#COVID19 | Page 773 | Vital Football

#COVID19

It is racism because you refuse to acknowledge legacy. Look at yours, look at Africa's...

You weren't a serf because of the colour of your skin, you don't continue to suffer as a consequence.

Play the poor white card all you want, I'm sure Lienking and Stret will be along to pat you on the back for it.

Explain.
 
Ok. I could certainly argue that is a touch racist from you, being as assumption that any black child I teach must be here as the descendent of a slave. That might be more likely in America but is far less likely here. An unfortunately generalisation by you.

I will go back and rephrase what I originally said.

They were not slaves.

Slavery has far more long reaching cultural effects in America than it ever will here. But I still believe in a certain statute of limitations. Human beings have always been absolutely shocking to each other, and still are. The African slave treade, i'm afraid, is a long way from the shittiest thing in human history and isn't even the worst of the last 300 years. There has to be a statute of limitations or we would be endlessly compensating each other for the horrific things our ancestors did in the past. The transatlantic slave trade was neither unique, nor new, nor even the most horrific event of the last few hundred years.

Your analogy is talking about poverty and I can promise you that a poor black child is no better or worse off (racism aside) than a poor white child. That poor black child is very unlikely to be the descendent of a slave in this country, but they may well be the victim of hampered social mobility. And that is what needs tackling.

As I said, I believe in limitations. On what basis would descendents have a right to claim compensation?

I suppose if you have every African American $1m dollars maybe that would see some levelling up. It wouldn't make any difference to a single slave though

Certainly agree with you on this one.
Before compensation you would probably have to draft up a family tree for everyone too. As you say there is no direct link between colour and slavery in the UK (or probably anywhere). Ainsley Harriott was in an episode of the BBC Who do you think you are? , when he discovered he is descended from a long line of white slave owners.
Go back 7 or 8 generations and you could have a hundred or two hundred ancestors. My sisters dna analysis says we are part native american , Does that mean I would get compensation too ?
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading properly once you implored me not to underestimate the value of giving a long term home to the descendents of slaves.

God damn ungrateful blacks. Give them a job, a nice holiday and a home and the fuckers want equality and reparations. The cheek!

The fact you've the nerve to draw parallels between the experience of your ancestors with slavery makes me nauseous. Especially given the circumstances YOU currently enjoy.

There's a reason why Lienking liked your post, but sure it's not right wing at all lol

Incidentally Germany paid reparations to Jews and continues to do so. Perhaps they should stop and ask for their money back? Sure you'd applaud them for it.

As for how much? We could start with an inflation adjusted 40 acres and a muel...

The germans did indeed pay financial reparations but you might be surprised to know it was an absolute pittance 400 marks and was many years later when many people had already died. Only the greeks never received anything as they did not agree the amount.

Only the children (now old themselves) are still alive who lived through british colonial rule. It still surprises me how many in africa i have spoken with recall that time fondly.
 
Yes, the profits go to the British but historians looking at this have argued that a lot of those profits were spent in India. That is far less harmful than money being taken out. If economic growth is happening and the profits being spent domestically it hardly matters who is spending them.

I'm not saying it wasn't exploitative, I'm just being accurate.

The main reason the empire was scaled back was cost. The british govt specifically prohibited expansion in south africa but naughty capitalisits conspired to bring about isandlwana where british soldiers were killed which drew in the state. Cecil rhodes went on and used similar tactics.

The tale of empire is certainly a complex one. Life expectancy and quality of life (as measured by access to food, health care etc) all increased. Doesnt make imperialism right but its not, ahem, black and white.
 
I personally wasnt talking about slavery in this debate though, I was talking specifically about colonialism. To an extent we are having two different debates.

It doesn't change things significantly; I still oppose restitution to the ancestors of slaves by the ancestors of non slaves. Because I don't think such restitution is meaningful when it is financial. Other restitution IMO is owed; not being routinely shot by police and being proper equal citizens would be a start

Equally I disagree with the concept of financial restitution for colonialism. I think that is a nonsense. Honestly, do you really believe in the concept that we could give a load of money (that we don't have) to African nations and call it even? Or just hold our heads high and say it's the right thing to do? What an utter nonsense. There is literally nothing that can be done to undo that past or to put it right for the true victims, so to attempt to do so is downright offensive.

