| London Mayor Sadiq Khan 20:23 - Jun 10 with 32299 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
London mayor Sadiq Khan promised today that he will begin the process of pulling down ‘inappropriate’ statues around London — after Bristolians dumped the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in the river at the weekend.
To investigate London’s landmarks, Khan has created a ‘Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm’ which will review statues and street names in the capital to make sure they reflect the diversity of its people. Khan said he expected the commission to find that it’s ‘not appropriate to be memorialising, or to be celebrating’ certain figures, especially those with a racist past and links to the slave trade.
In 2018, he proudly unveiled a statue of the suffragist Millicent Fawcett — the first-ever statue in Parliament Square of a woman. At the time, Khan declared that ‘from the very first week of my Mayoralty, I supported Caroline Criado Perez’s campaign to put up a statue of a woman in Parliament Square, and I’m so proud that the day of its unveiling is now upon us.’
But while Fawcett is mostly celebrated today for the campaign for women’s suffrage, less well-known is her ardent support of the British Empire. Fawcett was such a fan of Empire, that in 1901 she was commissioned by the government to lead an investigation into British concentration camps in South Africa during the second Boer war, after high mortality rates and appalling conditions were reported there.
When she arrived, Fawcett thought the camps were deeply necessary for the war, and her eventual report said the commission had a ‘generally favourable’ view of them. She also suggested that many of the deaths were caused by the ‘unsanitary habits’ of the Boers. Around 28,000 Boers died in the camps.
Fawcett didn’t have much thought for the participation of Black Africans in society after the war either. In 1899, she wrote that after the settlement of the war;
‘I hope we are too deeply pledged to the principle of equal privileges for all white races to abandon it.’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/will-sadiq-khan-have-to-knock-down-millicent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think Sadiq will include his pet project in the list of 'inappropriate' statues he intends to tear down? It begs the question as to whether he is engaging with this exercise simply to boost his personal popularity, considering he proudly unveiled such a statue himself less than two years ago.
The man is a colossal hypocrite. |  |
| |  |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:08 - Jun 19 with 2372 views | Kerouac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:40 - Jun 19 by Humpty |
Care to show me where I mentioned genoicide? |
#sigh#
I post the definition of the word genocide and point out how ridiculous to accuse Churchill of that
...and then you respond telling me 'No' and defending their position.
#yawn# |  |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:00 - Jun 20 with 2342 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:08 - Jun 19 by Kerouac |
#sigh#
I post the definition of the word genocide and point out how ridiculous to accuse Churchill of that
...and then you respond telling me 'No' and defending their position.
#yawn# |
As usual, you're alone on this one. Copy and paste jobs from the Churchill foundation are nothing compared to independent research showing the famine to be man made.
The avoidable and deliberate deaths of 3-4 million people belonging to a race which Churchill despised.
The covering of his statue is a fitting metaphor for this country's denial of historical atrocities. I sincerely hope you're around when his statue falls. |  |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:18 - Jun 20 with 2316 views | Kerouac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:00 - Jun 20 by Drizzy |
As usual, you're alone on this one. Copy and paste jobs from the Churchill foundation are nothing compared to independent research showing the famine to be man made.
The avoidable and deliberate deaths of 3-4 million people belonging to a race which Churchill despised.
The covering of his statue is a fitting metaphor for this country's denial of historical atrocities. I sincerely hope you're around when his statue falls. |
The independent research you are quoting is from a book written in 2009.
It is just somebody's opinion interpreted from the sources.
Just as the article I quoted from is another historian's alternative opinion derived from the sources.
I hope you attempt to take it down, see what happens to you. Go on, have the balls. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:41 - Jun 20 with 2306 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:18 - Jun 20 by Kerouac |
The independent research you are quoting is from a book written in 2009.
It is just somebody's opinion interpreted from the sources.
Just as the article I quoted from is another historian's alternative opinion derived from the sources.
I hope you attempt to take it down, see what happens to you. Go on, have the balls. |
A book based on the ideas of Noble prize winning famine economist, Amartya Sen.
A website dedicated solely to protecting Churchill's legacy.
Genocide apologist. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:45 - Jun 20 with 2301 views | Kerouac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:41 - Jun 20 by Drizzy |
A book based on the ideas of Noble prize winning famine economist, Amartya Sen.
A website dedicated solely to protecting Churchill's legacy.
Genocide apologist. |
Try and take that statue down Drizz, I dare you. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 03:20 - Jun 20 with 2235 views | Jack123 |
He's scum to the Uk,
Also watch tomorrow, how the pric* allows the blm protests to go ahead, when they have been banned by a new legislation government law.. [Post edited 20 Jun 2020 4:03]
|  |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 05:15 - Jun 20 with 2193 views | snork44 |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:14 - Jun 19 by Kerouac |
For my leftist fans...
Genocide
[ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd]
NOUN
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
"a campaign of genocide" · [more]
synonyms:
racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · butchery · bloodbath · bloodletting · pogrom · ethnic cleansing · holocaust · Shoah · slaying · battue · hecatomb
So you are saying that Winston Churchill went out of his way during WWII to DELIBERATELY murder 3million+ Indians (who died in a famine caused by a multitude of factors peculiar to that time) because he was a racist.
...and you make this claim about a man who was leading the fight against Fascism in Europe, who was one of the few who was brave enough to call Hitler out for what he was while the Labour Party demanded appeasement...
Adolf Hitler, who did DELIBERATELY murder 6 million Jews...
You
are
batshit
f*cking
crazy. |
Hitler didn't only murder six million Jews , he also killed a further four million people including homosexuals, mentally ill people , political opponents and Slavs. |  |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 09:03 - Jun 20 with 2150 views | Neath_Jack |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:45 - Jun 20 by Kerouac |
Try and take that statue down Drizz, I dare you. |
What are you going to do, let his f*cking tyres down. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 11:06 - Jul 8 with 1972 views | felixstowe_jack |
Is sadiq khan going to rename the two roads in London called "Napolean road" as Napoleon reintroduced slavery in the French Empire. |  |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 11:29 - Jul 8 with 1955 views | Catullus |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:00 - Jun 20 by Drizzy |
As usual, you're alone on this one. Copy and paste jobs from the Churchill foundation are nothing compared to independent research showing the famine to be man made.
The avoidable and deliberate deaths of 3-4 million people belonging to a race which Churchill despised.
The covering of his statue is a fitting metaphor for this country's denial of historical atrocities. I sincerely hope you're around when his statue falls. |
As usual Drizzy you're exaggerating this for your own purposes. From what I've read the deaths were estimated between 2.1 to 3 million (not 3-4 million) and the studies (which I've just been reading up on) say that Churchill's policies significantly contributed to the problem but it wasn't entirely man made.
As we have seen with Covid, where many people have and will die because of it but not of it, many thousands of Bengali deaths weren't of starvation.
When you talk about well supplied British soldiers, how do you back that up? It's said that no General will ever agree he has enough supplies. To put it in some sort of context, more people died of malnutrtion during WW2 than died in combat,
https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2011/01/world-war-food-hunger-million#:~:text
Did Churchill deliberatley try to kill Bengali's or was he more concernd with the succesful prosecution of the war effort? On balance surely you have to go with the latter?
When it comes to historical atrocities there aren't many countries that can plead innocence yet you, Drizzy, continue to act as if the UK was the only perpetrator. Honestly, the whole of humankind needs to take a good hard look at it's history and learn the lessons because we always have and still continue to be guilty of absolutely digusting behaviour towards each other. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 14:55 - Jul 8 with 1909 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 11:29 - Jul 8 by Catullus |
As usual Drizzy you're exaggerating this for your own purposes. From what I've read the deaths were estimated between 2.1 to 3 million (not 3-4 million) and the studies (which I've just been reading up on) say that Churchill's policies significantly contributed to the problem but it wasn't entirely man made.
As we have seen with Covid, where many people have and will die because of it but not of it, many thousands of Bengali deaths weren't of starvation.
When you talk about well supplied British soldiers, how do you back that up? It's said that no General will ever agree he has enough supplies. To put it in some sort of context, more people died of malnutrtion during WW2 than died in combat,
https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2011/01/world-war-food-hunger-million#:~:text
Did Churchill deliberatley try to kill Bengali's or was he more concernd with the succesful prosecution of the war effort? On balance surely you have to go with the latter?
