Racists told ‘stay away’ from Ben Nevis after banner unfurling

Members of far-right group in Scotland displayed ‘white lives matter’ sign atop UK’s highest peak

Racists have been warned to stay away from Ben Nevis after a far-right group unfurled a “white lives matter” banner at the top of Scotland’s highest mountain peak on Sunday.
Politicians, anti-racism campaigners, environmentalists and mountain rescue experts united to condemn the action by Patriotic Alternative, a UK white-nationalist group founded by Mark Collett, the British National party’s former director of publicity.
Witnesses at the summit told the National newspaper that more than 20 members of the group were booed by shocked climbers as they produced the huge banner, with one individual holding a saltire and another waving a flag featuring the Patriotic Alternative symbol.

John Stevenson, the leader of Lochaber Mountain Rescue Team, which covers Ben Nevis, said: “We don’t need this type of political protest on the mountain – especially when it reflects such appalling views. We don’t need these kind of people climbing Ben Nevis for this purpose. They should stay away.”

The SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, who represents the constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, where the mountain is located, described the reports as “utterly abhorrent”.

“When it comes to racists and racism, we must be unequivocal in calling out this hatred wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head. These racists are not welcome here,” he said.
Blackford added: “The police force in the Highlands is very much community focused and I will be speaking to them to see what can be done.”

The action appears to have been prompted by a competition between regional groups, featured on the group’s website, to create an image of a “white lives matter” message in a memorable location ahead of their “indigenous people’s day” on 9 August.

The anti-racism group Hope Not Hate has previously described Patriotic Alternative’s presence in Scotland as “tiny”, but warned that more broadly the group has “managed to begin to unite elements of the notoriously splintered and fractured UK fascist scene”, in particular actively targeting younger recruits online.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/03/racists-told-stay-away-from-ben-nevis-after-banner-unfurling

What the fuck did anyone expect? The moment you start banging the old racist tambourine, then there's always gonna be someone with a trumpet louder than yours.

HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck did anyone expect?     The moment you start  banging the old racist tambourine, then there's always gonna be someone with a trumpet louder than yours.

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

What's racist about a banner like that? I agree with Horatio.
You can't go around allowing one thing just because you happen to agree with it and trying to disallow something you might find you don't agree with but isn't against the law.

Why not simplify things and just agree that ALL lives matter.

Exactly Syl, things will only improve when we begin to think like that, having slogans that divide people into ethnic/colour groups will only make worse divisions and more people being against each other, if you get called a racist often enough you may just become one.

Syl wrote:Why not simplify things and just agree that ALL lives matter.

Because that would deny these people the soap box they desire, the desperation to feel special, to cause trouble, to whip up trouble and perpetuate and enable the real racism and racists. To get on in this world, we all have to accept that we are all the same, that nobody is better than anyone else, that inside we're all red.

Why is it racist to say "white lives matter" but not racist for all the people saying " black lives matter"...?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Why is it racist to say "white lives matter" but not racist for all the people saying " black lives matter"...?

It's not. You could say shite was sugar and somebody would scream "RACIST" at you.

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is it racist to say "white lives matter" but not racist for all the people saying " black lives matter"...?

I agree with you.  I think the argument is that it is a contortion that trivializes the fact that blacks are being killed in excess of their proportion in the population.

If you ask me, BLM was a secondary statement: blacks lives only matter in consideration of their numbers being killed by authorities.  I think a better signature would have been SKB, or Stop Killing Blacks--goes more directly to the point, innit?  

Blacks represent only 13% of the population in the US (BLM is a US movement), yet according to CNBC they represent 24% of the people shot by police.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/george-floyd-death-police-violence-in-the-us-in-4-charts.html  That's more than double their number in society.

Moreover, white police officers tend to provoke confrontations, leading to the inevitable murders:



As the discussion following the clip makes clear, it was a white southern police officer (Windsor is in the southern part of a southern state), acting out a typical power play over a black Army officer.  As this incident illustrates, white southern police officers try to provoke these incidents, leading to the excess of black men killed by police in America.

