UK Politics: Black Lives Matter Here Too

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well it doesn’t seem to have any real support from the  from the poll I posted. Now we have scenes in London which could lead to clashes of violence , all over a statue. A statue!

Nobody is talking about the actual reason the protests happened in the first place. Nobody is discussing actual solutions to inequality between certain ethnic groups. 
 

I’d suggest the statue stuffs main effect has been to further divide the country and to draw a set of lines in the sand.

British politics has become more tribal over the past twenty years, as political alignment is now based more on culture/values than class.  I think some of demands for pulling down statues (eg Baden Powell, Churchill, Drake, Gandhi) are more about poking the other tribe in the eye than any genuine grievance.

[Fragile Bird]

CNN has just been showing the different crowds gathering around the Churchill statue. A call has gone out for people to show up to defend the statue. And the reporter has ominously added ‘...and now there’s drinking involved!’

[A True Kaniggit]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

CNN has just been showing the different crowds gathering around the Churchill statue. A call has gone out for people to show up to defend the statue. And the reporter has ominously added ‘...and now there’s drinking involved!’

Ominous....

[Guest]

I have to confess I've never understood the reverence for these statues. Surely it's better that physical violence arising from hundreds of years of oppression is better vented against an inanimate object than against, say...the white people still perpetuating that oppression until this day, no?

[Ran]

39 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I have to confess I've never understood the reverence for these statues. Surely it's better that physical violence arising from hundreds of years of oppression is better vented against an inanimate object than against, say...the white people still perpetuating that oppression until this day, no?

There is no evidence that the one has any impact on the other. The general concept that protests and riots reduce crime also seems uncertain in the literature that I can find. Sadly, we've a recent example of protests having some potential deleterious effect regarding violence.

As to the larger question of statues and such, memorialization and the use of monuments to express gratitude or ideals is an ancient tradition and has a lot to do with things. It is, I think, human nature to memorialize people and to create symbols. I know some argue that we should stop doing this, for fear that all of our giants will one day be judged to have feet of clay, but I don't think you'll ever convince people that we should not honor people (and indeed, some protesters want things renamed to honor different people...)

Just to take it from the extreme angle, some of the southerners who protest the removal of Civil War statues will argue -- and fully believe -- that the South itself has been oppressed by the North and the federal government for well over a a century. They will say that taking down the Civil War statues represents a further act of repression, and that this will cause anger and likely lead to violence -- so why shouldn't the statues stay rather be removed? Whether one disagrees with a position or not, it may be deeply felt (and combines, no doubt, with other deeply felt notions which we can consider abhorent).

It is a slippery slope. Policy and attitudes that tolerate or permit physical violence cuts both ways, and is in any case illiberal. 

[A wilding]

The issue of the Churchill statue is in my opinion a deliberate misdirection.

As far as I can can see, nobody has seriously suggested that it be removed. (Except for Churchill's own granddaughter saying it might need to be moved to protect it). The constant harping about it comes from the right. Churchill is (with some justification) an idol of theirs, and an issue on which they can hope to maximise support behind them. They would far rather be arguing about him than about Edward Colston.
 

[Poobah]

The mob that are apparently so upset about the Churchill statue being defaced are demonstrating exactly what it is that they are actually about by doing nazi salutes.

Edit to clarify: I'm referring to the literal mob of far right hooligans who've turned up in London not people in general or members of this forum who might have had objections about statue removal.

[Heartofice]

53 minutes ago, SeanF said:

British politics has become more tribal over the past twenty years, as political alignment is now based more on culture/values than class.  I think some of demands for pulling down statues (eg Baden Powell, Churchill, Drake, Gandhi) are more about poking the other tribe in the eye than any genuine grievance.

Undoubtedly the categorisation of left / right makes little sense any more and the dividing lines have moved to other areas. I agree that there is a degree of button pressing here, trying to provoke a response from the other side.

2 minutes ago, A wilding said:

The issue of the Churchill statue is in my opinion a deliberate misdirection.

As far as I can can see, nobody has seriously suggested that it be removed. (Except for Churchill's own granddaughter saying it might need to be moved to protect it). The constant harping about it comes from the right. Churchill is (with some justification) an idol of theirs, and an issue on which they can hope to maximise support behind them. They would far rather be arguing about him than about Edward Colston.
 

I actually agree with you here. I don’t think there was any genuine danger of the Churchill statue being removed and this issue is being blown up by the far right to justify some horrific thuggery right now.

Having said that, this is an entirely predictable situation, I’ve seen many commentators suggesting this was the only outcome after the statue purge started. It’s pretty sad.

[A wilding]

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

It is a slippery slope. Policy and attitudes that tolerates permits physical violence cuts both ways, and is in any case illiberal. 

It is a slippery slope. But both the strength of a representative democracy and the issue with it is that the representatives can generally frustrate the will of the people. There is a case that this ability is being misused to an increasing extent in western democracies at present. "A riot is the message of the unheard."

It has been argued that the Colston statue was a symbol and a comfort to racist people and institutions in Bristol (typically the sort of racist who doesn't think that they are one). As the anti-racist campaigners could not even get anything done about the statue, for all their efforts, the racists felt no pressure and no need to change their ways. It does to me feel like a rare case where ultimate direct action was justified.

 

[williamjm]

11 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The desire to rename things has hit Canada as well. There's some guy from the UK named Henry Dundas who fought against the abolitionists and delayed the end of legal slavery in the British Empire by 15 years. Maybe slavery would have been abolished as early as 1792, or at least 1796, instead of 1807. Apparently there's a statue of him in Edinburgh that people would like to take down too. eta: not a statue, a giant freaking monument, looming over the city. Just rename it, it's a lot harder to topple than a statue.

I used to work in a building next to that statue (there is a statue on top of the pillar), I couldn't have told you who the statue was commemorating.

[The Marquis de Leech]

IMHO, the most problematic bit of Fawlty Towers is the Irish Builder episode. That's just lazy stereotyping.

The Major's famous line about his visit to the cricket match? It's inviting us to laugh at the Major, silly old fool that he is, and doing so in a way where the offensiveness loops around and comes back the other way. Intent and context matters.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Poobah said:

The mob that are apparently so upset about the Churchill statue being defaced are demonstrating exactly what it is that they are actually about by doing nazi salutes.

I think they're rather confused, ideologically.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, A wilding said:

It is a slippery slope. But both the strength of a representative democracy and the issue with it is that the representatives can generally frustrate the will of the people. There is a case that this ability is being misused to an increasing extent in western democracies at present. "A riot is the message of the unheard."

It has been argued that the Colston statue was a symbol and a comfort to racist people and institutions in Bristol (typically the sort of racist who doesn't think that they are one). As the anti-racist campaigners could not even get anything done about the statue, for all their efforts, the racists felt no pressure and no need to change their ways. It does to me feel like a rare case where ultimate direct action was justified.

 

Bristol Council has had a large left wing majority for years.  They had the legal power to remove the statute/put up an explanatory plaque, regardless of what the Society for Merchant Venturers wanted.

[A wilding]

And in my opinion should have done. Yet somehow they got bogged down ...

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

There is no evidence that the one has any impact on the other. The general concept that protests and riots reduce crime also seems uncertain in the literature that I can find. Sadly, we've a recent example of protests having some potential deleterious effect regarding violence.

As to the larger question of statues and such, memorialization and the use of monuments to express gratitude or ideals is an ancient tradition and has a lot to do with things. It is, I think, human nature to memorialize people and to create symbols. I know some argue that we should stop doing this, for fear that all of our giants will one day be judged to have feet of clay, but I don't think you'll ever convince people that we should not honor people (and indeed, some protesters want things renamed to honor different people...)

Just to take it from the extreme angle, some of the southerners who protest the removal of Civil War statues will argue -- and fully believe -- that the South itself has been oppressed by the North and the federal government for well over a a century. They will say that taking down the Civil War statues represents a further act of repression, and that this will cause anger and likely lead to violence -- so why shouldn't the statues stay rather be removed? Whether one disagrees with a position or not, it may be deeply felt (and combines, no doubt, with other deeply felt notions which we can consider abhorent).

It is a slippery slope. Policy and attitudes that tolerate or permit physical violence cuts both ways, and is in any case illiberal. 

I mean, I obviously come down on the opposite side, that property is a valid target in protests, but even assuming I felt otherwise, it doesn't seem controversial to argue that statues commemorating either "side" are more preferable proxy targets than the actual people.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

IMHO, the most problematic bit of Fawlty Towers is the Irish Builder episode. That's just lazy stereotyping.

The Major's famous line about his visit to the cricket match? It's inviting us to laugh at the Major, silly old fool that he is, and doing so in a way where the offensiveness loops around and comes back the other way. Intent and context matters.

I still enjoy Fawlty Towers, but I don't find it as hilarious as I once did.  Comedy does tend to date after a while.

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I mean, I obviously come down on the opposite side, that property is a valid target in protests, but even assuming I felt otherwise, it doesn't seem controversial to argue that statues commemorating either "side" are more preferable proxy targets than the actual people.

But you are suggesting that there's actual violence against people being prevented, that statues are "proxy targets" that are used in lieu of hurting people.

I would suggest the vast majority of those wanting statues removed are not going to turn around and attack people if they are thwarted.

I would also suggest  that it's likelier that the conditions that lead to statues being pulled down also increase the likelihood of violence against people, rather than decrease them.

[mormont]

Tearing down the Colston statue has directly given impetus to campaigns to remove several other statues (by democratic means) and rename buildings and streets. It's raised awareness of the UK's historic role in the slave trade more than any other single event I can recall in my lifetime, and I'm nearly 50 years old. It's kept the demonstrations high up the news agenda. Yeah, it has benefited the anti-racism cause.

8 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

IMHO, the most problematic bit of Fawlty Towers is the Irish Builder episode. That's just lazy stereotyping.

So is the entire portrayal of the character of Manuel. Yes, there are attempts to make Manuel more sympathetic, largely by having the pretty white lady be kind to him. But in general, the problem is this: Basil is awful to Manuel because he believes Manuel to be a useless foreigner who talks funny. But the writers regularly use punchlines that depend on Manuel being a useless foreigner who talks funny. The only point of difference between the writers and the character of Basil, really, is whether they get angry at Manuel or whether they think he's a figure of fun.

But that, sadly, is pretty typical of the writing, which relies more heavily than we like to admit on lazy stereotyping.

[Derfel Cadarn]

14 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

IMHO, the most problematic bit of Fawlty Towers is the Irish Builder episode. That's just lazy stereotyping.

The Major's famous line about his visit to the cricket match? It's inviting us to laugh at the Major, silly old fool that he is, and doing so in a way where the offensiveness loops around and comes back the other way. Intent and context matters.

Stereotyping the Irish. Another issue with Star Trek, mainly TNG and Voyager. Though TOS was pretty stereotypical with Lt Riley.

Sort of mitigated with Ch O’Brien, though he didnt get a name for a while, and they retconned his rank (he was originally an ensign at the helm).

[Ran]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Tearing down the Colston statue has directly given impetus to campaigns to remove several other statues (by democratic means) and rename buildings and streets.

I wonder what would have happened if the protests and petitions around this time succeeded in having the statue removed as well, and this in turn led to more statues being removed in similarly democratic ways.

I have no idea what the political climate was in Bristol for the removal by peaceful and democratic means. Was it a matter of just not happening quickly enough? But what you say above appears to support the notion that "the ends justify the means", and I find this surprising.