When it comes to historical atrocities there aren't many countries that can plead innocence yet you, Drizzy, continue to act as if the UK was the only perpetrator. Honestly, the whole of humankind needs to take a good hard look at it's history and learn the lessons because we always have and still continue to be guilty of absolutely digusting behaviour towards each other. |
"As usual Drizzy you're exaggerating this for your own purposes. From what I've read the deaths were estimated between 2.1 to 3 million (not 3-4 million) and the studies (which I've just been reading up on) say that Churchill's policies significantly contributed to the problem but it wasn't entirely man-made."
There's a wide range of estimates between 1 and 4 million. I took between 3-4 million to account for the fact estimates had doubled between the 1940s and the 1980s and unreliable rural population data means the death toll is likely to be in the higher threshold of estimates.
Amartya Sen, who's a Noble prize-winning famine economist, said that natural factors such as cyclone and crop diseases should not have led to a famine, let alone one of the worst in recorded history. It was policy failure and criminal negligence. I made a post detailing this earlier in the thread and the evidence comes from Sen and Madhusree Mukherjee.
"As we have seen with Covid, where many people have and will die because of it but not of it, many thousands of Bengali deaths weren't of starvation."
What's your point exactly? It's like saying not all deaths in Auschwitz were from execution.
"When you talk about well supplied British soldiers, how do you back that up? It's said that no General will ever agree he has enough supplies. To put it in some sort of context, more people died of malnutrtion during WW2 than died in combat"
Grain imports from Australia offered to Bengal were diverted to the Mediterranean. There's evidence of this as I alluded to earlier.
With regards to the issue of malnutrition, I'm not sure what means for the rural people of Bengal. It's not their fault that powerful nations couldn't supply their vast armies with food. Look at the number of civilian casualties as a result of famine. The vast majority are in countries or regions occupied by both Allied and Axis forces. India, Indonesia, occupied territories of the USSR, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos. For the poor and oppressed people of the world, there aren't any tales of victory and valour or the triumph of good over evil. Just millions of innocent civilian deaths. The countries responsible still have difficulty accepting their culpability which is the point of this entire discussion.
"Did Churchill deliberatley try to kill Bengali's or was he more concernd with the succesful prosecution of the war effort? On balance surely you have to go with the latter?"
I don't see the point in having a semantic argument about the meaning of deliberate. He repeatedly denied emergency requests for grain. He was sitting on an 18.4m tonne British stockpile and denied a request for 1m tonnes. He destroyed 46,000 boats knowing there was a grain shortage and imports were required. His response when learning about the famine was along the lines of "If the shortages are so bad why hasn't Gandhi died?"
"When it comes to historical atrocities there aren't many countries that can plead innocence yet you, Drizzy, continue to act as if the UK was the only perpetrator."
Not sure why you struggle so much with the fact I'm a British citizen, who lives in Britain, on the forum of a British football club adding to discussions on British history. If this were the Gamba Osaka forum and we were discussing Japanese history I'd be waxing lyrical about Nanking.
With regards to the last statement, it's your usual brand of banal piety. If you were the victim of a crime, say I graffiti "TW*T" over your house. Would you be angry at me, especially if I denied it in the face of evidence? Or would you continually reiterate that all vandalism is bad? | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 16:06 - Jul 8 with 1885 views | Catullus |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 14:55 - Jul 8 by Drizzy |
"As usual Drizzy you're exaggerating this for your own purposes. From what I've read the deaths were estimated between 2.1 to 3 million (not 3-4 million) and the studies (which I've just been reading up on) say that Churchill's policies significantly contributed to the problem but it wasn't entirely man-made."
There's a wide range of estimates between 1 and 4 million. I took between 3-4 million to account for the fact estimates had doubled between the 1940s and the 1980s and unreliable rural population data means the death toll is likely to be in the higher threshold of estimates.
Amartya Sen, who's a Noble prize-winning famine economist, said that natural factors such as cyclone and crop diseases should not have led to a famine, let alone one of the worst in recorded history. It was policy failure and criminal negligence. I made a post detailing this earlier in the thread and the evidence comes from Sen and Madhusree Mukherjee.
"As we have seen with Covid, where many people have and will die because of it but not of it, many thousands of Bengali deaths weren't of starvation."
What's your point exactly? It's like saying not all deaths in Auschwitz were from execution.
"When you talk about well supplied British soldiers, how do you back that up? It's said that no General will ever agree he has enough supplies. To put it in some sort of context, more people died of malnutrtion during WW2 than died in combat"
Grain imports from Australia offered to Bengal were diverted to the Mediterranean. There's evidence of this as I alluded to earlier.
