Don’t think so love, don’t think so

Wilberforce, unquestionably a force for good, helped end, in 1807, Britain’s official involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. But he was not alone. The enormous contribution of black people in Britain at the time – especially activists and writers who were slaves themselves – has no equivalent site of glory, in London or anywhere in the country.

There were no slaves in Britain at the time. None, not a one.

31 thoughts on “Don’t think so love, don’t think so”

  1. If they try to topple Nelson’s Column I actually will get off my arse and go down there to help stop them. I’m sure I’m being melodramatic, but I am starting to see civil war on the horizon.

  2. You know perfectly well that Guardian writers aren’t the sort of people to let facts get in the way of a good whine. The author could be using “who were”, instead of the more accurate,”who had been”.

  3. Growing up in Bristol I was aware that Colston Hall was named after a slave trader and that slavery had been bad. I wasn’t turned into a white supremacist.

    “Bowing to public opinion” the charity That owns it has decided to ignore the wishes of the great majority of Bristolians and pander to a minority who feel the name is the greatest human injustice imaginable and so the name is to be changed.

    I am sure we will carry on calling it the Colston Hall.

  4. Why do they lie so? It’s actually a bit distressing that people from other parts of the world now benefiting from living in Britain hate us so very much and wish to re write history in order to make themselves feel better. The writer must have such an inferiority complex?

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    When does the book burning start?

    I saw an interesting argument that slavery was a cultural advancement when it started. The alternative being the slaughter of all those on the losing side in a war. We then went on to have another major cultural advancement that said slavery was wrong and should be abolished, and a number of people died implementing that advancement. We can’t destroy the past every time there is a cultural advancement, not least because we need to make sure we don’t regress.

    And what differentiates these latest statue destroyers from the Isis ones? Both believe they have the superior moral high ground to justify their actions.

  6. @BiND

    It’s that moral high ground that’s important. If the ‘moral high ground’ is held by the majority then any change is ‘democratic’ change and if it is held by a minority then the change is ‘right’ or ‘decent’. As with the Colston Hall or the tearing down of a statue where the %s are likely to be a few % for, a larger % against and the largest % not really bothered. That this means it is only a small % that want it torn down or the name changed will be irrelevant as they will be most vocal and you will be a racist if you don’t agree with them.

  7. I’m with Interested.

    It is absolutely vile seeing statues to mostly great men removed because of a shift in moral perspective over time.

    Colston Hall? So, never mind the money Colston gave to hospitals or the city, eh? And just look at that woman running it. Some fat, middle aged Polly Toynbee lookalike leeching money off someone, probably poor lottery players.

  8. BiND,

    The difference between slavery and being a free peasant was almost nothing. It’s why it stuck around for millennia. It’s only with industrialisation and massive improvements in wealth for many that change happened.

    The last places on earth with slavery are the non-induatrialised ones.

  9. The whole thing is just bonkers. I mean the statue of Nelson isn’t there because he was a supporter of slavery! He did a few other things.

  10. Tourism is an important form of inward investment in Britain. I believe it is number 3 and brings about 35-40 billion.

    Tourists are interested in seeing things like Trafalgar square.

    It seems that the SJW crowd believes that we should tear this stuff down and build new avant guard SJW and Guardianista friendly monuments and statues. Even worse, they actually believe that tourists will still pay good money to see it.

    Someone needs to give them a good slap and tell them not to fuck Britains tourism industry. We need it.

  11. I don’t want history rewritten.

    I want it as it is. With warts, nuances and reminders.

    One thing is for the sufferers to pull down a statue at the time of liberation and another to go round wiping out our history 100 years later.

    Slavery, the trade and our noble, yes noble, not self-seeking or virtue signalling fight to destroy it at great sacrifice in our sailors’ lives is something to be remembered in its entirety.

    And in so many other cases.

  12. “but he was not alone” – Afua’s process- Find the melanin then find out something they did, then pump out “history”, then the activism. Horatio Nelson was in charge of the fleet in war time. He was not alone, but he was in charge and there is no equivalent with high melanin content.

  13. @BinD

    “We can’t destroy the past every time there is a cultural advancement”

    Why not? Mao did it. And that’s who the left think is worthy of emulation.

  14. ” mean the statue of Nelson isn’t there because he was a supporter of slavery! He did a few other things.”

    At the time, fighting the biggest slaveholding nation on the planet. Spain.

  15. Leftists find it convenient to characterize a nation by what it did many generations ago. Many are convinced by it. Not “sins of the father,” rather sins of the ancients.

  16. How dare this person try to remove a statue to our greatest disabled person. Ablist bastard!

    See, we just sow discord between these zealots.

  17. Interesting and amusing to see how quickly comments on this article, as well as another “aren’t the poor travellers hard done by?” piece, were closed down when too few of the responses were positive…

  18. I accidently read something in the Gaurdian a few weeks ago that started “200 years after Britain abolished slavery….”

    Wot, it’s 2033 already? As in 200 years since the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

    Or, woo, it’s 1906 again. 200 years since it was legally ruled that slavery was not a legally possible state in England.

    Or maybe it’s 1978, 200 years since the Scottish courts concured with the English judgement.

    But, facts. Nah, they’re irrelyphant, innit.

  19. Leftists find it convenient to characterize a nation by what it did many generations ago. Many are convinced by it. Not “sins of the father,” rather sins of the ancients.

    But of course never hold current Pakistanis in Britain responsible for rape gangs. It’s a funny old world.

  20. Non-British people like Afua Hirsch, really shouldn’t presume to tell the British what to do or whose lives to celebrate. She can f**k right off.

  21. “Non-British people like Afua Hirsch, really shouldn’t presume to tell the British what to do or whose lives to celebrate. She can f**k right off.”

    She really should. What a horrible, hateful, fucking ungrateful attitude to the country that furnished her or her recent ancestors with a first world quality of life as opposed to the primitive barbarism they previously enjoyed. Just fuck off. Leave British hero Nelson alone and fuck right off. I don’t even feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment when people write this kind of drivel any more. I just hate them for their desire to wreck my country.

  22. Maybe she and Gina Miller can get together to discuss how high profile non British mixed race women (one of whom at least got a law degree) can work to undermine the country they have adopted with th help of the guardian.

  23. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It’s long past the time when the immediate response to this Afua cunt should be to put a large calibre hole in her forehead and then gibbet her.

  24. This re-naming/statue bashing shit –another fad copied from American leftist vermin–needs to be nipped in the bud double-quick.

    Shall we look to the stupid Fish-Faced Cow who is supposedly our Prime Minister for a lead in ordering all such attempted changes halted under threat of (very) punitive legislation?

    Didn’t think so.

  25. Late thought.
    This has much to do with a desire for pride.
    Having ancestors who were taken as slaves is not a source of pride.
    Having ancestors who were freed by others is not a source of pride.
    Having ancestors who freed themselves is a source of pride.
    Perhaps if we could get British black people to identify with the 11 that were on HMS Victory at Trafalgar (and do some research on other black people who joined with the British) they could have a source of pride truly rooted in history.
    Oh and there were ex slaves in Britain in Wilberforce’s time, though their actual time being slaves was spent elsewhere.

  26. @ Gamecock
    No. They judge by a highly selective sample of the things that it did at a carefully selected date in the past.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *