"Progress in the fight against racism will only come in football when more black players become managers, England and Manchester City forward Raheem Sterling says." I'm sure, as he feels so strongly, he'll be setting his sights on being a manager .... ... he owes it to his kind.
"Premier League players took a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement before play in the first two matches of the restarted season. Those on the pitch, including officials, kneeled down at the kick-off of Aston Villa's match at home to Sheffield United and then Manchester City's game against Arsenal." Hmmm ... ... a green light for any political gesture from now on. Liddle Towers for our next game anyone?
The Guardian is the most leftist one sided rag in the world, and you use this **** for your so called evidence any sane person would laugh their socks off at the Guardians propaganda ****, they are even worse than the BBC
One of the key parts of their stance is, "You don't have a film called Out of Asia." And that's from a so called journalist ffs, absolutely infantile.
Right lads . . . . it's time to put down your handbags, 'cos most of us are probably sick to death of their use to point score/ridicule each other, unless you want intervention to make sure that you put them down, which is now a distinct possibility Any reasoned debate on this thread has all but gone, and it would be appropriate to bring it back to what it should be, so give the rest of us a chance if you don't mind
So Oxford University has decided to take down the statue of Cecil Rhodes. That's fair enough, he was a bit of a rotter. The Oxford students, however, should perhaps consider who they invite to speak at their Union. Many of their guests have been dreadful people, some would say as bad as Rhodes, and they could be judged as hypocrites. If you're targeting shows like Fawlty Towers, it's a little ironic to have invited well known casual racists like Jim Bowen. As far as Rhodes is concerned my personal opinion is that this is actually counter productive. IMO his statue had become less of a veneration and more of a reminder of the mistakes of the past, a valuable lesson. That reminder will now be gone, Rhodes virtually forgotten and a valuable lesson pushed further back into the mists of time. No one reveres the statue of Rhodes do they? There's also the mundane and practical question of his donations to the University. I've no idea of the details, but presumably there was a deal struck in which he gave huge sums of money, and in exchange has his face stuck above the door. I've no doubt that the University was quite happy with that arrangement as were his family and descendants. As other statues are on a hit list will there eventually be a legal challenge by some benefactor's family I wonder.
Thank you I agree, media needs to be balanced and our sources should be questioned, but The Guardian frequently has excellent articles on subjects not always covered by other media and certainly not to the same depth As for the BBC, whilst it tries to remain independent and in terms of giving voices to others it often does well imho. It could be argued that people on our screens discussing this sort of thing present a bias view: business leaders are interviewed far more than Trade Unionists, QuestionTime panels are by majority right wing and when topics such as women's rights or race are discussed there is only one black or female voice. As for the Press in this country it is right wing dominated: Mail, Express, Sun (as opposed to The Mirror) - The Times, Telegraph etc and then there's newspaper ownership - Murdoch The Times, Sunday Times and the Sun: billionaire aristo Jonathan Harmsworth The Mail: Richard Desmond a ruthless entrepreneur of dubious past. The Express and Star. In truth our media and in particular our print media is in the hands of a very, very small number moguls and barons, most of whom have a right wing agenda You dismiss the information out of hand because of its source which is a shame. Personally, I will just as readily read something from the Times or the Spectator, even the Mail if I want a snapshot of an alternative opinion ...but that's me. I do feel it is unfortunate that we can dismiss opinion out of hand and refuse to listen. Try this https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ry-continent-how-we-talk-about-africa/311621/ ...its from a different source. As with the other posted article, it is both thoughtful and well-written ...you should read more
Firstly i thinkt that GA was talking to all of us so to thank him seems a bit odd. The red part and the following bold part actually go together. You state that the press ir right wing orientated and then in the following paragraph state that others dismiss things because of it;s source. Aren't you doing exactly the same based on your previous paragraph? So, if i understand this correctly. If we read/listened to the same left wing sources that you do we'd agree with you and therefore you'd be right. Sadly, the reason that there's what some describe as left/right wing or central with various offshoots is because not everyone agrees with each other. Where did the terms left wing and right wing originate? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to say that not all people agree on all aspects of life rather than try to box people into a category? Oh, hang on, isn't that what this debates about?
No one is trying to erase or whitewash history. A statue does not inform us anything about history, when we examine what the history of these people have done in their lives we have uncovered some interesting details and learned more about them -it is then fair to ask what does this statue represent and extending to what does this college emblem represent and does it represent the past in a balanced way? I believe that these statues belong in a museum like Cecil Rhodes where they could be given better context because the man truly was a monster and the statue tells us nothing. The Scout Movement should not be disbanded nor should we remove statues of Churchill. What we should do is listen to one another and not close off our minds when we hear the voice of someone telling us something different from our views and experiences
Please re-read my post. Someone has dismissed an article because of its source I agree we should be wary of sources for their reliability particularly when using the internet Aren't you doing exactly the same based on your previous paragraph? I don't think so, I try to be open minded and gain info from a range of sources and avoid reading info from one side of the debate only. I'm all against pigeon-holing and people closing off their minds
Ozzy mate, I usually agree with you, but not on this one and the merits (or not) of smacking kids is definitely one for a thread of its own!!
Please avoid pulling out one strand of any argument and then isolating it placing it out of context In some ways it is a bit like our statues. It may tell us whether they rode a horse, possibly inform us about what they looked like and what they wore at the time alongside a plaque with dates and a name. Beyond that, there is no context, it is a limited amount of information in isolation; who was this person, what were they like? What did they do and what sort of life did they lead? ...and why are we honouring him/her with this sculpture to remember this person? The assumption by most of us (until very recently we hardly noticed the iconography of these commemorations and most gave it no thought) is that they honour a life ...well no, surely not if that life was built upon slavery, systematic murder and to support an apartheid regime based on the idea of a subordinate and inferior black race. Be gone Sir Cecil Rhodes, you do belong to history, albeit an embarrassing one but not in a place of honour.
Please avoid lecturing people on what they should do and think ... ... otherwise people may well believe you're being patronising as you've been with your response to @Ozzymac. Other than cutting & pasting the entire article, as some people do, I've used some of the journalists own words to illustrate why their viewpoint may be skewed. Now please, as you've been asked, stop trying to point score against people and stop pestering me.
Uncle Ben's Rice to be rebranded apparently Greene King and Lloyds of London have also come out with apologies for the actions in the 18th and 19th century.
I don't believe anyone looks up to Rhodes or feels looked down on, it's a lump of stone ffs. It's not venerated but it does show that times, and attitudes, can change. Slavery has ended, the Empire has been relinquished, the Royal Family reduced to a tourist attraction. It took decades for that to happen, but it's happened. More things will happen, but shouldn't because of mob rule and trendy bandwagons. Queen Victoria, and the rest, were complicit in everything that Rhodes, Churchill, Baden Powell, etc, did. Just as we look back and cringe at old TV shows we can surely do the same with lumps of stone. No one is perfect so that means that, in some ways, there should be no new statues and the old ones should all be destroyed from Mandela to Princess Diana ... ... as the saying goes, let he who is without guilt cast the first stone.
And so they should ... ... the conditions suffered by itinerant hop pickers were disgraceful. Children taken out of school, working 12 hours a day and sleeping in barns to make brewery owner rich, disgraceful.
