Edward Colston Statue Replaced By Protest Figure

[Halibut 12]

31 minutes ago, despritdan said:

I suppose once all the statues have been toppled and thrown into the river, the next things on the BLM blacklist will be the portraits and paintings of any historical figures who had connections to the slave trade. Off they'll march, their clenched fists held high in the air, singing, "Onward BLM soldiers," to the art galleries and museums, pausing only to break the shop windows of any shopkeepers giving them disapproving looks and throw bottles and rocks at any police officers not taking the knee as they pass. Once there, they'll remove all the offending pictures and replace them with pictures of their poster boy, Saint George Floyd.

After that, these virtuous crusaders will invade all the libraries and bookshops to remove novels by well known racists like Enid Blyton, Mark Twain and of course Rudyard Kipling from the shelves. Shakespeare's plays will have to go on the bonfire because of the line from 'Othello': "If virtue no delighted beauty lack/Your son in law is far more fair than black." Apparently, Charles Dickens once wrote something that wasn't politically correct so it's out with his novels and they may discover that Jane Austen once had a friend who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone with connections with the slave trade.

Then it'll be on to the record shops and radio stations to purge them of any songs with titles or content deemed offensive to black people, so we'll no longer hear songs like 'Brown Sugar', 'Paint it Black' and 'Beast of Burden' (sounds like slavery to me) by the Stones, 'Black is Black', 'Black Night', 'Back to Black' and 'Sorrow' which includes the offensive line: "With your long blonde hair and your eyes of blue."

By then, the only thing left to purge will be all the white people because of their unconscious racism and offensive skin colour so it'll be into the river and out to sea for us. If you can't swim, now's the time to learn.

An entertainingly absurd piece of paranoid conjecture, somewhat akin to the ''brown people will breed the whites out of existence'' garbage to be found in many a gammony corner of the internets.

        It also neatly illustrates a sadly all too common misconception that's as old as racism itself - i.e. that black people are intent on taking over and subjugating white folks.

Simply in't true.

[Pettytom 1]

8 hours ago, Michael_W said:

The irony of all this Colston statue thread, which is riddled with the usual mutterings of the SF socialist committee, is that despite his enslaving of thousands of black people he has probably contributed far more to society in general than all them and more of them besides put together, what our resident socialists always fail to acknowledge is that without wealthy 'philanthropists', good or bad, both past and present, there is usually little offered either constructively or monetarily by your average socialist commentator, rather they are traditionally poised waiting for or wanting handouts from the wealthy .... ironic eh !

I can't wait to see if the likes of Lewis Hamilton, Anthony Joshua and Raheem Stirling etc start putting their money where their mouths are, because as the old saying goes 'talk is cheap'.

Indeed. 
 

Just like Jimmy Saville really. Look at all

of his philanthropic work. Stoke Mandeville Hospital gained enormously from his gifts and his charity work. Saville undoubtedly raised millions for good causes during his lifetime 

 

All of these good works mean that we should ignore the  fact that he was a rapist, a child abuser and a necrophiliac. Let’s get a statue up.

 

Oh... hang on .,.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Pettytom

[melthebell 862]

I didn't know Sheffield's iconic John Lewis store was named after a well known US civil rights activist

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53458829

 

lol 😈

 

[butlers 259]

Civil rights hero that fellow ,an inspiring life story.

 

[Michael_W 11]

On 18/07/2020 at 08:39, magwitch said:

A quick google search of Lewis, Anthony and Raheem giving to charity comes up with them all donating to different causes and being ambassadors in certain cases ( I can't recall them talking about it) and Marcus Rashford made a stand recently for kids of any colour.  I suppose I'm one of the socialist committee

I don't know you to be honest, I haven't noticed you on here until now, unless you have been on using a different username, (not saying you have mind) I know one on this thread who get's a bit touchy about it and posts seem to disappear when mentioned, that's another 'socialist committee' thing on here, it does attract the woke, 'playground snitch' types 

As for Joshua, Hamilton and Stirling, all three shouldn't have a problem giving to charity as they are very privileged, wealthy sportsmen, most of whom do the same regardless of and without mentioning skin colour, being charitable is an honourable thing but doing so publicly also raises their celebrity profile too.

I give to charity but you won't find that on any google search, despite me being white and privileged, now when those three and other wealthy black people who feel the need to kneel and raise there fists, start to set up, and generously fund meaningful initiatives, so as to genuinely improve the lives of black people, I might give them a bit of credit, but I don't just want to see and hear them speaking out and making demands on everyone else, they need to initiate and even fund from their own vast wealth, some improvement for black people, as role models they should feel that sort of obligation.