Note how the black Army officer, surrounded by southern white police officers, had to play the mature 'adult' in the room.  Even a more 'everyday' response would have brought on the inevitable violence the southern white police were looking for.

Quill... You quote only one side of the statistics...


How about telling us about how blacks are involved in a hugely disproportionate level of serious/violent crime, which leads to a much higher level of police encounters...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill... You quote only one side of the statistics...

How about telling us about how blacks are involved in a hugely disproportionate level of serious/violent crime, which leads to a much higher level of police encounters...!?

Then I would have to specify how the white man, from the beginnings of slavery (where all power was white) created the conditions for the black man to be that way in order to survive. Who determines where black people live? Whites, with their red-lining. Who determines where black people go to school? Whites, with their segregated neighborhoods and white admissions committees. Who determines where black people work? Whites with their white-run businesses. Who determines who runs the politics? Whites, with their Jim Crow shenanigans.

Everywhere you go, everywhere you look, whites call the shots. And when they are not calling the shots, they are pepper-spraying and provoking blacks in confrontations where whites get to write the reports, make the arrests and put the question to white jurors and judges, who will impose white sentences to give the blacks the records of "hugely disproportionate level of serious/violent crime." I showed you the Windsor, VA police encounter clip not for entertainment, but to show you how it starts, continues and ends.

These were and are white, southerners who once had the power of life and death over their slaves. Do you think they voluntarily gave up that power? In the middle of a war? The North won the Civil War, but the South won the narrative war. The South was able to persuade the United States Supreme Court that racial equality wasn’t necessary. And they actually reclaimed a racial hierarchy; that ideology of white supremacy. And we allowed that to happen for a hundred years.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you tell a man that he's a criminal for having black skin, and lo...some of them believe you. The rest, you can provoke to do something...and the white policeman gets to write the report. Hallelujah...

You live in a fantasy world...

Tommy Monk wrote:You live in a fantasy world...

No I don't. I just recognize situations better than you. If cops had killed any one of their sons, they would be on the opposite side, saying their son's life mattered too.

The pattern/practice is quite clear. A sizable element of American police doesn’t like blacks, and wants to provoke them so they can deliver harm or injury to them - no matter that they have done nothing wrong. If they can kill them, all the better.

In the United States, as in most first-world countries, here's what is supposed to happen:

Someone who commits a crime, violent or non-violent, is tracked down by police, who take them into custody and present them to a court of justice to be tried. That, along with crime prevention/deterrence, is basically the entire job the police have to do.

So any time a police officer kills someone, that's a failure of the system. Criminal suspects are supposed to receive a fair trial, not a public execution.

It doesn't matter if 100 percent of violent crimes are committed solely by black people -- they're not supposed to be killed, just as any criminal suspect is not supposed to be killed.

If black people commit more crimes than white people (they don't, actually), and thus have more interactions with police than white people do, they should end up being killed by police at a rate similar to that of white people and everyone else. But that's not the case.

Proportionately, more black criminal suspects are killed by police in America than any other ethnic group. Hispanics are killed the second-most, proportionately.

That's bad, and it's even worse when you consider how many of those black victims were unarmed. American police kill, proportionately, more unarmed black suspects than they kill ARMED white suspects.

I'm not saying they're all racists, but there is obviously a problem. To many black Americans, it feels like the police don't think their lives matter very much -- at least not enough to make them use the utmost care in not killing them. Hence the movement's name, Black Lives Matter.

Some people like to pretend they think that the name means "Only Black Lives Matter," or "Non-Black Lives Don't Matter," but they know deep down they're being a bit silly.

Also, I don't know why so many people seem to think that All Lives Matter is so preferable to Black Lives Matter, because if you think all lives matter, that includes black lives -- so you actually agree that black lives matter if you point out that all lives matter.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people who are completely unaffected by the problems that gave rise to Black Lives Matter having such strong opinions on the movement.