With regards to the issue of malnutrition, I'm not sure what means for the rural people of Bengal. It's not their fault that powerful nations couldn't supply their vast armies with food. Look at the number of civilian casualties as a result of famine. The vast majority are in countries or regions occupied by both Allied and Axis forces. India, Indonesia, occupied territories of the USSR, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos. For the poor and oppressed people of the world, there aren't any tales of victory and valour or the triumph of good over evil. Just millions of innocent civilian deaths. The countries responsible still have difficulty accepting their culpability which is the point of this entire discussion.
"Did Churchill deliberatley try to kill Bengali's or was he more concernd with the succesful prosecution of the war effort? On balance surely you have to go with the latter?"
I don't see the point in having a semantic argument about the meaning of deliberate. He repeatedly denied emergency requests for grain. He was sitting on an 18.4m tonne British stockpile and denied a request for 1m tonnes. He destroyed 46,000 boats knowing there was a grain shortage and imports were required. His response when learning about the famine was along the lines of "If the shortages are so bad why hasn't Gandhi died?"
"When it comes to historical atrocities there aren't many countries that can plead innocence yet you, Drizzy, continue to act as if the UK was the only perpetrator."
Not sure why you struggle so much with the fact I'm a British citizen, who lives in Britain, on the forum of a British football club adding to discussions on British history. If this were the Gamba Osaka forum and we were discussing Japanese history I'd be waxing lyrical about Nanking.
With regards to the last statement, it's your usual brand of banal piety. If you were the victim of a crime, say I graffiti "TW*T" over your house. Would you be angry at me, especially if I denied it in the face of evidence? Or would you continually reiterate that all vandalism is bad? |
You misundertood the point of " well supplied" what I meant was how sure are you that the soldiers were well supplied?
The vandalism thing, well it's irrelevant, historically speaking I doubt we'll ever be discussing vandalism of an individuals house as an historical atrocity. My point is you constantly bemoan the UK's history and seemingly want to pin us Brits down as being the most heinous, evil people on the planet whereas I tend to look at it as more of a human condition. The UK has behaved no worse than other countries throughout history because that's what people do to each other. The problems that have and still do exist are not the UK's alone. People behaved according to the norms of the time, Churchill was very much a man of his time whereas today he would be denounced as a racist.
Taking historical figures and judging them by modern standards isn't right or fair, especially when that time is slap bang in th middle of a world war when many people made decisions and did things they never would do in normal times.
Churchill did bad things, there's no denying it. Yet in different times,lets say that Hitler had never risen to power and WW2 didn't happen, Churchill would never have been PM but, someone else would have been and you'd probably be dissecting their history and atrocities.
Thing is Dtizzy, you only seem to want to attack the UK, you don't want to mention other countries, other peoples even when those countries and people would have had a direct effect on what the UK did. The worlds history is interlinked, the good and the bad. You want to drag the Uk down, tell us all what horrible people us Brits are even to the point of ignoring the good things, like the West Africa squadron but doing very bad things is a problem for all of humanity.
Haven't we got enough problems to deal with in the present without dragging upall the historical atrocities and pushing the narrative that all us Brist should be hanging our heads in shame at what our forbears did?
I could mention a point I'm not sure you made, that Churchill also forced thousands of natives to work on plantations to provide a food supply, basically making slaves of them for the duration but again, would that have happened if Hitler had never happened. We are all victims of the world we live in, we're none of us in control, we just react to the world around us.
If we all worried more about being nicer to the people around us the world would be a better place.
History is there to be learned from but not to be used as a tool to beat us up with and tell us how bad we are over things that happened long befoe we were born. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 17:08 - Jul 8 with 1868 views | Treforys_Jack |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 16:06 - Jul 8 by Catullus |
You misundertood the point of " well supplied" what I meant was how sure are you that the soldiers were well supplied?
The vandalism thing, well it's irrelevant, historically speaking I doubt we'll ever be discussing vandalism of an individuals house as an historical atrocity. My point is you constantly bemoan the UK's history and seemingly want to pin us Brits down as being the most heinous, evil people on the planet whereas I tend to look at it as more of a human condition. The UK has behaved no worse than other countries throughout history because that's what people do to each other. The problems that have and still do exist are not the UK's alone. People behaved according to the norms of the time, Churchill was very much a man of his time whereas today he would be denounced as a racist.
