Rewulf Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery Its a strange old world , when people say that the way to heal the 'wounds' from the past, is to try to erase the memories of it. And whilst some would say, not erase the history, but dont glorify its anti-heroes via statues and naming places after them ? Was Nelson a bad man then ? And where does this all end ? https://www.facebook.com/UncleSamsChildren/photos/a.169953786533962.1073741830.169676909894983/736965243166144/?type=3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 People like the author thrive on publicity - in her case a future book she wants to push. Unfortunately, the Guardian provides them with a platform to spout their drivel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 the crew on warships in Nelsons time were multi cultural and definatly not slaves....the lived and died side by side with us....on one of the monuments at the base....it shows black and white folk together............. in recent times the thing that is most responsible for creating dishamony within our nation...have been the left wing pressure groups....just going stupid over peoples rights....if they had just left alone....asimilation within our soceity would have continued apace...as it is these "left wing pressure groups " have made things worse.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 People like the author thrive on publicity - in her case a future book she wants to push. Unfortunately, the Guardian provides them with a platform to spout their drivel. Thats true , but there are definitely people out there who believe we should hang our heads in shame for 'our' part in slavery. I remember a program about 15 years ago (probably on the BBC) that discussed (no joke) how much compensation the descendents of slaves should be paid ! Now I know its an old cliche, but Ive never owned any slaves, and I highly doubt any of my ancestors would have been able to have afforded any either. More likely, they would have been virtual slaves themselves to their employers. Like wise ,no living person remembers when slavery was legal in the western world, note I say western world. If you are wondering how much the gentleman settled on for compo for every descendant of slavery? He thought around a million apiece would suffice to take away the hurt ! Paid for YOU ,the white taxpayers only. Racism takes many forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) Slavery guilt is big money, campaigns are usually accompanied by some claim for financial compensation. We talk of slavery but in Nelson's time the average British agricultural worker was no better than a slave. In some ways they were worse off than slaves. Slaves actually cost a lot of money, they fetched incredible amounts when they were auctioned on the dock side in places like Jamaica or South Carolina. In comparison to the wages a plantation owner could get away with paying Irish and Scottish labourers (rednecks as they were called) you have to wonder why they bothered with slaves at all. That's not to say the Slaves were regarded with any high respect but the fact that they were a valuable investment gives a lie to the claims today that they were badly mistreated. It was a different time. Edited August 22, 2017 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) Usually accompanied by some claim for financial compensation in the process. We talk of slavery but in Nelson's time the average British agricultural worker was no better than a slave. In some ways they were worse off than slaves. Slaves actually cost a lot of money, that's not to say they were regarded with any high respect but the fact that they were an investment gives a lie to the claims today that they were badly mistreated. It was a different time. +1 A quick skim through the comments section on the guardian piece shows some startling insights into the minds of some people. braciole unreliantrobin 6h ago 89 Perhaps we should focus on tidying up our everyday lives first by removing racist branding from the shelves at home and in the supermarket by, for example, pressing Mars to remove the "Uncle" and the logo from Uncle Ben's Rice products. Jim Crow really is not part of our history so why should we tolerate the low-level racism? ID9110514 7h ago 578579 My ancestors were almost certainly victimised by Vikings, Romans, Normans etc etc. Luckily i've got over it Share unreliantrobin ID9110514 7h ago 341342 Smash the Jorvich Viking centre, York! Burn the Roman Baths in err, Bath (actually that might be difficult)! Share waltjabsco ID9110514 7h ago 3637 So because your ancestors may have been victimised, Afro Caribbean and Africans should definitely 'get over it' ? 'It' being the Trans Atlantic Slave trade ?? Share TheLane82 waltjabsco 7h ago 395396 Afro Caribbean and Africans should definitely 'get over it' ? In the UK they should, as they were born here or their ancestors came to the UK voluntarily. Edited August 22, 2017 by Rewulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 No political correctness and equality laws in Nelsons day!.........How can anyone comply with a social position and/or laws..............that do not exist? Typical left wing rubbish from someone pushing an agenda, ignore the positives and if there ain't no negatives....make some up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 No political correctness and equality laws in Nelsons day!.........How can anyone comply with a social position and/or laws..............that do not exist? Typical left wing rubbish from someone pushing an agenda, ignore the positives and if there ain't no negatives....make some up! One of the first rules of studying history. Do not place today's values on events that took place in the past, and do not judge historical persons by today's moral standards either. Nelson's actions made him a hero, both in his time and ours. Leave his bloody statue alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuffy Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 Who caught the "slaves" and put them in chains ?? I think it was other tribes , Old whitey was just buying and selling items already on the market . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) Who caught the "slaves" and put them in chains ?? I think it was other tribes , Old whitey was just buying and selling items already on the market . I have lived in West Africa and have been to the places where slaves were sold. One such place is Bunce Island in the mouth of the Sierra Leone river. Its name has gone into the English language 'Bunce' meaning profit. One thing is clear, Europeans did not go into the interior to capture slaves, two reasons, it would have been too dangerous but also it wouldn't have been necessary. Families regularly brought in 'surplus' family members to sell. It sounds bizzare to us today but the world is a funny place. Edited August 23, 2017 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 And let's not forget their fellow Africans who captured and enslaved them in the first place to sell. Slavery guilt is big money, campaigns are usually accompanied by some claim for financial compensation. We talk of slavery but in Nelson's time the average British agricultural worker was no better than a slave. In some ways they were worse off than slaves. Slaves actually cost a lot of money, they fetched incredible amounts when they were auctioned on the dock side in places like Jamaica or South Carolina. In comparison to the wages a plantation owner could get away with paying Irish and Scottish labourers (rednecks as they were called) you have to wonder why they bothered with slaves at all. That's not to say the Slaves were regarded with any high respect but the fact that they were a valuable investment gives a lie to the claims today that they were badly mistreated. It was a different time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) Nelson, Churchill, who's turn is it tommorrow? It's all part of the globalist/multiculturalist agenga to erode our culture, identity and history. They will chip away till we have nothing left. Edited August 23, 2017 by TriBsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson_tom Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 One of the most dangerous things people can do is forget about the things history has taught us, slavery is still alive today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm just waiting for the Guardian to suggest we start apologising for being English....and white. Where do we stop? And more to the point; why should we even start? We can't and shouldn't attempt to rewrite history, but we should learn from it ( which we don't appear to be doing very well at ) nor be made to feel ashamed about our past. I for one don't feel the slightest bit inclined to feel guilty for things which happened before I was even born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm just waiting for the Guardian to suggest we start apologising for being English....and white. I believe the insinuation is already there. Just because no one has said it yet, doesnt mean they arent thinking it. In the US its called white privilege (a recent buzzword) not long now before we have its equivalent. You often hear the term colonialist, when referring to the English, which isnt far from needing our apologies. The sins of the fathers aye ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Utterly moronic and no different to ISIS blowing up ancient monuments because it doesn't fit with their current zealot views. Put it this way; the age of sexual consent in this country was 13 until 1875 (and had been as low as 11 before that). Everyone alive then or before accepted this and by todays standards would be considered a paedophile. Should there be statues/monuments/paintings of 'pedos' everywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Utterly moronic and no different to ISIS blowing up ancient monuments because it doesn't fit with their current zealot views. Put it this way; the age of sexual consent in this country was 13 until 1875 (and had been as low as 11 before that). Everyone alive then or before accepted this and by todays standards would be considered a paedophile. Should there be statues/monuments/paintings of 'pedos' everywhere? Sexual consent is a very hard thing to define historically. Poverty dictated that servant girls in the big houses, mill girls or farm girls had no option but to consent to the advances of those above them or they would be sacked, and in those days getting sacked meant the gutter Samuel Pepys in his diaries recorded quite openly that he regarded sex with the servant girls to be his right as master of the house and couldn't understand why his wife got annoyed about it. Nor was he concerned that when his wife found out she threw the girls out and for many of those girls that would have been absolute ruin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 I'm not sure of the point you're making VC or how that has anything to do with my post? My point was that judging the actions/attitudes of historic persons using current standards is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Sexual consent is a very hard thing to define historically. Poverty dictated that servant girls in the big houses, mill girls or farm girls had no option but to consent to the advances of those above them or they would be sacked, and in those days getting sacked meant the gutter Samuel Pepys in his diaries recorded quite openly that he regarded sex with the servant girls to be his right as master of the house and couldn't understand why his wife got annoyed about it. Nor was he concerned that when his wife found out she threw the girls out and for many of those girls that would have been absolute ruin. Seemed plain enough to me , I think for the most part he was agreeing with you though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 History is there to be interrogated so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them today or in future. If we whitewash history from the public square then we remove a source of debate. They have the right approach in Berlin. Keep everything so that we are confronted with the past face on. What's happening in the USA and any suggestion to remove Nelson from his Column is illconceived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 This topic has had the inevitable media coverage/outcry that I believe the author of the article intended. However, the people who support the removal of statues or monuments that 'offend' them is a little more difficult to explain. I wonder what percentage of the people here and in the US ,walk past one of these statues and find them offensive, compared to those that dont, or even feel a bit of pride for them ? Does a bit of democracy not come into play here, or must we satisfy the minorities first ? The fact is monuments are being removed at a rapid rate in the US, usually confederate civil war stuff. Do you not find it strange that, Obamas 8 years in office, no one seemed too fussed about removing them, but now Trumps on the throne, it has become a divisive issue ? A person with a cynical mindset might think someone could be stirring the pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 There is a massive church in a local village which used to have me puzzled as to why and how it was built so big in such a small village. It is much bigger than any of the three churches in my home town. It turns out its erection was partly funded by the trade in opium back in the day. I have no doubt most churches and cathedrals in this country were funded off the misery of some poor souls; should we dismantle them? Like I said; where do we stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 We seem to have nowadays a whole raft of people who deliberately seek out things to be offended by. You'd think that constantly seeing offensive things would be depressing but no they thrive on it. It empowers them, so much that they can't actually be that offended. If someone is a migrant to this country and they find our ways, our culture and our history offensive then why are they here? If it is someone indigenous then grow some. The vast majority seem to like most things as they are. We should not be listening to these people or give them the oxygen of publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted August 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 We seem to have nowadays a whole raft of people who deliberately seek out things to be offended by. You'd think that constantly seeing offensive things would be depressing but no they thrive on it. It empowers them, so much that they can't actually be that offended. If someone is a migrant to this country and they find our ways, our culture and our history offensive then why are they here? If it is someone indigenous then grow some. The vast majority seem to like most things as they are. We should not be listening to these people or give them the oxygen of publicity. Empowers them, you have a point , not content to be 'right on' with whatever minority is the flavour of the month, they seem to be outraged by one thing or another. Their outrage only stretches to pointing the finger at whoever isnt outraged ! Strong words , zero action. You know who they are, pushing their own agendas and public image, whilst doing nothing to actually alleviate the problems in their own back yard. Also known as hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 Yes hypocrites. If there is one monument in this country that epitomises mass deaths and suffering it could be argued it is the tomb of the Left's Poster Boy Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery. How many millions have died in the name of Marxism? But they don't seem to be queing up to be offended by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.