I think that, so to speak, if you want to tell someone how to cook a steak, you should know how to cook a steak first.

Ben Reilly wrote:In the United States, as in most first-world countries, here's what is supposed to happen:

Someone who commits a crime, violent or non-violent, is tracked down by police, who take them into custody and present them to a court of justice to be tried. That, along with crime prevention/deterrence, is basically the entire job the police have to do.

So any time a police officer kills someone, that's a failure of the system. Criminal suspects are supposed to receive a fair trial, not a public execution.

It doesn't matter if 100 percent of violent crimes are committed solely by black people -- they're not supposed to be killed, just as any criminal suspect is not supposed to be killed.

If black people commit more crimes than white people (they don't, actually), and thus have more interactions with police than white people do, they should end up being killed by police at a rate similar to that of white people and everyone else. But that's not the case.

Proportionately, more black criminal suspects are killed by police in America than any other ethnic group. Hispanics are killed the second-most, proportionately.

That's bad, and it's even worse when you consider how many of those black victims were unarmed. American police kill, proportionately, more unarmed black suspects than they kill ARMED white suspects.

I'm not saying they're all racists, but there is obviously a problem. To many black Americans, it feels like the police don't think their lives matter very much -- at least not enough to make them use the utmost care in not killing them. Hence the movement's name, Black Lives Matter.

Some people like to pretend they think that the name means "Only Black Lives Matter," or "Non-Black Lives Don't Matter," but they know deep down they're being a bit silly.

Also, I don't know why so many people seem to think that All Lives Matter is so preferable to Black Lives Matter, because if you think all lives matter, that includes black lives -- so you actually agree that black lives matter if you point out that all lives matter.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people who are completely unaffected by the problems that gave rise to Black Lives Matter having such strong opinions on the movement.

I think that, so to speak, if you want to tell someone how to cook a steak, you should know how to cook a steak first.

'All lives matter', includes black, white, and anything in between.
It's none divisive, it acknowledges that no matter the colour, everyones life is as important, irregardless of colour.

Surely that is the aim?

But as I said, the name Black Lives Matter was never intended to be divisive, but as a blunt statement to police who seemed to forget that black lives matter.

Police created the divide, not Black Lives Matter. When police kill one ethnicity more than all the others, they're doing the seperating.

Anyway, the point of this article is to discuss whether people are right to disallow “white lives matter”.

And they’re not right.

Ben Reilly wrote:But as I said, the name Black Lives Matter was never intended to be divisive, but as a blunt statement to police who seemed to forget that black lives matter.

It may not have had the intention to divide, but it has.

People are attacked, called rascist, and told they are not welcome if they dare say White lives matter too'....that proves the very term 'Black lives matter', has caused more not less racial division.

But white people don't have the issue of being killed disproportionately by police, so ... who is the assertion "white lives matter" even directed to? What problem is it trying to address?

There's no message target and no social problem associated with "white lives matter." That's a problem Black Lives Matter definitely doesn't have. Compared with the objective of changing murderous police behavior, "white lives matter" is just pathetic, attention-seeking bleating.

Shouting about white lives matter is actually as divisive as shouting black lives matter....which is why ALL lives matter, should be what people are aiming for.

I know we dont have the same problems here as in America re the police and the way some seem racially motivated, maybe if I lived there I would understand it more....it's just not applicable here in the UK....imo it's stirred up racial disharmony not helped it.

Syl wrote:Shouting about white lives matter is actually as divisive as shouting black lives matter....which is why ALL lives matter, should be what people are aiming for.

I know we dont have the same problems here as in America re the police and the way some seem racially motivated, maybe if I lived there I would understand it more....it's just not applicable here in the UK....imo it's stirred up racial disharmony not helped it.

It is different in the US, they’re far more heavily into politics and religion. Also, I think the police are very different too. So perhaps we will never fully appreciate the killing of black people by police. We had a lot of blacks dying in police custody in the 80’s, I do remember that.