Taking historical figures and judging them by modern standards isn't right or fair, especially when that time is slap bang in th middle of a world war when many people made decisions and did things they never would do in normal times.
Churchill did bad things, there's no denying it. Yet in different times,lets say that Hitler had never risen to power and WW2 didn't happen, Churchill would never have been PM but, someone else would have been and you'd probably be dissecting their history and atrocities.
Thing is Dtizzy, you only seem to want to attack the UK, you don't want to mention other countries, other peoples even when those countries and people would have had a direct effect on what the UK did. The worlds history is interlinked, the good and the bad. You want to drag the Uk down, tell us all what horrible people us Brits are even to the point of ignoring the good things, like the West Africa squadron but doing very bad things is a problem for all of humanity.
Haven't we got enough problems to deal with in the present without dragging upall the historical atrocities and pushing the narrative that all us Brist should be hanging our heads in shame at what our forbears did?
I could mention a point I'm not sure you made, that Churchill also forced thousands of natives to work on plantations to provide a food supply, basically making slaves of them for the duration but again, would that have happened if Hitler had never happened. We are all victims of the world we live in, we're none of us in control, we just react to the world around us.
If we all worried more about being nicer to the people around us the world would be a better place.
History is there to be learned from but not to be used as a tool to beat us up with and tell us how bad we are over things that happened long befoe we were born. |
Far too sensible a post mate, not extreme enough, either way, and you forgot to call someone thick.
Spot on mind, |  | | |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 22:51 - Jul 8 with 1819 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 16:06 - Jul 8 by Catullus |
You misundertood the point of " well supplied" what I meant was how sure are you that the soldiers were well supplied?
The vandalism thing, well it's irrelevant, historically speaking I doubt we'll ever be discussing vandalism of an individuals house as an historical atrocity. My point is you constantly bemoan the UK's history and seemingly want to pin us Brits down as being the most heinous, evil people on the planet whereas I tend to look at it as more of a human condition. The UK has behaved no worse than other countries throughout history because that's what people do to each other. The problems that have and still do exist are not the UK's alone. People behaved according to the norms of the time, Churchill was very much a man of his time whereas today he would be denounced as a racist.
Taking historical figures and judging them by modern standards isn't right or fair, especially when that time is slap bang in th middle of a world war when many people made decisions and did things they never would do in normal times.
Churchill did bad things, there's no denying it. Yet in different times,lets say that Hitler had never risen to power and WW2 didn't happen, Churchill would never have been PM but, someone else would have been and you'd probably be dissecting their history and atrocities.
Thing is Dtizzy, you only seem to want to attack the UK, you don't want to mention other countries, other peoples even when those countries and people would have had a direct effect on what the UK did. The worlds history is interlinked, the good and the bad. You want to drag the Uk down, tell us all what horrible people us Brits are even to the point of ignoring the good things, like the West Africa squadron but doing very bad things is a problem for all of humanity.
Haven't we got enough problems to deal with in the present without dragging upall the historical atrocities and pushing the narrative that all us Brist should be hanging our heads in shame at what our forbears did?
I could mention a point I'm not sure you made, that Churchill also forced thousands of natives to work on plantations to provide a food supply, basically making slaves of them for the duration but again, would that have happened if Hitler had never happened. We are all victims of the world we live in, we're none of us in control, we just react to the world around us.
If we all worried more about being nicer to the people around us the world would be a better place.
History is there to be learned from but not to be used as a tool to beat us up with and tell us how bad we are over things that happened long befoe we were born. |
It was added to Mediterranean stockpiles, Cats. The soldiers in the Mediterranean weren't starving. The people in Bengal were.
"Taking historical figures and judging them by modern standards isn't right or fair, especially when that time is slap bang in th middle of a world war when many people made decisions and did things they never would do in normal times."
Sorry, Cats. This is a completely bogus argument. Regular and severe famines were a feature of British rule in India, especially in Bengal. More so than in the Mughal era despite the supposedly advanced infrastructure. It wasn't something that was necessitated by war, I've given evidence for measures that could have been taken. The Bengal famine of 1943 was a continuation of a contemptuous attitude towards Indian people held by the British state and its head who viewed them as a "beastly people with a beastly religion". Do you think this attitude could have contributed to the way South Asian people were treated when they arrived in the UK?
"Haven't we got enough problems to deal with in the present without dragging upall the historical atrocities and pushing the narrative that all us Brist should be hanging our heads in shame at what our forbears did?"
They'll continue to be dragged up whilst a vast chunk of people are either blissfully unaware of the atrocities or continue to peddle falsehoods in excuse of the actions. A YouGov survey this year showed that 1 in 3 people still think the empire is something to be proud of and the colonies are better off having been colonised. 40% of Leave voters still think Britain should have an empire. The lack of education is astonishing and worrying when you look at the political direction of the UK since 2016.
Many people on this thread have lamented the eradication of history by removing statues yet they also don't want evidence of historical atrocities being brought up. When the problem of racism is still relevant in Britain today, education about our history is one of the most important tools in the fight.
"I could mention a point I'm not sure you made, that Churchill also forced thousands of natives to work on plantations to provide a food supply, basically making slaves of them for the duration but again, would that have happened if Hitler had never happened."
If Hitler never happened, and Britain wasn't significantly weakened from war, would we have just handed India its independence on a platter or would we still "own" India and other parts of empire? We were quite aggressive in the face of mutiny, I doubt we'd have given up the "jewel of our crown" without a bloody fight. The counterfactuals can go either way.
British people aren't being asked to collectively apologise and hang their heads in shame FFS. It's about educating ourselves about the true horrors of our past and understanding why such a small country has hugely disproportionate wealth. It's about understanding why racism is still a problem and where it comes from. Thankfully, education seems to be working as young people are less nostalgic for the empire and less racist. Long may that continue. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:21 - Jul 8 with 1804 views | chad |
‘40% of Leave voters still think Britain should have an empire’
Really, no one ever asked me, perhaps an estimate then or an extrapolation
However
Given building an Empire was spoken publicly of, at the top of the EU, then I imagine the majority of remain voters do not share my concerns about empire building, the push for greater globalisation and building a ‘real’ EU army, which seems concerningly diametrically opposed to its initial prime objective. |  | | |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:29 - Jul 8 with 1798 views | rockinjac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:30 - Jun 10 by Treforys_Jack |
Some people are just desperate to be offended. The past is the past, learn from it, don't ignore it. |
Absolutely.
It’s like they’re in the closet on their opinions and they’re projecting their own insecurities.
Many of those pulling down statues will be horrah Henry’s from white suburbia who wouldn’t dream of living in the likes of Brixton
But the difference is they’ll read the guardian tut away online and lie constantly to themselves | | | |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:41 - Jul 8 with 1787 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:21 - Jul 8 by chad |
‘40% of Leave voters still think Britain should have an empire’
Really, no one ever asked me, perhaps an estimate then or an extrapolation
However
Given building an Empire was spoken publicly of, at the top of the EU, then I imagine the majority of remain voters do not share my concerns about empire building, the push for greater globalisation and building a ‘real’ EU army, which seems concerningly diametrically opposed to its initial prime objective. |
I literally said "a YouGov survey" before quoting statistics.
The only evidence I can find of the EU claiming it was "building an empire" is one comment from then EC chief, Jose Manuel Barroso. He called it the world's first non-imperial empire. Top memory as ever, Sprat. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:43 - Jul 8 with 1786 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:29 - Jul 8 by rockinjac |
Absolutely.
It’s like they’re in the closet on their opinions and they’re projecting their own insecurities.
Many of those pulling down statues will be horrah Henry’s from white suburbia who wouldn’t dream of living in the likes of Brixton
But the difference is they’ll read the guardian tut away online and lie constantly to themselves |
Half-baked armchair psychology.
Were you ever a good poster? Sprat, help me on this one. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 00:04 - Jul 9 with 1770 views | Kerouac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:41 - Jul 8 by Drizzy |
I literally said "a YouGov survey" before quoting statistics.
The only evidence I can find of the EU claiming it was "building an empire" is one comment from then EC chief, Jose Manuel Barroso. He called it the world's first non-imperial empire. Top memory as ever, Sprat. |
The EU parachutes it's men into governments.
Interferes in elections.
...and feels free to talk of punishing states who democratically vote out.
Sounds like an empire to me. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:14 - Jul 9 with 1672 views | rockinjac |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 23:43 - Jul 8 by Drizzy |
Half-baked armchair psychology.
Were you ever a good poster? Sprat, help me on this one. |
It's not armchair psychology babes, it's my opinion. | | | |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:37 - Jul 9 with 1658 views | Drizzy |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 19:14 - Jul 9 by rockinjac |
It's not armchair psychology babes, it's my opinion. |
They're not mutually exclusive, Rockin.
You're becoming quite weary, as you usually do towards the end your stint. See you next year, hun X | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 14:02 - Jul 10 with 1596 views | Drizzy |
Several opinion pieces stemming from Guy Verhofstadt's comments saying:
"The world order of tomorrow is not a world order based on nation-states or countries, it’s a world order that is based on empires"
"The world of tomorrow is a world of empires, in which we Europeans and you British can only defend your interests, your way of life, by doing it together in a European framework and a European Union."
If we're going to define the EU as an empire for its collective economic and social principles, how do we define the USA? An aggressive expansionist super-empire that wants to impose its economics and culture on the world?
If Brexiteers want to denounce the EU's imperial ambitions, on the basis that imperialism is bad, why are they so quiet about potential trade deals with the USA? An empire that's shown itself to be far more protectionist and hostile, even towards trade partners.
Then you've got one extract from the French minister's speech saying the EU should be a "peaceful empire", here's a section of the speech:
"An empire has economic interests; an empire has ambitions. Our ambition must be to assert ourselves as the empire of human rights, the empire of the rule of law, the empire of sustainable growth, capable of combating global warming."
Hard to disagree with any of that other than the use of the word "empire" which we've now established is a rather hypocritical argument towards the EU.
Then you've got an article from a radical left-wing site which describes the EU as "neocolonialist" for its exploitation of Africa and hostility towards immigrants. Were these central arguments for the Leave campaign, that we should be more welcoming of immigrants? Give me a break. | |
| |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 15:43 - Jul 10 with 1568 views | Catullus |
| London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 14:02 - Jul 10 by Drizzy |
Several opinion pieces stemming from Guy Verhofstadt's comments saying:
"The world order of tomorrow is not a world order based on nation-states or countries, it’s a world order that is based on empires"
"The world of tomorrow is a world of empires, in which we Europeans and you British can only defend your interests, your way of life, by doing it together in a European framework and a European Union."
If we're going to define the EU as an empire for its collective economic and social principles, how do we define the USA? An aggressive expansionist super-empire that wants to impose its economics and culture on the world?
If Brexiteers want to denounce the EU's imperial ambitions, on the basis that imperialism is bad, why are they so quiet about potential trade deals with the USA? An empire that's shown itself to be far more protectionist and hostile, even towards trade partners.
Then you've got one extract from the French minister's speech saying the EU should be a "peaceful empire", here's a section of the speech:
"An empire has economic interests; an empire has ambitions. Our ambition must be to assert ourselves as the empire of human rights, the empire of the rule of law, the empire of sustainable growth, capable of combating global warming."
Hard to disagree with any of that other than the use of the word "empire" which we've now established is a rather hypocritical argument towards the EU.
Then you've got an article from a radical left-wing site which describes the EU as "neocolonialist" for its exploitation of Africa and hostility towards immigrants. Were these central arguments for the Leave campaign, that we should be more welcoming of immigrants? Give me a break. |
That's quite a take on the USA, it has what, 5 overses territories and isn't looking to acquire or assimilate any new lands. The EU however is actively looking to expand.
The USA exerts it's influence which is different to taking control. face it Drizzy, us and the Spanish had bigger empires than the USA will ever have. The Spanish still have more overseas terittories too.
The EU is taking control of other countries, projecting it's rules and laws onto them, punishing those who step out of line and actively looking to take more control, ever further integration. An empire building project indeed.
Somewhere in the brexit thread I did indeed point out that EU policies were harming Africa, that it was protectionist and so harming Africa's economies, a large cause of African emmigration.
By the way, it's hardly hypocritical. I've (to the best of my memory) never described the EU as imperialistic but sometimes as federalist. The EU wants more powers though, in the USA states jealousy guard their individual rights.
The French ministers quote is quite interesting, he describes the empire he wants the EU to be but many people have been led down a path by nice words only to realise, too late, that the words were just words and the reality is somewhat different. That's maybe why the Visegrads have been so jumpy.
But what about Verhofstadts words? As far as I can see the only thing that upsets other EU leaders is that he says these things publicly. I don't hear others in the EU upper echelons shouting him down for being wrong. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
