It seems the gesture has lost its original meaning, I asked a chap in the local who was extolling taking the knee if he would take a knee with me for the six million jews murdered in the second world war, he looked astonished at the suggestion, thinking it was only for inequality/injustice against coloured people, IMO it has become a very hollow gesture.
Who else thinks this?
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Well yes - that is the whole idea. Force the issues into the open.. etc.
I thought BLM protests and subsequent rioting and statue toppling was doing a good job of that.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I agree. Taking the knee is just another contribution in another place.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,595
- Reaction score
- 1,016
Was just about to lock the thread as it happens. Personal insults, folk unable to avoid posts and threads that seem to get their blood pressure up, unable to discuss anything in a rational and civil manner.
So keep it friendly or else..............
So keep it friendly or else..............
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I abhor racism, but I do wonder whether taking the knee and BLM is becoming counter productive.
Firstly it draws attention to differences in colour. I see footballers, or cricketers, or doctors, or nurses, or lawyers etc - not African, West Indian, Asian etc.
Most people are not racists - a movement is being reinforced by the behaviour of an obnoxious few, not the majority.
Now a bit of paranoia. By protesting in this way they seem by implication to include me in the unacceptable actions of a few. I resent this and (sadly) makes me less, not more, sympathetic to their cause.
Far better that the perpetrators are very publically identified, charged and punished. Social media should take far more responsibility for that which they "publish" and activiely deny access to their products to those who offend.
Firstly it draws attention to differences in colour. I see footballers, or cricketers, or doctors, or nurses, or lawyers etc - not African, West Indian, Asian etc.
Most people are not racists - a movement is being reinforced by the behaviour of an obnoxious few, not the majority.
Now a bit of paranoia. By protesting in this way they seem by implication to include me in the unacceptable actions of a few. I resent this and (sadly) makes me less, not more, sympathetic to their cause.
Far better that the perpetrators are very publically identified, charged and punished. Social media should take far more responsibility for that which they "publish" and activiely deny access to their products to those who offend.
I watched a few hours of TdF on ITV4 yesterday. Admittedly I fell asleep a couple of times.
Woke up and the commentators were running out of new things to say.
9%-12% gradient for miles on end. That's tough.
Steady pedalling until the final kilometre.
Spectacular scenery.
No one crashed.
The favourite won.
I’ll give it a miss today.
They didn't have the news to watch back then. That's where we, as society, get it now.
doctor Bob
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- 1,881
Maybe your right, I'll avoid the t.... and hope he goes back to the hidden forum with politics.
All these issues of type, make, origin and colour would not happen if the human race stopped its love of categorisation, this race issue is just a low level version of the cold war, on par with the "troubles" and another version of the middle east. If everyone decided to be just human then we could solve so many problems but you will unfortunately always get the ones who stick their head above the parapet and then complain they got shot.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Also TTK is non violent, non destructive, very brief, not offensive, legal, peaceful..etc. Surely should be welcomed - compared to other varieties of BLM protest?
It's not just about football match chants and social media abuse. Calling to account "the perpetrators" of civil rights abuses could extend through society, and to the government itself.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,595
- Reaction score
- 1,016
I'm not sure you did watch it ... : )
Oh, and the Bahrain Victorious team hotel was raided after the stage. Some of the team members have/had rather iffy connections with the dark side in the past.
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
Really, I do the Dark Side. Maybe they want to borrow my froe.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,595
- Reaction score
- 1,016
Expect a 4 am knock on the door from WADA shortly.......
The fact that needs to be accepted is that you cannot judge what has happened in the past, it is fixed at that point in time and cannot be changed, it happened. All this nonsense about statues of the so called perpetrators being vandalised is not going to alter history, people need to learn from history in order not to allow certain events to reoccur and not try and remove all the evidence so it can be brushed under the carpet.
I can assure you I did and I was totally exhausted by the experience. Like I’d pedalled up two mountains with them.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Oh yes you can, and you should do. It is continually under review.
True, but the interpretation of what happened, i.e. the history, can be a bit fluid, or even totally false. Also the fall out from history which we live with now, can be modified.
People probably learned more than they every knew from the history, when Colston's statue was dumped! It'd be good if they toppled Rhodes next!
Statues aren't the evidence. Some of them are evidence of falsified history - a particular narrow or outdated point of view
Why do you continue arguing purely for the sake of arguing ?
JobandKnock
Amateur curmudgeon
Jacob, just how do you view the people who daubed the word "racist" on Churchill's statue or those "right on people" who thought it was acceptable to try to set fire to the Union flags at the Senotaph?
Personally, I didn't know much about Colston, but what was clear to me from having visited Bristol a number of times over the years was that he was a great benefactor to the city. The problem was that his money came from the misery of slaves, but rather than toppling his statue I think I'd have opted for having addirional plaques on his statue(s) which spelled out in non-political terns just how he made his fortune. A bunch of (seemingly in the main) outsiders coming in and topplng his statue was one thing, but for a London artist to then turn up subsequently and erect a statue to a non-entity who is of little account in Bristol on the same site was downright insulting to Bristolians (the words of a friend who has a business in the city). You do not change history by pulling down statues (including that of Rhodes). Surely it is far better to explain what these people did thsn to attempt to expunge them in the way that Stalin did?
As to Churchill, my family comes from a mining background where even as late as the 1960s if you mentioned his name one of the older men might spit on the ground. Some people had long memories of Churchill's behavior in both Tonypandy and the General Strike. What I find risible about the people who attack his statue is that had Halifax, not Churchill, succeeded Chamberlain as PM some of that mob would more than likely be speaking German or more likely they would never have been born (iin view of the Nazi idiology which was all for cleansing the population of undesirable elements such as inferior racial groups, homosexuals, the weak and disabled, trades unionists, etc). Funny old thing, freedom of speech.
Personally, I didn't know much about Colston, but what was clear to me from having visited Bristol a number of times over the years was that he was a great benefactor to the city. The problem was that his money came from the misery of slaves, but rather than toppling his statue I think I'd have opted for having addirional plaques on his statue(s) which spelled out in non-political terns just how he made his fortune. A bunch of (seemingly in the main) outsiders coming in and topplng his statue was one thing, but for a London artist to then turn up subsequently and erect a statue to a non-entity who is of little account in Bristol on the same site was downright insulting to Bristolians (the words of a friend who has a business in the city). You do not change history by pulling down statues (including that of Rhodes). Surely it is far better to explain what these people did thsn to attempt to expunge them in the way that Stalin did?
As to Churchill, my family comes from a mining background where even as late as the 1960s if you mentioned his name one of the older men might spit on the ground. Some people had long memories of Churchill's behavior in both Tonypandy and the General Strike. What I find risible about the people who attack his statue is that had Halifax, not Churchill, succeeded Chamberlain as PM some of that mob would more than likely be speaking German or more likely they would never have been born (iin view of the Nazi idiology which was all for cleansing the population of undesirable elements such as inferior racial groups, homosexuals, the weak and disabled, trades unionists, etc). Funny old thing, freedom of speech.
- Status
Similar threads
