What has happened in this country

[wilts rover]

Thanks idler, yes been controversial for years that

[idler]

I wonder how many, if any students took the moral high ground and turned down the chance to go there under his scheme?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Rhodes Trust at Oxford has a value of around £200m. They give out about £10m per year in bursaries and other support.

Oxford University sits on an endowment of £6.1bn. I'm sure they could cover the shortfall if they wished.

Because otherwise, we'd be accepting that the only way that poor but brilliant students could afford an Oxford education in the 21st century would be to be funded from the proceeds of Victorian era colonial oppression. And I'm sure none of us REALLY wants to live in that country.

[phil old leake]

I wonder how many of the protesters at Oxford actually know who Cecil Rhodes was and what he did good or bad. It would be a very interesting poll if taken. I would hazard a guess that not many would be able to give any kind of sensible response

[idler]

I think that it was the Dean who was talking at dinner Tim on Radio 2. He said that he discussed the Rhodes issue with Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela said that it was in the past and it wasn't as if he was actually sat facing Rhodes.
He had far more reason to be bitter than the protesters. Most countries in their history that they are uncomfortable with but we should be building a future for everybody. Living in the past won't solve anything.

[wilts rover]

Nelson Mandela set up a joint foundation with the Rhodes Trust.

He said he was doing it because, despite their ideological differences, he wanted to set an example in reconciliation and reparation.

What exactly has Oxord University done towards reconciliation and reparation?

https://www.mandelarhodes.org/about/story/

[Metalmicky]

Copied from someone else but worth a read....... if only for balance

There are many misconceptions around the slave trade debate and with the generation of inept liberal appeasers, I thought it best to point out just a few small details that often get overlooked or swept under the carpet - to avoid the real agenda of stirring up race baiting arguments, or fueling the activity of the victimisation card. We should probably tackle the most important myth of all - and that's around who actually invented the slave trade industry. It wasn't the white people, as the left 'woke' in society would have you think or believe. It was in fact the AFRICANS themselves who enslaved  black people - FACT! It was after that point that sub Saharan AFRICANS then got involved in the trafficking of human lives and then the ARABS followed suit!
The EUROPEANS were not involved in any black slave trading until much later!. Although I fully appreciate that any form of slavery is despicable and immoral, why is the blame community pointing fingers at the white British people, when they themselves were the true perpetrators and instigators of these atrocious acts against human beings? Maybe it's not white guilt or privilege that actually haunts them, but the part their own ancestors played. We are just easy targets to point the finger at - and that includes our nicely lined fat wallets of course!
The next part that the white people played in that appalling moment of history, was how we the white British demanded the abolition of slavery - and we brought that unfortunate episode to an end. In 1833, Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves within the British empire. That's how racist white British actually were. We then rallied against our allies to follow suit. In 1865, President Lincoln then had Congress pass the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery in the US. That was 32yrs AFTER the British. The debt - that the BRITISH taxpayer took on to pay off all those slave traders - was so huge, it took almost 200yrs to eventually pay off. It was only settled in 2014. That's right, you and I paid to end slavery - as did your parents and their parents before them so you can reject any notion of guilt. Furthermore, we played no part in this trade - never owned a slave or sold a slave, but as mentioned it was US who paid off that debt!
Even today there are many places - like Africa and the Middle East - who have a bustling slave trade. Of course the left and blame community don't want you knowing that - and neither will they point their fingers in that direction. Is it possible that they don't want to expose their own abominable role in this inhumane trade? Or maybe the guilt and pockets don't flow as deep in less civilised countries!
CONCLUSION!
This is to all you apologetic, guilt ridden white appeasers - and those anarchists who seek to create mayhem and chaos just to promote anger and civil disobedience. The Cenotaph, Winston Churchill and the fallen soldier are not just symbols of war. They are tributes to all who stood up and lost their lives in fighting for all of our freedoms - so what gives you the right to desecrate such iconic statues and monuments, that reflect our conflicted history? They were placed there to remind all of us about those who fought against fascists like you who have no respect for humanity! Your misconception that this behaviour can be somehow seen as righteous or justifiable is indefensible - and undeniably wanton vandalism!

