and utterly destroy the Southern economic system.
It is also possible to argue without the utterly inadequate system of FPTP and the Electoral College, it may not have come to that!
The 1863 Emancipification proclomation has an interesting quirk. It Emancipates slaves only in Confederate controlled areas. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and occupied parts of the Confederacy such as New Orleons were not freed until after the war ended in 1865. Presumably this was so as to get the bill through the legislature.
I did a lot of Civil War history at High School in Atlanta in the Seventies.
No no no. It was justified as a war measure by Lincoln so it could only apply to the states in rebellion. As President he did not consider he had the power to impose emancipation to loyal states.
Public broadcaster TVE has reported in the last few minutes that a car hit a police officer after failing to stop at a checkpoint on la Diagonal street, close to Las Ramblas.
Sources told TVE that the occupants of a white Ford Focus got out and fired at police before fleeing the scene
Avienda Diagonal is at least a couple of kilometres from Las Ramblas at its closest point - it's a major thoroughfare that cuts right through the city.
May be unrelated to the earlier incident of course, but worrying if several people and vehicles involved.
Edit: Google Traffic shows the checkpoint clearly, its on the way out of the city past Barcelona FC about 8km from the earlier incident.
Comments
Now I'm not keen on the statues of confederate heroes that went up in the Jim Crow era, but my solution is if you want to keep confederate statues then there should be a corresponding one of a union hero in the same place, with a nice plaque saying 'Ulysses S Grant a loyal patriot who wanted to abolish slavery and kicked Robert E Lee's arse.'
Or 'Nearly 400,000 white men died to abolish slavery, here's the man who commanded them.'
I mean in Parliament there's a statue of a man who committed many sins, such as he wanted to use chemical weapons in the first world war, said man also was opposed to giving democracy to India, who called Gandhi 'a half naked fakir.'
But we put up a statute of him because we looked at the wider picture and history because without him Nazism would have succeeded.
I certainly don't think that fighting for the Confederacy was any more reprehensible than participating in the wars of imperial aggression which the US government launched at various points of the 19th century.
Which UK Prime Minister in conjunction with a mass murderer invaded a middle eastern country, toppled their leader, because the UK PM wanted to secure that country's oil for the UK?
The answer is not Tony Blair.
The civil war is perhaps the most discussed and written about part of US history, and will likely continue to be so for at least the next century.
It is also worth remembering too that at this stage the Union was explicitly not fighting to abolish slavery. While we rightly view slavery as the major issue behind the Civil War Abraham Lincoln was against federal abolitionism at first. That only came over a year into the war by which point it was justified as a military tactic rather than a civil rights one.
iran
And yes - he'd be about as famous as Cecil Rhodes, without the scholarships.
Remember not so long ago we had Southern politicians arguing that segregation was necessary because otherwise the negro would rape white women.
Indeed Dylan Roof's defence for murdering so many African Americans was they 'rape our women'
In this case, statues of Confederate heroes have become a symbol of racism and hatred in the present day. The statues were often erected for the express purpose of being symbols, and even if they were not, many have become symbols of, and a focus for, racism and hatred.
We can look at a statue of Churchill and have a relatively sane debate from all sides on the good and bad he did. If people started congregating around the statue and saying that we should remove democracy from India, use chemical weapons and subjugate all Indians - or as a focus for general hatred - then we might want to wonder if it's the wrong symbol to display in public.
If he has statue in Westminster, then so should Blair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30255084
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/human-trafficking-modern-slavery-uk-town-city-police-nca-vulnerable-children-europe-a7885826.html
I su[ppose you have to dress up in a bedsheet before anyone gives a toss
Partition was a bigger disaster than invading Iraq.
So we had an Old Oxonian and a member of the Royal Family in charge, unsurprising disaster unfolded.
thanks
I'm in my element.
What does James Chapman say?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/898224935449001984
Then you educate them about the people who defeated them, and about reconstruction.
Now, care to address the point I made?
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Georgia:
“….The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers….”
Mississippi:
“..It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists…”
contd..
South Carolina:
“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue….”
Texas:
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States…”
Virginia:
“The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States...”
Reports now of at least two dead, I have a horrible feeling that number will rise.
Edit: 13 dead reported now
The problem's symbolism, not history.
It is also possible to argue without the utterly inadequate system of FPTP and the Electoral College, it may not have come to that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
You know there are 18 African-American Medal Of Honor recipients from the Civil War? All honest to God American heroes.
Many fled slavery, enlisted and went back to fight knowing full well what happened to anyone who was black & a Union POW.
That there are 100s of statues commemorating traitorous racists compared to a handful for these incredible figures is a fucking travesty.
https://twitter.com/FinnTD/status/898230110888890368
'Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery
August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park. Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said.'
On the face of it a philanthropist who wanted to give some work to the sculptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ingersoll_Aitken
NB McIntire commissioned 4 sculptures from the same bloke: one of Stonewall Jackson and one of George Rogers Clark (revolutionary war hero) which is criticized for showing Native Americans abasing themselves before the White Man. The fourth was of Lewis and Clark gazing at the Pacific. Not enough information on wikipedia to make a definitive judgment but it seems quite plausible that these were just chosen as stock run of the mill historical figures. Certainly he sculpts a very impressive horse, and it is a shame the 3 equestrian statues can't be redesignated as Napoleon retreating from Moscow or something.
The statues weren't put up for historical reasons, and aren't being 'protected' by the Nazis for historical reasons.
Think of a Confederate statue, in a town that doesn't want it, in the same context as disputed marches and you may understand the passions. Indeed the Scots and Scots-Irish have a heritage in the Confederacy and KKK for similar Orangist reasons.
Washington will almost certainly remain, though I suppose it's just possible that the statue might be moved.
Jackson wasn't a founding father, was a seriously unpleasant piece of work, and I wouldn't lose any tears over his memorials - though I'd not advocate for their removal.
and have we done anything about it ? No.
so why do we think we have the right to tell other people to adapt their behaviour ?
I did a lot of Civil War history at High School in Atlanta in the Seventies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marist_Poll
That's plainly not so.
Do we need statues of Hitler to ensure is legacy is understood?
To my knowledge there are no statues of William the Conqueror in this country but his impact on our country is still taught, studied and debated.
I must admit I'm surprised the margin in favour of keeping the statues is so great.
Sources told TVE that the occupants of a white Ford Focus got out and fired at police before fleeing the scene
Jones's article presents a Corbynista view of centrism. I happen to disagree with it but in itself it is fairly reasonably argued. I am sure the rightwing tories would argue even more fiercly (and probably no more coherently) against a centrist party, albeit from the other side of the spectrum.
(Returns to passive mode)
May be unrelated to the earlier incident of course, but worrying if several people and vehicles involved.
Edit: Google Traffic shows the checkpoint clearly, its on the way out of the city past Barcelona FC about 8km from the earlier incident.