What should replace the Colston statue in Bristol? | Page 10 | Vital Football

What should replace the Colston statue in Bristol?

What do we do with Mount Rushmore? Or the pubs in Medway named after slave-loving Kings and Queens?

Like I say, it’s a slippery slope tearing down everything once you read a controversial Wikipedia paragraph about them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m progressive and left, but there’s that nasty streak of the Leftwaffe who will think this viewpoint is morally wrong and I’m standing up for slave traders. I’m not.

But at the same time I’m not hypocritical enough to call for such extreme action in the name of denouncing slavery, by using a post written on my Apple iPhone, and looking forward to the next World Cup.
 
Last edited:
It's this kind of thing where the Left eats itself up with its own political correctness bullshit.

(IMO) the statue coming down in Bristol was fantastic piece of direct action social history taking place. It was a particular statue that had been controversial for several years and it came down at a particular moment in a global movement that had been sparked by a single (yet repeat) act of police brutality against a black person. It was the right statue at the right time. It was symbolic and it was a powerful moment.

And it is good that it has sparked some debate but the sudden call for loads of statues and buildings to be torn down is just a result of bullshit political correctness. The Colston statue wasn't pulled down because of political correctness, it came down because of collective emotion. There is a big fucking difference. Pulling things down simply because it's the pc thing to do is a huge mistake.

As I said above, Colston was remembered because he did good things with the immoral money that he made. It wasn't right though, that that statue should still stand in Bristol in the 21st Century. And as much as it was great seeing it come down the way it did, it really would have been so much better all round had the council just removed it several years ago.
 
Buddha said:
It's this kind of thing where the Left eats itself up with its own political correctness bullshit.

(IMO) the statue coming down in Bristol was fantastic piece of direct action social history taking place. It was a particular statue that had been controversial for several years and it came down at a particular moment in a global movement that had been sparked by a single (yet repeat) act of police brutality against a black person. It was the right statue at the right time. It was symbolic and it was a powerful moment.

And it is good that it has sparked some debate but the sudden call for loads of statues and buildings to be torn down is just a result of bullshit political correctness. The Colston statue wasn't pulled down because of political correctness, it came down because of collective emotion. There is a big fucking difference. Pulling things down simply because it's the pc thing to do is a huge mistake.

As I said above, Colston was remembered because he did good things with the immoral money that he made. It wasn't right though, that that statue should still stand in Bristol in the 21st Century. And as much as it was great seeing it come down the way it did, it really would have been so much better all round had the council just removed it several years ago.
Click to expand...

Do you think the revolution you'd like , is really happening ?

Edit

What is your definition of the Left's 'politically correct' bullshit ?
Can you provide an example of what you mean ?
 
valenciagill said:
What is your definition of the Left's 'politically correct' bullshit ?
Can you provide an example of what you mean ?
Click to expand...

I've met trots and liberals who are so wrapped up in their own political correctness that they could meet a black person and then afterwards claim that they'd not even noticed that he/she was black.

That's the kind of thing I mean. Also the point I made about the Cecil Rhodes fund in post #155 on this thread.
 
Buddha said:
I've met trots and liberals who are so wrapped up in their own political correctness that they could meet a black person and then afterwards claim that they'd not even noticed that he/she was black.

That's the kind of thing I mean. Also the point I made about the Cecil Rhodes fund in post #155 on this thread.
Click to expand...

Lol, brought back so many memories of the 60s and 70s, who were the greater vanguards of the movement or the greater revolutionaries. At fords at the time we had so many different papers and proponents of each group. You could have a discussion with the WRP (workers revolutionary party) backed by Gadaffi, the morning star, international socialists, black anarchists, maoists, indian communists, ex gunrunners, indian workers association and west indian socialists etc. Fantastic arguments.

Best memory was when we sneaked Tom Robinson into the engine and then body plants onto the night shift and he finished penning ‘ford cortina’ lol.
 
Tarian said:
Since you mention Baden-Powell......

Apparently his "link" to Nazi Germany was an invitation to meet von Ribbentrop at the German Embassy in November 1937.
(It wasn't as if B-P made a special trip to Germany)

Apparently von Ribbentrop wanted closer links with the Hitler Youth.
There seems to be no evidence that B-P wanted a connection.

What modern-day activists don't seem to get when foaming about such "links" is:
- Jews hadn't been gassed yet
- Concentration camps hadn't been formed
- Czechoslovakia hadn't been occupied (1938 and 1939)
- England Football players had not yet given the Nazi salute to their hosts (May 1938)

The meeting was 6 months after the Hindenburg exploded in New Jersey after a normal Atlantic crossing
....a year after Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals at the Berlin Olympics
....at which many athletes had given the Nazi salute.

These salutes have left a bad taste - despite it being probable that most visitors were merely being polite to the hosts.

Such are "links".
Click to expand...

A circular argument that began and ended with yourself. Baden Powell was a very strange individual.
 
Buddha said:
I've met trots and liberals who are so wrapped up in their own political correctness that they could meet a black person and then afterwards claim that they'd not even noticed that he/she was black.

That's the kind of thing I mean. Also the point I made about the Cecil Rhodes fund in post #155 on this thread.
Click to expand...

I am unclear what the aim of the protest is. Do they want people to embrace everybody's race, or do they want everyone to be "race blind" e.g. not to notice what race people are?
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
Being colourblind to a person's skin colour is also racist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-colorblindness-is-act_b_10886176

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...ing/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

https://www.crowdh.com/color-blind-racism-think-racist/
Click to expand...

Yes that is my point. Noticing someone's race can be considered racist (according to some points of view - e.g. would you say, act, do etc if i wasn't x - why is race relevant here, etc.) and not noticing it can also be viewed as racist (according to other points of view).
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
Being colourblind to a person's skin colour is also racist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-colorblindness-is-act_b_10886176

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...ing/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

https://www.crowdh.com/color-blind-racism-think-racist/
Click to expand...

Some of these intellectuals don't get simple points. Spout crap and we are supposed to take notice.

We all have different eyes or hair but generally we do not see any as superior or inferior and therefore do not discriminate on those grounds. Thats simply what the colour blind means in the race discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.