[the_bloke 17]

On 18/07/2020 at 16:05, Pettytom said:

Indeed. 
 

Just like Jimmy Saville really. Look at all

of his philanthropic work. Stoke Mandeville Hospital gained enormously from his gifts and his charity work. Saville undoubtedly raised millions for good causes during his lifetime 

 

All of these good works mean that we should ignore the  fact that he was a rapist, a child abuser and a necrophiliac. Let’s get a statue up.

 

Oh... hang on .,.

No, no one wants a statue of Jimmy Saville. What he did was wrong, both morally and legally.

 

But I'm not sure why he keeps getting brought up as a comparison to these historical figures; what they did at the time was perfectly legal, and in fact when their statues were erected often years after their death, they were still not deemed offensive as attitudes at the time were different today.

 

Are you offended by the statue of the Roman Emperor Trajan in London? Should it be removed?

[sheffbag 227]

On 17/07/2020 at 11:50, Halibut said:

I've no idea what you're talking about - my question was clearly aimed at casualbystander, didn't mention you at all, and was quite clearly a reasonable question based on casualbystanders comments.

If your comment was based on casualbystanders comment then why put it on my post? If its aimed at someone then quote their post not other peoples.

[tinfoilhat 11]

29 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

No, no one wants a statue of Jimmy Saville. What he did was wrong, both morally and legally.

 

But I'm not sure why he keeps getting brought up as a comparison to these historical figures; what they did at the time was perfectly legal, and in fact when their statues were erected often years after their death, they were still not deemed offensive as attitudes at the time were different today.

 

Are you offended by the statue of the Roman Emperor Trajan in London? Should it be removed?

The statue went up over a hundred years after his death! Just how much did he do for Bristol?

[the_bloke 17]

19 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The statue went up over a hundred years after his death! Just how much did he do for Bristol?

Wikipedia says by the time he died in 1721, he'd given over £70k to Bristol, which is something like £8m in today's money. Houses for the poor, hospitals, churches etc. 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

2 hours ago, Michael_W said:

I don't know you to be honest, I haven't noticed you on here until now, unless you have been on using a different username, (not saying you have mind) I know one on this thread who get's a bit touchy about it and posts seem to disappear when mentioned, that's another 'socialist committee' thing on here, it does attract the woke, 'playground snitch' types 

As for Joshua, Hamilton and Stirling, all three shouldn't have a problem giving to charity as they are very privileged, wealthy sportsmen, most of whom do the same regardless of and without mentioning skin colour, being charitable is an honourable thing but doing so publicly also raises their celebrity profile too.

I give to charity but you won't find that on any google search, despite me being white and privileged, now when those three and other wealthy black people who feel the need to kneel and raise there fists, start to set up, and generously fund meaningful initiatives, so as to genuinely improve the lives of black people, I might give them a bit of credit, but I don't just want to see and hear them speaking out and making demands on everyone else, they need to initiate and even fund from their own vast wealth, some improvement for black people, as role models they should feel that sort of obligation.

Don't you imagine that if they did that, some people would question why they don't help all other people as well?

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Wikipedia says by the time he died in 1721, he'd given over £70k to Bristol, which is something like £8m in today's money. Houses for the poor, hospitals, churches etc. 

Churches?  What about synagogues, mosques etc????

 

Aye Michael?

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, the_bloke said:

Wikipedia says by the time he died in 1721, he'd given over £70k to Bristol, which is something like £8m in today's money. Houses for the poor, hospitals, churches etc. 

Not Quaker establishments though. And not as much as He Who Can’t Be Named. And possibly not as much as other philanthropists in Bristol, I’m not sure (some of whom will be slave traders as well I have no doubt).

[Pettytom 1]

3 hours ago, the_bloke said:

No, no one wants a statue of Jimmy Saville. What he did was wrong, both morally and legally.

 

But I'm not sure why he keeps getting brought up as a comparison to these historical figures; what they did at the time was perfectly legal, and in fact when their statues were erected often years after their death, they were still not deemed offensive as attitudes at the time were different today.

 

 

Numerous statues, memorials and inscriptions about Saville have been removed, in many different cities.  All because public opinion made it necessary.

 

Times change, new information comes to light, people’s attitudes change.