That statue in England that ended up in the bay?

That was a bad statue, man, a bad statue.

It was acting badly, say witnesses.

 

Statues don't tip themselves and fall into the water. This epic tale needs to be fleshed out a bit.

 

The protestors investigated themselves and found no wrong doing.

 

Statue was probably out drinking and was not able to stand correctly.
He resisted with a breathalyzer test. He wasn't shot in the back like a black man can get it twice.
The protesters showed far more restraint than that.

 

I personally find it very humorous that a statue which no one knew about, was a catalyst for red-pilling the entire nation. Who knew?

 

There are certainly left-wing history revisionists who, like many (including right wingers), make the stupid mistake of evaluating people in history with today's perspectives, values and morals. Unfortunately, in my country we also have this plague ...

But if a person has done evil according to the comon views and values of his time, then a corresponding criticism is justified, also a removal of the statue etc. ... but always the degree of guilt must be considered, because hardly any person history has a white vest like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King etc.

As far as I know it was a statue of a proven slave trader and in his day slavery in the UK was already ... um ... rather evil.

 

He is known in Bristol. There are plenty of roads, multiple schools, pubs, buildings all named after him. It's similar that it's widely known in the UK that Churchill was a known utter racist. Millions of people died under his watch due to starvation, because Churchill refused that his own subjects in need were allowed to get help. They know it there,... but depending on political views and ethic background... opinions very widely there between "yeah true" to being punched in the face multiple times for mentioning how Britannia ruled them waves like that.

Than again... nothing new about tearing down monuments. Happened a lot in the US lately. Grinds the gears a lot in the EU how on earth the US has all them pro slavery monuments to worship the defeated people who gave their lives for utterly despicable norms and values.

 

Literally everyone born prior to WW2 was a racist by today's standards. Which is a terrible way of viewing and analysing history. It's disingenuous.

 

In itself, I agree with you, because if you look at it correctly, then you also have to take the ethics, points of view and values of his time as a yardstick for the assessment and not today's ones. And everyone knows that he lived in the heyday of the British Empire and the superiority of the white race (here especially the British in their colonies) was a normal view.

On the other hand, it also shows that the supposedly so glorious period of the Empire was actually not so glorious for all those who were not British in the Empire! Only such a discussion is completely missing in the UK or is even rejected ... you'd rather keep the myth of the good old days than deal with the dark side!

 

Not at all, most Brits are aware of the past. It is the same with every Empire throughout history, choosing to solely look at the British Empire in a negative light is as I said, disingenuous. The Empires of the Ottomans, the Romans, the Moors, the Mongols, I could go on forever are largely forgotten. The idea that Brits view the Empire as the good old days is mind-numbingly thick. It's like saying, Germans view the NAZI regime as the good old days. Which is pure BS.

 

My experience in dealing with British ... and I have a lot in dealing with British ... is different. They like to tell the times of the Empire and simply exclude the negative thing or deny them!
For example, the concentration camp itself ... BUT WITHOUT GAS CHAMBER ETC. ... is a British invention from the Boer War in South Africa ... also with the same terrible crimes as targeted starvation of the inmates etc. as later with the Nazis.
How many Britons accept this proven historical fact as it is ... or deny it, or try to justify it with pseudo-reasoning?

Anyway ...
We Germans also have people who want to see good things even during the Nazi era. Be it the highways that Hitler invented and built ... which is a lie, because they were planned and started beforehand and he took it over, etc. ... or it was the alleged reduction in unemployment at that time ... what Thanks to the expulsion of unwanted Jews, Communists, Social Democrats from the jobs and an armament started on credit.
And then there are also people from the Afd party who describe the Nazi era only as an insignificant pile of **** from a fly in all of German history ... and who call the Holoaust memorial in front of the Reichstag in Berlin as a shame. Of course came here later a statement that this person means the crime a shame ... as well that he never told this with the pile of **** of fly (bad, that this was taped when the intervew was done).

 

Not much of a difference between refusing to aid people who die from a famine.... by the millions.
And deliberately kill millions in a gas chamber.

Back in the day, people were rather unkindly to racist who lost the war.
They made an exception for those who won the war. Kind of it.

 

Yes, but why was food diverted from Bengal? Systematically moving people across the continent to their death is very different from taking resources from one place and giving it to the better cause.

Do you think the wrong side won the war?

 

I'm sorry but you're saying concentration camps (slave labour camps), were invented by the British in the early 20th century? I'm not convinced that is true.

The second paragraph, I actually agree with.

 

Systematically moving people across the continent to their certain death of millions, is not any different than taking resources from one place and giving it to others when it also leads to certain death of millions. And "the better cause" is obviously that white lives matters more than those brown people in your logic. Your argument contains that utterly racist element. While you also casually leave out in your argument that "moving resources" means death by famine by the millions... in order to falsely claim there is a difference... while there is none.

 

I think it was a case of fighting the NAZI's but re-write history however you want my friend. Not only white people fought Hitler, did you not hear?

 

This statue wasn't of the guy who wrote "Amazing Grace" was it? He was a slaver, (I'm not sure if he was a "slave dancer" and that's where his musical talent first manifested, though that's a bodacious story) Mind he was a slaver while he wrote that song and remained one still for several years thereafter.

 

Thank you for mentioning the Boer war, is why I changed my AV. 16th of June was the day Lord Roberts & Kitchener announced the start of the "death camps" or "concentration camps" 106 of them where more than 34 000 Boer women & children were starved to death during the Anglo Boer war.

 

well, he was a notorious slave trader, so......

 

OK ... here some sources about this concentration camps ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

https://theconversation.com/concent...th-african-war-here-are-the-real-facts-112006

If you use google and search term ... you find many more sources

 

I'm not denying their use, your claim was that we invented them. Which is rubbish.

 

Clearly, internment has been a weapon of war forever.
If you want to define a concentration camp as rounding up civilians and deliberately starving them to death and letting them die of disease there are plenty of examples before the Boer War.
Indigenous Americans, for example, were force-marched and held in camps where they died in large numbers during the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Indigenous_people

 

And I'm sure it happened long before that as well. We are literally all guilty of something, somewhere if you look back far enough. I have seen a growing number of people saying the wrong side won the war and the British were the real enemy. Which is obviously ludicrous.

 

There are some who were not. Dr David Livingstone ("Dr Livingstone I presume") and Dr Albert Schweitzer come immediately to mind.

A lot of the 19th century British Explorers had at least a sympathetic view of the colonials, at least the ones who were famous for "going native". The best known of these was Richard Burton, co-discoverer of the Source of the Nile who had blackened his face to pass as Muslim and make the Hajj, and T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia". In China, there was a whole grouping known as the "Old China Hands", though they were mainly historians/sociologists, and American often as not.

Concentration camps were indeed invented by the British, whom the Germans copied. Caesar was known to besiege and starve thousands of Gauls at the Siege of Alesia (He starved the women and children first)

 

These statues need to have us build them museums so they can stay out of trouble. They're not bad, they're just in a difficult environment. Statues are known to exist in museums for years right next to many other valuable and sensitive displays and many report they don't seem to move at all