[drfchound]

Copied from someone else but worth a read....... if only for balance

There are many misconceptions around the slave trade debate and with the generation of inept liberal appeasers, I thought it best to point out just a few small details that often get overlooked or swept under the carpet - to avoid the real agenda of stirring up race baiting arguments, or fueling the activity of the victimisation card. We should probably tackle the most important myth of all - and that's around who actually invented the slave trade industry. It wasn't the white people, as the left 'woke' in society would have you think or believe. It was in fact the AFRICANS themselves who enslaved  black people - FACT! It was after that point that sub Saharan AFRICANS then got involved in the trafficking of human lives and then the ARABS followed suit!
The EUROPEANS were not involved in any black slave trading until much later!. Although I fully appreciate that any form of slavery is despicable and immoral, why is the blame community pointing fingers at the white British people, when they themselves were the true perpetrators and instigators of these atrocious acts against human beings? Maybe it's not white guilt or privilege that actually haunts them, but the part their own ancestors played. We are just easy targets to point the finger at - and that includes our nicely lined fat wallets of course!
The next part that the white people played in that appalling moment of history, was how we the white British demanded the abolition of slavery - and we brought that unfortunate episode to an end. In 1833, Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves within the British empire. That's how racist white British actually were. We then rallied against our allies to follow suit. In 1865, President Lincoln then had Congress pass the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery in the US. That was 32yrs AFTER the British. The debt - that the BRITISH taxpayer took on to pay off all those slave traders - was so huge, it took almost 200yrs to eventually pay off. It was only settled in 2014. That's right, you and I paid to end slavery - as did your parents and their parents before them so you can reject any notion of guilt. Furthermore, we played no part in this trade - never owned a slave or sold a slave, but as mentioned it was US who paid off that debt!
Even today there are many places - like Africa and the Middle East - who have a bustling slave trade. Of course the left and blame community don't want you knowing that - and neither will they point their fingers in that direction. Is it possible that they don't want to expose their own abominable role in this inhumane trade? Or maybe the guilt and pockets don't flow as deep in less civilised countries!
CONCLUSION!
This is to all you apologetic, guilt ridden white appeasers - and those anarchists who seek to create mayhem and chaos just to promote anger and civil disobedience. The Cenotaph, Winston Churchill and the fallen soldier are not just symbols of war. They are tributes to all who stood up and lost their lives in fighting for all of our freedoms - so what gives you the right to desecrate such iconic statues and monuments, that reflect our conflicted history? They were placed there to remind all of us about those who fought against fascists like you who have no respect for humanity! Your misconception that this behaviour can be somehow seen as righteous or justifiable is indefensible - and undeniably wanton vandalism!

MM, no doubt that that article with open up a can of worms.
Just waiting now for someone to pull it to pieces.

[wilts rover]

Some 'interesting' bits of historical research in there MMickey (and I know it isn't yours).

Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves

The other day I encouraged people who were interested to look into the actual history of slave ownership, reparation and the compensation paid out too them £20m (£18bn in todays terms) to look at this website and the database. I think I should post it again:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Here's a bit of context.

1833 was a critical year for Britons who had invested in the Empire. Thanks to the work of the Legacies of British Slave Ownership team at UCL, we have got to know more about the thousands of British people from nearly all classes, regions, towns and cities, who owned slaves and were paid compensation for their emancipation after the act abolishing slavery was passed in that year. We know that some 40% of GDP was handed over to slave owners while formerly enslaved people received nothing, and that much of the payout was invested in projects like the building of railways and the establishment of banking and insurance firms at home, and in projects like the colonization of South Australia overseas.

Around 3000 people claimed compensation, nearly all UK based or with UK links. At lot of MP's had claims, so effectively the British government compensated itself with taxpayers money.

There were 4 slave owners in Doncaster, 83 in Yorkshire. Please do search the database, it is well worth 5 minutes of your time:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/

[wilts rover]

Happy to oblige houd

The true scale of Britain's involvement in the slave trade has been laid bare in documents revealing how the country's wealthiest families received the modern equivalent of billions of pounds in compensation after slavery was abolished.

The previously unseen records show exactly who received what in payouts from the Government when slave ownership was abolished by Britain – much to the potential embarrassment of their descendants. Dr Nick Draper from University College London, who has studied the compensation papers, says as many as one-fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons derived all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy.

