Streets protests in the USA

July 2020 Forums General discussion Streets protests in the USA

Tagged: 

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 172 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #203553
    robbo203
    Participant
    #203555
    marcos
    Participant

    Besides running a political campaign based on racism, he also exploited certain discontents that existed within the white population. It  was said all the time that Trump was   one-term president, and it looks that he is going to lose the electoral college and the popular vote this time

    #203557
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    I take nothing for certain in American politics.

    Trump’s base has remained fairly consistent over the years.

    His party is gerrymandering the voting districts and blocking postal votes, tactics which would favour him.

    The question, though, will the Democratic Party get its people out of the house to actually vote. Is a Biden presidency sufficient motivation?

    #203559
    marcos
    Participant

    The so-called Donald Trump base is the someone who supported and voted for Bill Clinton,  George Bush and Barrack Obama, and the poll about his base has been controlled by the interest which supports him, and his base is a minority group, the great majority of voter were the ones who gave Hillary Clinton the popular vote, and one huge number that supported him were white women and they are not supporting him anymore. In the protest, there are many white men and women opposing him

    #203560
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    Some may have read of the mounted female police officer who was attacked and thrown off her horse. It wasn’t true. In a cavalry charge down the street she collided with a traffic light.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/footage-of-horse-mounted-police-officer-being-flung-to-the-ground-after-charging-towards-protesters-divides-people/ar-BB15a61x?MSCC=1591552677&ocid=spartandhp

    #203568
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    #203572
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    #203575
    ALB
    Participant

    This was a stroke of genius in terms of good publicity:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52954305

    Much more intelligent than throwing bottles at the police and fire crackers at their horses.

    I think we can expect quite a bit of statue toppling before and after the socialist revolution. There are plenty of generals and military “heroes” for a start, including  one in the centre of London whose statue in Dublin was toppled some years ago.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by ALB.
    #203586
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    There are plenty of generals and military “heroes” for a start, including one in the centre of London whose statue in Dublin was toppled some years ago.

    I think toppled is a bit of an understatement, if you’re referring to Nelson.

    They blew the thing to pieces!

    #203587
    Dave Chesham
    Participant

    “They blew the thing to pieces!”

    Half-destroyed Pillar with top part and statue missing

    The remains of Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin on the morning of 8 March 1966.

    An IRA spokesman denied involvement, stating that they had no interest in demolishing mere symbols of foreign domination: “We are interested in the destruction of the domination itself.”

    #203593
    ALB
    Participant

    Yes I remember climbing up the stairs to see the view from the top. So that must have been before 1966.

    #203595
    ALB
    Participant

    I see that the person who painted on the statue of Churchill that he was a racist is reported as saying :

    ”he didn’t fight the Nazis for any personal freedoms, he fought the Nazis sheerly to protect the Commonwealth against the invasion.”

    There’s some truth in this, except that he means the Empire and “sheerly” is overstating it, but the war wasn’t about defending democracy and personal freedoms.

    The Hitler government did offer a deal, which some politicians at the time found attractive, in which Britain would be spared attack and could keep its Empire in return for allowing Germany to dominate the Continent. Churchill was the head of the faction of the British ruling class that didn’t think this was a good deal for British capitalism (as it probably wouldn’t have been). So the war was fought from the British side not just to defend the Empire but also to stop Germany dominating Europe which would have been detrimental to British capitalism.

    Anyway it was an imperialist war just like the First World War of which it was in effect Round Two.

    I don’t know about Churchill being a racist but he was certainly antisemitic seeing the Bolsheviks as part of a Jewish conspiracy.

    #203596
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    “I hate Indians,” Churchill told his secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Amery accused Churchill of having a “Hitler-like attitude” toward Indians, but Churchill was unmoved. Amery recorded in his diary Churchill saying that “the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks.” He even seemed to view the catastrophic famine as a reasonable punishment for India’s high birth-rate, telling his war cabinet that the famine was Indians’ own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

    Approximately 3 million Indians died in the famine.

    Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”. 150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.

    On race: Churchill said ‘the Indians in East Africa are mainly of a very low class of coolies, and the idea that they should be put on an equality with the Europeans is revolting to every white man throughout British Africa’.

    Churchill spent some time in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and people’s homes:
    “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.”

    For Churchill, the Soviet Union was a ‘tyrannic government of these Jew Commisars’, a ‘worldwide communistic state under Jewish domination’, ‘the international Soviet of the Russian and Polish Jew’, or just ‘these Semitic conspirators’.

    In 1937, Churchill told a royal commission that he did not think that a great wrong had been done to either the “Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.”

    Referring to whites, he added: “I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

    One of his biographers, John Charmley, said that Churchill believed white Protestant Christians were top of the heap, followed by white Roman Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans.

    “Most of the natives who have died are of a semi-savage nature and do not attach any sentiment to marking the graves of their dead,” Maj George Evans observed. His conclusion? “I consider the erection of individual headstones would constitute a waste of public money.”

    A letter signing off on the plan was authored by the chairman of the then Imperial War Graves Commission, Winston Churchill.

    #203597
    ALB
    Participant

    Ok. You’ve convinced me. He was a racist.

    They say Nelson was a slave-holder. Have you got anything on that?

    #203599
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    Not sure if he actually owned slaves, his wife’s family did and Nelson was pro-slavery

    https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/lord-nelson-slavery-abolition-william-wilberforce-dark-side/

    But Edinburgh also have a monument, 140 foot high, to  the politician held responsible that postponed the abolition of the slave trade for 20 years

    Henry Dundas – lofty hero or lowlife crook?

    Scotland’s first black professor, Sir Geoff Palmer, professor emeritus at Heriot-Watt University, has called for plaques on Scotland’s statues to give a truthful account of their links to the slave trade and said the move could help educate and change attitudes against racism.

    “I don’t want statues to be taken down. My view is you remove the evidence, you remove the deed.”

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 172 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.