Water is a bit more life critical than not wanting to look at a statue.
Fuck Israel
No point arguing with fictional hypotheticals.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
These are all hypotheticals, so links are not needed. You knew this, but ducked most of the questions anyway. Rather like I thought you would.
The question really is why they moved there in the first place.It's interesting that you say the community should just move somewhere else for the sake of a statue, though. Even the ones too poor to move, I imagine. That city hall statue must be really crucial for something that emptying a town is The Solution. Should a community not have some power over their surroundings? What about the city government, should they be held hostage by an "historical society" manned by two redditors on twitter?
Bottom line really is they don't want whites or any reminder of white people such as statues of white people around them, thats the power they want over their surroundings.
Shouldn't the white majority have a say in their surroundings, not endlessly have to kow-tow to an aggressive and divisive minority?
Fuck Israel
The point was to strip specificity to avoid getting bogged down in that. You won't even answer a hypothetical, so there's not much point in providing more real examples you would scoff at like you have before.
Also people don't usually control where they're born or raised or move to as a kid. And again, can't always afford to move out. And shouldn't HAVE to move out, or be loomed over by some statue of a moldy old official put up more to commemorate Jim Crow laws than the civil war. Why is a statue of some 200 year old guy you've never heard of, who may not even have wanted a statue, or erected to "stick it to the blacks," more important to you than a non-toxic working or living environment? A statue shouldn't be more important than living people. If it's causing problems, move IT to somewhere it won't. Imagine moving to a new place and then having your new neighbors yell at you for taking down the previous owner's old family portraits.
The idea that these things need to exist to "preserve history" is rather laughable. Most of the people I've talked to who are mad about statues being taken down wouldn't be able to tell me the first thing about the person they honor without the help of Google. Yet there they stand, supposed experts on the Confederate chain of command or whatever, who can't tell the difference between Gettysburg and Guadeloupe, up in a fury because the liberals are canceling southern heritage. What. These people don't give a good damn about their "heritage." It's just a buzzword.
Those statues weren't exactly doing a good job of teaching history, were they. Seems like you need to pay attention in class, and read books, for that.
Also there's more to the water quality post than just having a followup quip to the previous. It's its own topic and interesting.
Charlottesville votes to remove 2 Confederate statues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charl … ar-AAKQcSg
Also people don't usually control where they're born or raised or move to as a kid. And again, can't always afford to move out. And shouldn't HAVE to move out, or be loomed over by some statue of a moldy old official put up more to commemorate Jim Crow laws than the civil war. Why is a statue of some 200 year old guy you've never heard of, who may not even have wanted a statue, or erected to "stick it to the blacks," more important to you than a non-toxic working or living environment? A statue shouldn't be more important than living people. If it's causing problems, move IT to somewhere it won't. Imagine moving to a new place and then having your new neighbors yell at you for taking down the previous owner's old family portraits.
The idea that these things need to exist to "preserve history" is rather laughable. Most of the people I've talked to who are mad about statues being taken down wouldn't be able to tell me the first thing about the person they honor without the help of Google. Yet there they stand, supposed experts on the Confederate chain of command or whatever, who can't tell the difference between Gettysburg and Guadeloupe, up in a fury because the liberals are canceling southern heritage. What. These people don't give a good damn about their "heritage." It's just a buzzword.
Those statues weren't exactly doing a good job of teaching history, were they. Seems like you need to pay attention in class, and read books, for that.
Also there's more to the water quality post than just having a followup quip to the previous. It's its own topic and interesting.
Charlottesville votes to remove 2 Confederate statues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charl … ar-AAKQcSg
The first attempt to remove the Lee statue at Court Square Park prompted the deadly "Unite the Right" rally, organized in part by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, in August 2017. Protesters and rally participants clashed and a man drove his car into the crowd, fatally striking a woman and injuring dozens more. The man, a self-proclaimed white supremacist, was sentenced to life plus 419 years in prison.
If a gay racist white supremacist discovered the cure for cancer would you let your daughter marry his nephew?
Hypotheticals are stupid.
If a Nazi war criminal put a man on the moon for America would you be:
A Happy [ ]
B Sad [ ]
C Angry that a second moon program will have to be launched to put an explanatory plaque detailing critical race theory next to the one left by Armstrong and Aldrin [ ]
Statues don't teach history, they just stand there.
Why does an angry minority have the right to cancel things the majority are perfectly happy with?
You'd think blacks would have migrated out of confederate areas if it were such a big deal for them.
Hypotheticals are stupid.
If a Nazi war criminal put a man on the moon for America would you be:
A Happy [ ]
B Sad [ ]
C Angry that a second moon program will have to be launched to put an explanatory plaque detailing critical race theory next to the one left by Armstrong and Aldrin [ ]
Statues don't teach history, they just stand there.
Why does an angry minority have the right to cancel things the majority are perfectly happy with?
You'd think blacks would have migrated out of confederate areas if it were such a big deal for them.
Fuck Israel
No, your hypothetical is stupid. Daughters nephews gay racists curing cancer what? Yes that is totally as likely a scenario as a statue of a dickhead being the latest local controversy in podunkville, usa. Nice job.
Are people calling for a statue to be removed a good reason to slam your car into a crowd? You are so weirdly attached to these things, and you don't even like history.
Are people calling for a statue to be removed a good reason to slam your car into a crowd? You are so weirdly attached to these things, and you don't even like history.
I feel like I've been putting too much American stuff in here lately, but no other recent thread to put this, really. Macbeth needs to create an American stupidity thread.
The latest "controversy" is a student giving a speech at high school. Newsmax:
Commentary on Newsmax:
The latest "controversy" is a student giving a speech at high school. Newsmax:
Commentary on Newsmax:
The root of your problem is that religious affiliation is still a semi officialised part of national identity down to where highschool students have to swear fealty to (the christian) god every day of the week.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-06-22 03:09:28)
france doesn't count religion, race or ethnicity (like germany) on censuses, but if you really think that the majority of mainstream france doesn't identify as a 'christian', or, further, catholic nation, then you really need to pull the other one. are the AfD not concerned with islamism?
anyway. good essay which recapitulates some of the points we were discussing earlier, about how racial divides and attitudes were integral to european colonialism, and which attitudes persist to this day – hence BLM in europe.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/fas … t-present/
anyway. good essay which recapitulates some of the points we were discussing earlier, about how racial divides and attitudes were integral to european colonialism, and which attitudes persist to this day – hence BLM in europe.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/fas … t-present/
Analogies, especially to the most morally abject episodes of the 20th century, are liable to being invoked excessively and inaccurately. But silencing an analogy out of regard for the alterity of the past and what is particular and new about the present risks denying the past’s afterlife in the present (as Peter Gordon has also argued), the way it has structured the world we inhabit, the way our very writing, reading, and recalling of it has shaped and continues to shape our own actions ...
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-22 21:37:37)
Uziq I never even insinuated that not putting things on a census means it doesn't exist. Nonetheless, avoiding recognition of specific religious identity as an integral part of public/official life, does help somewhat stop the hordes of indignant openly racist assholes that come out the woodwork when a person deviates from the accepted religious norm.
As for your other argument, I resisted the notion that white supremacy was the base ideology of nazism. It was ethnonationalism, which manifests as obscenely racist and exclusionary politics anyway.
And no I think you're still not seeing how it's different when a country has a deep history of slave segregation and slave labour within its territory vs migration from former colonies in the 50s-70s. The circumstances and policies underpinning these developments (and their consequences) are of a different order.
As for your other argument, I resisted the notion that white supremacy was the base ideology of nazism. It was ethnonationalism, which manifests as obscenely racist and exclusionary politics anyway.
And no I think you're still not seeing how it's different when a country has a deep history of slave segregation and slave labour within its territory vs migration from former colonies in the 50s-70s. The circumstances and policies underpinning these developments (and their consequences) are of a different order.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-06-23 01:06:43)
ok! slave colonies in the west indies and africa create very different relations to slave colonies in your backyard, i guezz.
imagine being a colonial subject until literally 1955 and this guy comes along and tells you that, actually, you have no grounds to complain because it's nothing like america, where slavery was abolished 200 years ago.
imagine being a colonial subject until literally 1955 and this guy comes along and tells you that, actually, you have no grounds to complain because it's nothing like america, where slavery was abolished 200 years ago.
So technically, public school students aren't legally obligated to recite the pledge as per 1943 supreme court. - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- … 9/624.htmlLarssen wrote:
The root of your problem is that religious affiliation is still a semi officialised part of national identity down to where highschool students have to swear fealty to (the christian) god every day of the week.
Pretty clear cut.
In practice, this is still an issue because schools and staff don't understand, recognize, or sometimes even respect the law. Doesn't help that it's been forced into a hot-button issue. The right freaks out whenever someone even looks askance at their sacred, bastardized pledge. Guess they don't care about the law.
Students should be made aware of their rights, and contact their local ACLU if the pledge thing is thrust upon them. A letter from a lawyer should preclude necessity for a lawsuit. I suppose one potential issue with that though is the student(s) could be setting themselves up for an exhausting, passive-aggressive battle with vengeful staff that could affect their grades.
Too many local inconsistencies. For clarity, the pledge should just be abolished at the federal level. Probably not the most pressing matter for legislation at the moment, though.
e: More on the newsmax stuff,
Newsmax guest calls for high school student who said “Allah” during the Pledge of Allegiance to be criminally investigated
Mark Vargas: “I'm calling on the state attorney general to look into this”
https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/ne … egiance-be
I don't want to hear anything about cancel culture from these guys.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2021-06-23 02:39:12)
LOL OK, America imported black slaves, Britain imported the slave-controlling black middle class.uziq wrote:
ok! slave colonies in the west indies and africa create very different relations to slave colonies in your backyard, i guezz.
imagine being a colonial subject until literally 1955 and this guy comes along and tells you that, actually, you have no grounds to complain because it's nothing like america, where slavery was abolished 200 years ago.
Exactly the same demographics and historical ills.
Fuck Israel
Yes it is in fact different. The police force here wasn't borne out of an organisation initially made to catch escaped slaves. The cities and highway network aren't designed in such a way to geographically isolate minority communities. The people here did not develop an apartheid culture because the object of racist exclusion wasn't physically anywhere close during the high time of race 'science'.uziq wrote:
ok! slave colonies in the west indies and africa create very different relations to slave colonies in your backyard, i guezz.
imagine being a colonial subject until literally 1955 and this guy comes along and tells you that, actually, you have no grounds to complain because it's nothing like america, where slavery was abolished 200 years ago.
The minority migration here was when Europe already went through the moral development that recognised wrongs in colonial subjugation and slavery. That does not mean people or society in the 60s could not be racist, but that many of the organisational and culturally systemic racism, that even manifests in physical geography in former colonies and the USA, were not in place. The people who came here were already recognised citizens, or were invited on work visas. There was no state driven effort following this migration to design -within Europe- an exclusionist/slave based society. I'd say all that matters quite a bit.
are you seriously claiming segregation and racist zoning didn't happen in europe in the post-colonial era?
are you fucking kidding me bro?
'the people who came here were recognized citizens, or invited on work visas'.
this was an election poster ... in 1964. a campaign by britain's senior most political party. but i guess racism was never 'official' or 'systemic', just private individuals with their views or, er, something.
governors of the west indies writing to british companies in the 1960s protesting their racist hiring policies.
but yes, i agree, the fact that there was no exclusionist/slave-based society WITHIN europe, and we kept colonies in sunny places far away in the 19th century, changes the picture entirely.
this is ONCE again another example of your staggering lack of political economy and historical analysis. you think that policy and official government edicts somehow constitute and create historical reality, the lived experience of people's lives. you turn a very convenient blind eye to the political economy cutting through all of this stuff, all the drip-down through the generations. the fact that inter-generational poverty (and trauma) was created through highly racist economic structures, as in the colonies. nope! none of that matters. we're all middle-class now! we're all liberals now! we don't see religion, race or ethnicity anymore! look, a document signed in paris or brussels declares it so! how perfectly fucking quaint. you're not far away from dilbert's 'slavery ended 200 years ago, get over it' type argument. 'we gave up empire in 1960, can't you lot stop going on about black lives?'
are you fucking kidding me bro?
'the people who came here were recognized citizens, or invited on work visas'.
this was an election poster ... in 1964. a campaign by britain's senior most political party. but i guess racism was never 'official' or 'systemic', just private individuals with their views or, er, something.
governors of the west indies writing to british companies in the 1960s protesting their racist hiring policies.
but yes, i agree, the fact that there was no exclusionist/slave-based society WITHIN europe, and we kept colonies in sunny places far away in the 19th century, changes the picture entirely.
this is ONCE again another example of your staggering lack of political economy and historical analysis. you think that policy and official government edicts somehow constitute and create historical reality, the lived experience of people's lives. you turn a very convenient blind eye to the political economy cutting through all of this stuff, all the drip-down through the generations. the fact that inter-generational poverty (and trauma) was created through highly racist economic structures, as in the colonies. nope! none of that matters. we're all middle-class now! we're all liberals now! we don't see religion, race or ethnicity anymore! look, a document signed in paris or brussels declares it so! how perfectly fucking quaint. you're not far away from dilbert's 'slavery ended 200 years ago, get over it' type argument. 'we gave up empire in 1960, can't you lot stop going on about black lives?'
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-23 03:19:11)
how were the windrush generation 'slave-controlling black middle class'? because slave plantation owners often emigrate to post-industrial cities to open shops and be bus conductors, don't they?Dilbert_X wrote:
LOL OK, America imported black slaves, Britain imported the slave-controlling black middle class.uziq wrote:
ok! slave colonies in the west indies and africa create very different relations to slave colonies in your backyard, i guezz.
imagine being a colonial subject until literally 1955 and this guy comes along and tells you that, actually, you have no grounds to complain because it's nothing like america, where slavery was abolished 200 years ago.
Exactly the same demographics and historical ills.
do you know anything about, erm, anything? the very most mobile black or indian brits were literally the products of colonial education and university systems, moving from the periphery to the centre and giving up their identity in the process. not that they could ever attain serious insider-status or respectability. i highly suggest you read a book. try 'imagined communities' by benedict anderson.
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-23 03:22:06)
Was a single one of them forced to migrate or forced to work or forced to stay in the country?uziq wrote:
are you seriously claiming segregation and racist zoning didn't happen in europe in the post-colonial era?
are you fucking kidding me bro?
'the people who came here were recognized citizens, or invited on work visas'.
this was an election poster ... in 1964. a campaign by britain's senior most political party. but i guess racism was never 'official' or 'systemic', just private individuals with their views or, er, something.
governors of the west indies writing to british companies in the 1960s protesting their racist hiring policies.
but yes, i agree, the fact that there was no exclusionist/slave-based society WITHIN europe, and we kept colonies in sunny places far away in the 19th century, changes the picture entirely.
They all moved and worked and stayed voluntarily, apparently enduring the racism was worth it, presumably Macbeth's family have made the same calculation.
Fuck Israel
yes, moved away from their own countries which had been used as sites of resource and capital extraction, rather than developed equitably, for generations.
'they chose to leave their poor, immiserated, undeveloped and politically unstable societies. what do they have to complain about?' oh, you mean the british empire which left them in that condition?
what about all the blacks and indians who died for the british empire in the world wars? 'why didn't you stay at home if you don't like being treated like a dog?' really, dilbert? aren't you a fan of civic contributions? you seemed awfully proud of sponsoring a bench one time.
do you know how much wealth britain bled out of her colonies? and you're surprised that people hopped on a boat when the so-called 'mother country' thinks it fair, finally, to admit them as citizens in the post-colonial era. i'd want to be treated with a little dignity and respect, too, if four generations of my ancestors had sweated under the kosh of pimms-drinking colonial officers, sat on the shaded verandahs of their insufferable clubs, for hundreds of years. don't you think they've earned a little recognition as part of post-imperial britain?
'they chose to leave their poor, immiserated, undeveloped and politically unstable societies. what do they have to complain about?' oh, you mean the british empire which left them in that condition?
what about all the blacks and indians who died for the british empire in the world wars? 'why didn't you stay at home if you don't like being treated like a dog?' really, dilbert? aren't you a fan of civic contributions? you seemed awfully proud of sponsoring a bench one time.
do you know how much wealth britain bled out of her colonies? and you're surprised that people hopped on a boat when the so-called 'mother country' thinks it fair, finally, to admit them as citizens in the post-colonial era. i'd want to be treated with a little dignity and respect, too, if four generations of my ancestors had sweated under the kosh of pimms-drinking colonial officers, sat on the shaded verandahs of their insufferable clubs, for hundreds of years. don't you think they've earned a little recognition as part of post-imperial britain?
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-23 03:28:51)
buT Post_cOloniAl pEoplEs CaMe aS eQuAl ciTizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
maybe look around and listen to what people are saying before continually dismissing BLM as 'riot starters'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
to be ignorant of this day-to-day shit is inexcusable. to be sanguine about europe's empires and their racist legacies is laughable.he Windrush scandal was a 2018 British political scandal concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation and in at least 83 cases[1][2][3] wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. Many of those affected had been born British subjects and had arrived in the UK before 1973, particularly from Caribbean countries as members of the "Windrush generation"[4] (so named after the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought one of the first groups of West Indian migrants to the UK in 1948).[5]
As well as those who were deported, an unknown number were detained, lost their jobs or homes, had their passports confiscated or were denied benefits or medical care to which they were entitled.[3] A number of long-term UK residents were refused re-entry to the UK; a larger number were threatened with immediate deportation by the Home Office. Linked by commentators to the "hostile environment policy" instituted by Theresa May during her time as Home Secretary,[6][7][8] the scandal led to the resignation of Amber Rudd as Home Secretary in April 2018 and the appointment of Sajid Javid as her successor.[9]
maybe look around and listen to what people are saying before continually dismissing BLM as 'riot starters'?
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-23 04:16:03)
The argument is about whether BLM is relevant to Europe, its a whole different set of issues.
Fuck Israel
really? most controversially, levels of police violence aren't disproportionately affecting black britons or black french?
has london and paris not rioted several times over this issue?
does this really sound irrelevant to you in modern europe?
has london and paris not rioted several times over this issue?
does this really sound irrelevant to you in modern europe?
what do you know about nuanced 'different' sets of issues? you think the black people in britain were an imported 'middle-class' from the colonies. you somehow think jamaicans were 'slave owners' themselves with some sort of equal culpability for the colonial system. you are illiterate on this topic.End the war on black people.
Reparations for past and continuing harms. (Reparations)
Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people. (Invest-Divest)
Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.(Economic justice)
Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us. (Community control)
Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society. (Political power)
Last edited by uziq (2021-06-23 04:45:15)
"a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access."
Very easy to point to this and say its communism.
"Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society"
There you go. Let me know how it turns out after 50 years in the UKAZ
Equal rights are one thing, but a lot of it doesn't really look like equal rights and we know how that turns out.
Very easy to point to this and say its communism.
"Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society"
There you go. Let me know how it turns out after 50 years in the UKAZ
Equal rights are one thing, but a lot of it doesn't really look like equal rights and we know how that turns out.
Fuck Israel
there is nothing insidious about a group wanting self-determination and not to be second-class citizens.
independence is a prerequisite of being a liberal citizen. if you're not free, you're not part of the liberal society, are you?
here is an example of independent white political power:
omg scary stuff!
independence is a prerequisite of being a liberal citizen. if you're not free, you're not part of the liberal society, are you?
here is an example of independent white political power:
omg scary stuff!
"Independent black political power" Sounds like they want a state within a state and no oversight.
Fuck Israel
My point, explicitly, repeatedly, has been that in a european context there was no state driven push to create a segregated society based on slave labour. I don't know what's so fucking hard to understand about that point. Can people still be racist? Wow no surprise there captain obvious. People in the 60s didn't take all that well to people of migrant backgrounds, gee! But there's a vast canyon of difference between the context of a migrant family working in Europe in the 60s vs the context in a country where there was active local slave labour and where former plantation owners are the people running the fucking government.uziq wrote:
are you seriously claiming segregation and racist zoning didn't happen in europe in the post-colonial era?
are you fucking kidding me bro?
'the people who came here were recognized citizens, or invited on work visas'.
this was an election poster ... in 1964. a campaign by britain's senior most political party. but i guess racism was never 'official' or 'systemic', just private individuals with their views or, er, something.
governors of the west indies writing to british companies in the 1960s protesting their racist hiring policies.
but yes, i agree, the fact that there was no exclusionist/slave-based society WITHIN europe, and we kept colonies in sunny places far away in the 19th century, changes the picture entirely.
this is ONCE again another example of your staggering lack of political economy and historical analysis. you think that policy and official government edicts somehow constitute and create historical reality, the lived experience of people's lives. you turn a very convenient blind eye to the political economy cutting through all of this stuff, all the drip-down through the generations. the fact that inter-generational poverty (and trauma) was created through highly racist economic structures, as in the colonies. nope! none of that matters. we're all middle-class now! we're all liberals now! we don't see religion, race or ethnicity anymore! look, a document signed in paris or brussels declares it so! how perfectly fucking quaint. you're not far away from dilbert's 'slavery ended 200 years ago, get over it' type argument. 'we gave up empire in 1960, can't you lot stop going on about black lives?'
That you can dig up a conservative election poster from some MP does not somehow draw parallels between a society that was specifically designed to function on segregation and slave labour and England. And does not at all directly translate to the treatment or lack thereof of migrants in other European countries or German, French, Belgian/Dutch contexts. Kick and scream all you like about it, but for the very final time: evidence of racism or instances of racism are not evidence of state organised persecution and the accompanying historical trauma.
The British system is more classist than racist. Blacks, irish, poor, criminals, catholics etc they're the ones who toil, suffer, never gain capital.
Its never been about race, the royal family is german FFS
Its never been about race, the royal family is german FFS
Fuck Israel