It is also intensely myopic when we are complicit in exploitative industries NOW.

Anyone who properly studies British history with a critical eye doesn't need to go very far to find this nation committing great evils. As I said before, we did so on a grand scale against the French many times, and we did it simply because they were French. Does that matter less because it was based on nationality and not skin colour?

The debate is also how far the individual (you or me) has a right or an obligation to feel bad about the evils of empire or of our general past. Partly I suppose it depends on how wedded you feel to the nation and strongly affiliated you feel with it. Perhaps part of my feeling that the sins of the father's should not sit on the sons is because, at this time, I don't feel very wedded to or affiliated to Britain and I don't feel especially proud of being British. That is because of both our past and our present.

That's an interesting debate, but me and you cannot have that while you are flinging mud.

Agree with much of this. Resitution is best made paying a bit extra for stuff from manufacturers that demonstrate they are.not fucking anyone/anywhere/anything over. Food that is produced sustainably, clothes made by adults who get paid a fair wage etc etc

Actually very hard to do in practice for your average folk with average budgets.
 
One side point, say I cracked you over the head and take a hundred quid from your wallet. 50 I spend on myself, and with the other 50 I buy some LED light bulbs, break into your house and install them.

Have I stolen 50 or 100 quid from you?

Its a fair point well made. What happens when you've been using the same light bulb for 70 years and a new light bulb now costs 200 quid?
 
So just to summarise forum sentiment:

We can't pay for the sins of our fathers

We can however continue to benefit for them

We can also continue to let others suffer because of them.

Cool beans, I'll try to remember the mantra.
 
I think Pope nearly said it but the human being is imperfect and always has been. And he's not improving fast enough either.

Next Tuesday will be celebrated here as Australia Day by the majority of Australians. The Indigenous folk amongst us call it Invasion Day.
 
Record vaccines yesterday.
Pushing 6 million now.

The Mrs has stated we are starting to see supply issues, but fingers crossed we can keep the 2m/week rate for a few more weeks.
 
Record vaccines yesterday.
Pushing 6 million now.

The Mrs has stated we are starting to see supply issues, but fingers crossed we can keep the 2m/week rate for a few more weeks.

BMA is calling for second jabs to be carried out six weeks after the first. The first jabs here were carried out on the 8th Dec, so unless all the first people vaccinated have already had the second jab, we must be somewhere near getting real world data on whether one jab is giving reasonable protection.

Again it's disconcerting that vaccine supply seems to be lagging behind what the original delivery schedule was. Hopefully that won't delay the original plan.
 
Record vaccines yesterday.
Pushing 6 million now.

The Mrs has stated we are starting to see supply issues, but fingers crossed we can keep the 2m/week rate for a few more weeks.
Supply issues is one way of putting it.

Supplies of the Oxford vaccine to the EU has been cut by 60% because of problems at their Belgian production facility.

The article thankfully didn't suggest that impacted here.

There is a lot of confusion though. The Richard Herrod centre in Carlton is still insisting they are only doing over 80's despite healthcare workers and over 75s getting letters inviting them to book on
 
Supply issues is one way of putting it.

Supplies of the Oxford vaccine to the EU has been cut by 60% because of problems at their Belgian production facility.

The article thankfully didn't suggest that impacted here.

There is a lot of confusion though. The Richard Herrod centre in Carlton is still insisting they are only doing over 80's despite healthcare workers and over 75s getting letters inviting them to book on

They said on the East Midlands News yesterday that in Nottingham and Notts , vaccinations for 70 to 79 year olds were being paused , as we are behind on the over 80s, so we need to catch up. I guess the vaccine supply is the main issue. Hopefully supply will increase. Anyone with an appointment should still turn up unless they hear otherwise though.
 
So just to summarise forum sentiment:

We can't pay for the sins of our fathers

We can however continue to benefit for them

We can also continue to let others suffer because of them.

Cool beans, I'll try to remember the mantra.
Not remotely.

1) We might be able to compensate for the sins of our fathers, but not our great, great, great, great grandfather's and certainly not someone else's great, great, great grandfather. I am fairly confident Lincolnshire brick making ancestors did not profit one bit from the slave trade.

2) You can be as woke as you like but I defy you to convincingly link anything I do today to an advantage clearly gained by the slave trade. If we lived in Liverpool or Bristol you might have something. But our city was build on the blood of white adults and children, not black.

There is a big historical problem here as well that non historians fall into, which is judging by modern standards rather than contemporary. We look at slavery as comprehensively wrong, of course we do. That is a very new attitude. While slavery never had a legal status on English soil, the idea of slavery being wrong has been embedded for 150 years of mankind's 30,000 hear history.

The Romans thought nothing of a 9 or 10 year old girl being married off and forced to have sex. The Norman feudal system enforced the "right if the first night" whereby a feudal lord had the right to take the virginity of a serf bride before she was married. Henry VIII was very proud of his invention of boiling to death as a punishment. Victorians passionately defended the role of young children cleaning dangerous machinary in factories.

All anathema to us now, but because they are based on non- racial discrimination we don't look on them with the same disgust. Historians question that, as well as questioning the utility of assuming beliefs and attitudes we no longer agree with were evil. You gain no knowledge or understanding of the past by simplistically labeling the protagonists as "evil" and that includes people like Hitler.

3) No, that is not what anyone on the forum has said. I have said exactly the opposite several times.

You have not provided any model for how you would intend to end the suffering of descendents of slaves (and remember, this will be overwhelmingly from America since relatively few black Britons will descend from slaves) through restitution. You haven't even said what form such restitution should take, despite me asking you and saying that I might even agree with your answer
 
So just to summarise forum sentiment:

We can't pay for the sins of our fathers

We can however continue to benefit for them

We can also continue to let others suffer because of them.

Cool beans, I'll try to remember the mantra.
You forgot to add that all humans are shits, so we might as well be top dog. (best shit?)

It isn't really our fault if we conquered them fair and square. Very Churchillian.


You can also add that they were weak nations /tribes and jf we hadn't conquered them, someone else would have. That makes it 'somewhat regrettable' but 'generally ok', as well.
 
Not remotely.

1) We might be able to compensate for the sins of our fathers, but not our great, great, great, great grandfather's and certainly not someone else's great, great, great grandfather. I am fairly confident Lincolnshire brick making ancestors did not profit one bit from the slave trade.

2) You can be as woke as you like but I defy you to convincingly link anything I do today to an advantage clearly gained by the slave trade. If we lived in Liverpool or Bristol you might have something. But our city was build on the blood of white adults and children, not black.

There is a big historical problem here as well that non historians fall into, which is judging by modern standards rather than contemporary. We look at slavery as comprehensively wrong, of course we do. That is a very new attitude. While slavery never had a legal status on English soil, the idea of slavery being wrong has been embedded for 150 years of mankind's 30,000 hear history.

The Romans thought nothing of a 9 or 10 year old girl being married off and forced to have sex. The Norman feudal system enforced the "right if the first night" whereby a feudal lord had the right to take the virginity of a serf bride before she was married. Henry VIII was very proud of his invention of boiling to death as a punishment. Victorians passionately defended the role of young children cleaning dangerous machinary in factories.

All anathema to us now, but because they are based on non- racial discrimination we don't look on them with the same disgust. Historians question that, as well as questioning the utility of assuming beliefs and attitudes we no longer agree with were evil. You gain no knowledge or understanding of the past by simplistically labeling the protagonists as "evil" and that includes people like Hitler.

3) No, that is not what anyone on the forum has said. I have said exactly the opposite several times.

You have not provided any model for how you would intend to end the suffering of descendents of slaves (and remember, this will be overwhelmingly from America since relatively few black Britons will descend from slaves) through restitution. You haven't even said what form such restitution should take, despite me asking you and saying that I might even agree with your answer
How fine grained do you want to go. Was there no benefit to the rest of the UK from the wealth of Bristol, Liverpool and Londonl? There still is. One obvious example is that great buildings bring tourist dollars to the UK exchequer. Less obvious might be the might of UK banks.