As a result, there are now wealthy families all around the UK still indirectly enjoying the proceeds of slavery where it has been passed on to them. Dr Draper said: "There was a feeding frenzy around the compensation." A John Austin, for instance, owned 415 slaves, and got compensation of £20,511, a sum worth nearly £17m today. And there were many who received far more.

Academics from UCL, including Dr Draper, spent three years drawing together 46,000 records of compensation given to British slave-owners into an internet database to be launched for public use on Wednesday. But he emphasised that the claims set to be unveiled were not just from rich families but included many "very ordinary men and women" and covered the entire spectrum of society.

Dr Draper added that the database's findings may have implications for the "reparations debate". Barbados is currently leading the way in calling for reparations from former colonial powers for the injustices suffered by slaves and their families.

Among those revealed to have benefited from slavery are ancestors of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, former minister Douglas Hogg, authors Graham Greene and George Orwell, poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and the new chairman of the Arts Council, Peter Bazalgette. Other prominent names which feature in the records include scions of one of the nation's oldest banking families, the Barings, and the second Earl of Harewood, Henry Lascelles, an ancestor of the Queen's cousin. Some families used the money to invest in the railways and other aspects of the industrial revolution; others bought or maintained their country houses, and some used the money for philanthropy. George Orwell's great-grandfather, Charles Blair, received £4,442, equal to £3m today, for the 218 slaves he owned.

The British government paid out £20m to compensate some 3,000 families that owned slaves for the loss of their "property" when slave-ownership was abolished in Britain's colonies in 1833. This figure represented a staggering 40 per cent of the Treasury's annual spending budget and, in today's terms, calculated as wage values, equates to around £16.5bn.

A total of £10m went to slave-owning families in the Caribbean and Africa, while the other half went to absentee owners living in Britain. The biggest single payout went to James Blair (no relation to Orwell), an MP who had homes in Marylebone, central London, and Scotland. He was awarded £83,530, the equivalent of £65m today, for 1,598 slaves he owned on the plantation he had inherited in British Guyana.

But this amount was dwarfed by the amount paid to John Gladstone, the father of 19th-century prime minister William Gladstone. He received £106,769 (modern equivalent £83m) for the 2,508 slaves he owned across nine plantations. His son, who served as prime minister four times during his 60-year career, was heavily involved in his father's claim.

Mr Cameron, too, is revealed to have slave owners in his family background on his father's side. The compensation records show that General Sir James Duff, an army officer and MP for Banffshire in Scotland during the late 1700s, was Mr Cameron's first cousin six times removed. Sir James, who was the son of one of Mr Cameron's great-grand-uncle's, the second Earl of Fife, was awarded £4,101, equal to more than £3m today, to compensate him for the 202 slaves he forfeited on the Grange Sugar Estate in Jamaica.
Daily coronavirus briefing

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

Another illustrious political family that it appears still carries the name of a major slave owner is the Hogg dynasty, which includes the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg. They are the descendants of Charles McGarel, a merchant who made a fortune from slave ownership. Between 1835 and 1837 he received £129,464, about £101m in today's terms, for the 2,489 slaves he owned. McGarel later went on to bring his younger brother-in-law Quintin Hogg into his hugely successful sugar firm, which still used indentured labour on plantations in British Guyana established under slavery. And it was Quintin's descendants that continued to keep the family name in the limelight, with both his son, Douglas McGarel Hogg, and his grandson, Quintin McGarel Hogg, becoming Lord Chancellor.

Dr Draper said: "Seeing the names of the slave-owners repeated in 20th‑century family naming practices is a very stark reminder about where those families saw their origins being from. In this case I'm thinking about the Hogg family. To have two Lord Chancellors in Britain in the 20th century bearing the name of a slave-owner from British Guiana, who went penniless to British Guyana, came back a very wealthy man and contributed to the formation of this political dynasty, which incorporated his name into their children in recognition – it seems to me to be an illuminating story and a potent example."

Mr Hogg refused to comment yesterday, saying he "didn't know anything about it". Mr Cameron declined to comment after a request was made to the No 10 press office.

Another demonstration of the extent to which slavery links stretch into modern Britain is Evelyn Bazalgette, the uncle of one of the giants of Victorian engineering, Sir Joseph Bazalgette and ancestor of Arts Council boss Sir Peter Bazalgette. He was paid £7,352 (£5.7m in today's money) for 420 slaves from two estates in Jamaica. Sir Peter said yesterday: "It had always been rumoured that his father had some interests in the Caribbean and I suspect Evelyn inherited that. So I heard rumours but this confirms it, and guess it's the sort of thing wealthy people on the make did in the 1800s. He could have put his money elsewhere but regrettably he put it in the Caribbean."

The TV chef Ainsley Harriott, who had slave-owners in his family on his grandfather's side, said yesterday he was shocked by the amount paid out by the government to the slave-owners. "You would think the government would have given at least some money to the freed slaves who need to find homes and start new lives," he said. "It seems a bit barbaric. It's like the rich protecting the rich."

The database is available from Wednesday at: ucl.ac.uk/lbs.

Cruel trade

Slavery on an industrial scale was a major source of the wealth of the British empire, being the exploitation upon which the West Indies sugar trade and cotton crop in North America was based. Those who made money from it were not only the slave-owners, but also the investors in those who transported Africans to enslavement. In the century to 1810, British ships carried about three million to a life of forced labour.

Campaigning against slavery began in the late 18th century as revulsion against the trade spread. This led, first, to the abolition of the trade in slaves, which came into law in 1808, and then, some 26 years later, to the Act of Parliament that would emancipate slaves. This legislation made provision for the staggering levels of compensation for slave-owners, but gave the former slaves not a penny in reparation.

More than that, it said that only children under six would be immediately free; the rest being regarded as "apprentices" who would, in exchange for free board and lodging, have to work for their "owners" 40 and a half hours for nothing until 1840. Several large disturbances meant that the deadline was brought forward and so, in 1838, 700,000 slaves in the West Indies, 40,000 in South Africa and 20,000 in Mauritius were finally liberated.

David Randall

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colonial-shame-slave-owners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

Good to see you posting something that's being circulated by white supremacists MM.

It really shouldn't need explaining, but the issue is about SCALE.

Yes slavery always existed. We industrialised it.

That propaganda you've just shared is the exact equivalent of saying that pogroms always happened so why should Germany have special guilt over the Holocaust?

[selby]

  Billy, it still exists, child traffickers, prostitution,slave labour, exploitation, it is on your doorstep in this country, and is mostly run by foreign criminals living in this country. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Selby. Yes. And I want that rooting out and punishing.

People still abuse and assault Jews today. Should Germany just "meh" over the Holocaust?

I'll not wait for an answer on that. I accept that you'll just fire back more whataboutery.

[Glyn_Wigley]

  Billy, it still exists, child traffickers, prostitution,slave labour, exploitation, it is on your doorstep in this country, and is mostly run by foreign criminals living in this country. 

And they're all against the law because we as humanity recognise that it should be. Unlike the time when slave trading wasn't against the law. So what's your point?

[phil old leake]

Does this mean we have to abolish the scout movement
 Robert Baden-Powell: Scouts founder statue to be removed in Poole https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-53004638

[phil old leake]

Ant and dec have made an apology now

I wonder if the cast of Goodness Gracious Me will apologise for the “going out for an English sketch” which I thought was hilarious and was not offended by it in any way

[drfchound]

Remember the black and white minstrel show?

[Filo]

Love thy Neighbour

Never get away with that these days, yet a black actor and actress starred in it

[selby]

  Billy what about on this point I agree with you, but the constant undermining of the police and authority, will only give organised crime more confidence.
  Like football twenty years ago the tail is starting to wag the dog, most likely at my age I will not see it, but about twenty years down the line if something does not alter some posters on here might not have the same thoughts on liberty they have now.
 

[Metalmicky]

Good to see you posting something that's being circulated by white supremacists MM.

TBH, I had no idea is allegedly by 'white supremacists' BST - it was sent to me and I believed it was thought provoking - does that make me bad?

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM

No. But it does make you a naive example of how these things work.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That article you shared MM is a superb piece of propaganda. It has everything that good (sic) propaganda should have.

1) It comes across as a reasonably argued, logical critique.

2) It has undeniable facts which strengthen its credibility (Slavery has been a widespread problem. Black Africans were involved in and profited from the Slave Trade. The UK was the first country to abolish slavery...)

3) It uses this approach to appeal to reason and have people who don't think too hard nodding in agreement.

4) And that allows it to pull of the key sleight of hand. It skillfully side-steps the REALLY important issue in the current debate (that we white Europeans, and the British more than anyone chose to industrialise slavery and the slave trade and took it to levels that were astronomically higher than anything the world had ever seen, or has ever seen since, reaping an unprecedented financial reward: and in doing so, WE laid the foundations for the ongoing socio-economic problems that are still being played out in front of our eyes).

5) And having done all that, it gets to its purpose. An affirmation of what the reader already wants to believe, but perhaps hasn't had supported by such a well-crafted argument: that they are being duped and hoodwinked by "the other side". The "apologetic, guilt ridden white appeasers" are the enemy and must be resisted.

It truly is a superb example of the genre. You don't do propaganda by screaming something that is obviously bullshit. You wrap up the Lie in swathes of truth, such that the Lie passes through unnoticed. You make the reader feel that they are correct in their gut instincts. You give them a pseudo-intellectual buttress for what they want to believe is true. And you make it far, far harder for anyone to engage with them on the real truth.

[drfchound]

Ant and dec have made an apology now

I wonder if the cast of Goodness Gracious Me will apologise for the “going out for an English sketch” which I thought was hilarious and was not offended by it in any way

I wonder whether anyone who has ever told an Irish joke should apologise to the World.

[Not Now Kato]

Love thy Neighbour

Never get away with that these days, yet a black actor and actress starred in it

It was a parody on English attitudes at the time, (as was Till Death Us Do Part), but an awful lot of people didn't understand that and branded both shows racist, which they certainly weren't - they simply highlighted and poked fun at the racial prejudice commonly displayed by many English people at the time.  The 'Little Englander' was the bad guy in both shows!
 
Sadly, racial prejudice was a powerful tool used by the right as part of the Leave campaigns - and equally sadly we still have plenty of 'Little Englanders', nothing changes; why can't we learn?

[idler]

Rising damp anyone?

[Donnywolf]

Mind your Language - no not you Idler lol

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ, Mind Your Language was cringeworthy even at the time. Rising Damp and Till Death Us Do Part had some multi-dimensionality in the way they approached race and racism. MYL just presented flat, stupid stereotypes for us to giggle at.

[Metalmicky]

That article you shared MM is a superb piece of propaganda. It has everything that good (sic) propaganda should have.

1) It comes across as a reasonably argued, logical critique.

2) It has undeniable facts which strengthen its credibility (Slavery has been a widespread problem. Black Africans were involved in and profited from the Slave Trade. The UK was the first country to abolish slavery...)

3) It uses this approach to appeal to reason and have people who don't think too hard nodding in agreement.

4) And that allows it to pull of the key sleight of hand. It skillfully side-steps the REALLY important issue in the current debate (that we white Europeans, and the British more than anyone chose to industrialise slavery and the slave trade and took it to levels that were astronomically higher than anything the world had ever seen, or has ever seen since, reaping an unprecedented financial reward: and in doing so, WE laid the foundations for the ongoing socio-economic problems that are still being played out in front of our eyes).

5) And having done all that, it gets to its purpose. An affirmation of what the reader already wants to believe, but perhaps hasn't had supported by such a well-crafted argument: that they are being duped and hoodwinked by "the other side". The "apologetic, guilt ridden white appeasers" are the enemy and must be resisted.

It truly is a superb example of the genre. You don't do propaganda by screaming something that is obviously bullshit. You wrap up the Lie in swathes of truth, such that the Lie passes through unnoticed. You make the reader feel that they are correct in their gut instincts. You give them a pseudo-intellectual buttress for what they want to believe is true. And you make it far, far harder for anyone to engage with them on the real truth.

I actually agree with you - there are many who have similar skill sets.....

[BillyStubbsTears]

You should point them out when you find them MM. It's important to separate propaganda from correctly and honestly argued points. A lot of people have serious trouble seeing the difference between the two...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Speaking of which, I see Farage has been sacked by LBC today.