To be fair, I've always been confused as to why other countries got involved in BLM. It's a very America-specific problem, police disproportionately killing blacks, that I don't hear about in other countries.

Ben Reilly wrote:To be fair, I've always been confused as to why other countries got involved in BLM. It's a very America-specific problem, police disproportionately killing blacks, that I don't hear about in other countries.

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:To be fair, I've always been confused as to why other countries got involved in BLM. It's a very America-specific problem, police disproportionately killing blacks, that I don't hear about in other countries.

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

You're not ignorant, it didn't really come here until after his murder.

And I totally get why people would be outraged, but protests? How do you effectively protest an American problem when you're not in America?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

You're not ignorant, it didn't really come here until after his murder.

And I totally get why people would be outraged, but protests? How do you effectively protest an American problem when you're not in America?

I think Horatio aswered that at the start of this thread.

Tommy Monk wrote:


You live in a fantasy world...

No, actually you do, because you choose to only believe things that make you feel comfortable. The truth isn't always simple, and by God, it's often uncomfortable.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

You're not ignorant, it didn't really come here until after his murder.

And I totally get why people would be outraged, but protests? How do you effectively protest an American problem when you're not in America?

I think Horatio aswered that at the start of this thread.

I looked at it several times and I can't see what you mean.

For me, the whole, obvious point is this:

You can have your black lives matter banners and marches. No questions asked.
But allow other people to have theirs too! No fucking questions asked!

They didn’t allow it and that’s the whole fucking point.

I disagree, why can't anybody ask questions?

Ben Reilly wrote:To be fair, I've always been confused as to why other countries got involved in BLM. It's a very America-specific problem, police disproportionately killing blacks, that I don't hear about in other countries.

It’s another faddist invention imported from America…like Hallowe’en trick or treating, Big Macs and Krispy Kreme donuts.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think Horatio aswered that at the start of this thread.

I looked at it several times and I can't see what you mean.

Racism encourages others to jump on the waggon. The BLM movement may have started to right wrongs somewhere in the world, but others will jump either on that waggon, or an opposing one, and start banging their own drum, even if it has never affected them.

Before long, a problem spreads and exists even if it wasn't a problem before.

I see more casual racist remarks, more racist name calling, now, in these so called enlightened times, that at any other time in my life.
Granted, most of it is done online by cowards.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:To be fair, I've always been confused as to why other countries got involved in BLM. It's a very America-specific problem, police disproportionately killing blacks, that I don't hear about in other countries.

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

And that is because slavery never happened in the UK.  Where there is no history, there is no common experience, and thus no understanding.

America is two nations.  Actually, if you go way back, it's no less than 50 different nations.  But, the fundamental cultures reduce to two: 1) a mercantile and industrial north (northern states), and 2) an agricultural, cash-cropping south, actuated by slave labor (southern states).

Economics drove these two cultures - or opposing-cultures, as is the case - to the point of a civil war, which indeed, decided nothing (that's another story).  So, today we have a caste system, evolved from the once legal institution of slavery, but existing under-the-surface.  The UK - tho there are racists aplenty - never had the economic history to bake this caste system into their culture.  So, it is little wonder that the average Brit never heard of segregation or racism...and, I expect, has no understanding of BLM.

The UK would do best to stay out of it...period!  With no understanding of basic causes, y’all have no feeling for the problem under discussion.  Without feelings, y’all end up judging from British standards, with no history by which to understand.  Fred, while you say Americans are all “fads”, this is why we say the Brits are all pomp and circumstance, with no understanding of the real world…you are all toy soldiers, in a toy battlefield.

Without a history, y’all have no understanding.  Thus, you have no relevance in the discussion.  Like the toy soldiers you are, you march up Ben Nevis, skirmish over something of which you have no understanding, and then like toy soldiers, march back down again.  It’s silly.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

And that is because slavery never happened in the UK.  Where there is no history, there is no common experience, and thus no understanding.

America is two nations.  Actually, if you go way back, it's no less than 50 different nations.  But, the fundamental cultures reduce to two: 1) a mercantile and industrial north (northern states), and 2) an agricultural, cash-cropping south, actuated by slave labor (southern states).

Economics drove these two cultures - or opposing-cultures, as is the case - to the point of a civil war, which indeed, decided nothing (that's another story).  So, today we have a caste system, evolved from the once legal institution of slavery, but existing under-the-surface.  The UK - tho there are racists aplenty - never had the economic history to bake this caste system into their culture.  So, it is little wonder that the average Brit never heard of segregation or racism...and, I expect, has no understanding of BLM.

The UK would do best to stay out of it...period!  With no understanding of basic causes, y’all have no feeling for the problem under discussion.  Without feelings, y’all end up judging from British standards, with no history by which to understand.  Fred, while you say Americans are all “fads”, this is why we say the Brits are all pomp and circumstance, with no understanding of the real world…you are all toy soldiers, in a toy battlefield.

Without a history, y’all have no understanding.  Thus, you have no relevance in the discussion.  Like the toy soldiers you are, you march up Ben Nevis, skirmish over something of which you have no understanding, and then like toy soldiers, march back down again.  It’s silly.

Well I agree it's silly. Tit for tat....but without the original tit there would be no need for the tat.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I may be ignorant, but before the George Floyd murder I dont think I had heard of it here.

And that is because slavery never happened in the UK.  Where there is no history, there is no common experience, and thus no understanding.

America is two nations.  Actually, if you go way back, it's no less than 50 different nations.  But, the fundamental cultures reduce to two: 1) a mercantile and industrial north (northern states), and 2) an agricultural, cash-cropping south, actuated by slave labor (southern states).

Economics drove these two cultures - or opposing-cultures, as is the case - to the point of a civil war, which indeed, decided nothing (that's another story).  So, today we have a caste system, evolved from the once legal institution of slavery, but existing under-the-surface.  The UK - tho there are racists aplenty - never had the economic history to bake this caste system into their culture.  So, it is little wonder that the average Brit never heard of segregation or racism...and, I expect, has no understanding of BLM.

The UK would do best to stay out of it...period!  With no understanding of basic causes, y’all have no feeling for the problem under discussion.  Without feelings, y’all end up judging from British standards, with no history by which to understand.  Fred, while you say Americans are all “fads”, this is why we say the Brits are all pomp and circumstance, with no understanding of the real world…you are all toy soldiers, in a toy battlefield.

Without a history, y’all have no understanding.  Thus, you have no relevance in the discussion.  Like the toy soldiers you are, you march up Ben Nevis, skirmish over something of which you have no understanding, and then like toy soldiers, march back down again.  It’s silly.

Slavery never happened in the U.K.? Britons were taken as slaves as far back as the summer of AD43 when Roman emperor Claudius sent his legions across the Channel with orders to conquer Albion. By the time they left their Province of Britannia they had sent thousands of men, women and children to other parts of their empire as enforced military conscripts, agricultural and domestic slaves, prostitutes and gladiators.

Then a succession of Scandinavian, German and French conquerors made slaves our of our tribes folk.

The problem for you appears to be, Quill, that they weren’t black and our history started a long, long time before 1492.

Oh, and for the record, the ridiculously self proclaimed “ ethnic minority” called Travellers and Eastern European criminal gangs - guests here thanks to our former membership of the EU - are are among the modern slavers who infest this country. It’s such a problem that it has been made a criminal offence.

Fred M. wrote:Slavery never happened in the U.K.? Britons were taken as slaves as far back as the summer of AD43 when Roman emperor Claudius sent his legions across the Channel with orders to conquer Albion. By the time they left their Province of Britannia they had sent thousands of men, women and children to other parts of their empire as enforced military conscripts, agricultural and domestic slaves, prostitutes and gladiators.

We're talking about an economy, Fred.  Britain never had a cash-cropping, agrarian economy driven by slavery.  The economy drives the culture, and frankly there never was a slave-driven system of production in Britain.

By your own admission, Britons that were taken as slaves were sent "to other parts of [the] empire".  These are the kinds of misperceptions that I speak of, when I speak of outsiders marching into an issue with no comprehension.  You understand 'slavery' as the taking part, but have no idea what a system of production driven by slavery does to the underlying culture.  As a result, you have no 'feeling' for the caste system that was established by the former economic system of slavery.

No, Quill, you are wrong. You stated baldly that “…slavery never happened in the U.K…” but it most certainly did happen, and on a large scale when taking into account the very small population at the time. And it lasted
over a period of 1,000 years.

And of course it was an economy….slaves were taken to populate and work on Roman- owned farms and vineyards , to be galley slaves in chains on Viking cargo and war ships, to be labourers on the farms and hunting estates appropriated by the Normans - among whom were my late wife’s family, close kinsmen of the Dukes of Normandy.

What the hell was the purpose of subjugating Britons and forcing many of them into slavery were it were not for the need to maintain the Labour-intensive economies of those times? Farming, forestry, warrening, viticulture, brewing, building were all “slave-driven systems of production”, because the our conquerors didn’t bring workers with them, they brought administrators and soldiers to defeat and enforce their victims into a life of servitude.

But, of course, British slaves and economic bondsmen weren’t black and cotton can’t be grown in our climate, and as such to you and others who blame the history of the African slave trade as being the most evil of all ills  black lives certainly matter, but white lives most certainly do not.

And that is why I will never, under any circumstances, go through the ridiculous charade of “taking the knee” and chanting the divisive and racist manta of Black Lives Matter…because I believe that ALL lives matter, black lives no more and no less than any others.

Fred M. wrote:No, Quill, you are wrong. You stated baldly that “…slavery never happened in the U.K…” but it most certainly did happen, and on a large scale when taking into account the very small population at the time. And it lasted over a period of 1,000 years.

And slavery didn't happen in the UK...anymore than it happened in West Africa.  The slaves were taken from those origins, but the reality of slavery was where the slaves ended up…and lived out their lives.  That was the economy that yielded the culture, leading to the racial problems we have today.

Fred M. wrote:What the hell was the purpose of subjugating Britons and forcing many of them into slavery were it were not for the need to maintain the Labour-intensive economies of those times? Farming, forestry, warrening, viticulture, brewing, building were all “slave-driven systems of production”, because the our conquerors didn’t bring workers with them, they brought administrators and soldiers to defeat and enforce their victims into a life of servitude.

And they were economies that happened elsewhere than Britain, affecting those lives, in those places, and not the UK.  The point is, Fred, that slavery affected the culture where it existed, the origin of the slaves was only tangential.  Certainly, today, we use original characteristics such as skin color as "markers" of who is a second-class citizen and who is not, but there again, it happens in the receiving culture, not the place of origin.

Fred M. wrote:And that is why I will never, under any circumstances, go through the ridiculous charade of “taking the knee” and chanting the divisive and racist manta of Black Lives Matter…because I believe that ALL lives matter, black lives no more and no less than any others.

You do what you feel is morally right.  The British culture has only from the late 19th-century - the age of British socialism - had any sympathy for the downtrodden and the poor.  They have mostly praised kings and queens, and their aristocracy, and found their identity in the ranks of nobility.  As the culture that cultivated modern slavery most of all, I would expect no less.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:No, Quill, you are wrong. You stated baldly that “…slavery never happened in the U.K…” but it most certainly did happen, and on a large scale when taking into account the very small population at the time. And it lasted over a period of 1,000 years.

And slavery didn't happen in the UK...anymore than it happened in West Africa.  The slaves were taken from those origins, but the reality of slavery was where the slaves ended up…and lived out their lives.  That was the economy that yielded the culture, leading to the racial problems we have today.

Fred M. wrote:What the hell was the purpose of subjugating Britons and forcing many of them into slavery were it were not for the need to maintain the Labour-intensive economies of those times? Farming, forestry, warrening, viticulture, brewing, building were all “slave-driven systems of production”, because the our conquerors didn’t bring workers with them, they brought administrators and soldiers to defeat and enforce their victims into a life of servitude.

And they were economies that happened elsewhere than Britain, affecting those lives, in those places, and not the UK.  The point is, Fred, that slavery affected the culture where it existed, the origin of the slaves was only tangential.  Certainly, today, we use original characteristics such as skin color as "markers" of who is a second-class citizen and who is not, but there again, it happens in the receiving culture, not the place of origin.

Fred M. wrote:And that is why I will never, under any circumstances, go through the ridiculous charade of “taking the knee” and chanting the divisive and racist manta of Black Lives Matter…because I believe that ALL lives matter, black lives no more and no less than any others.

You do what you feel is morally right.  The British culture has only from the late 19th-century - the age of British socialism - had any sympathy for the downtrodden and the poor.  They have mostly praised kings and queens, and their aristocracy, and found their identity in the ranks of nobility.  As the culture that cultivated modern slavery most of all, I would expect no less.

An interesting exercise in philosophy and semantics, maybe, but you do once more appear to have placed your pedal extremity in the direct line of fire of your rifle bullet.

The dictionary definition of slave is “ a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them” (the old English word was ‘bondsman’’) and of slavery “the state of being a slave.” Ergot, slaves and slavery DID  exist in what is now the U.K. for more than 1,000 years following Uncle Claudius’s subjugation of a collection of woad painted tribesmen armed with little more than deer antlers.

It matters not a fish’s tit whether they were forcibly removed from their homes and made to toil in bondage and servitude in a Roman senator’s vineyard in Italy or his rabbit warren or cornfield in Basingstoke….they were  slaves subjected to slavery.

The purpose of the Roman Italians in coming here uninvited was not to set up ice cream factories, any more than the French Normans’ purpose was to flog us a dozen crates of Beaujolais…they came here to conquer, subjugate, enslave and, if necessary, kill my forebears in their quest to enrich themselves and their families through the labour of others…in other words to serve the interests of their own economies.

And as for “modern slavery”, that exists today primarily in Asian-owned sweatshops, Traveller caravan camps and mainly black-controlled drug gangs and ‘county line’ mini businesses.

I agree with Fred there was definitely slavery in the UK, people captured and bought and sold .
As has been pointed out the Romans took wheat, precious metals, hunting dogs and slaves from Britain. Dublin was founded by the Vikings as the biggest slave trading centre of the time. In fact Ireland would probably not have Patrick as patron saint if it wasn't for slaves captured from Britain. The people who lived and worked on the medieval manors were completely controlled - owned, they could not marry, change trades or leave the manor boundaries without the permission of their lord. Barbary pirates did a roaring trade in light skinned slaves from Europe. Almost every nation has enslaved or been slaves over time, enslaved either by conquest or raids or even buying from their own people. The east African slave trade, by the Arabs, dwarfed even the west African slave trade for numbers just comparing the time scale of the western trade, and was begun earlier and lasted longer. The journey was just as hazardous many died marching across deserts and during sea trips in dhows.
It still goes on in modern day slavery, why aren't people getting together to end that instead of dividing into groups and casting blame and accusations around like confetti.

Fred M. wrote:An interesting exercise in philosophy and semantics...

An exercise with a wealth of authority behind it.  See, Freeman, John, Tales of Two Americas: Stories of Inequality in a Divided Nation (2017); Greenburg, Stanley, The Two Americas (2016).  But, also derived from simple experience.  Britain sailed all around the world collecting resources, and it wasn’t from whence the resources came, but what they did with it.  Same with America.

You say: “Ergot, slaves and slavery DID exist in what is now the U.K.” but you fail to point out examples, nor least of all do you relate it to the modern day.  While slavery might have appeared anywhere, remember we are talking about economies that shape the culture.  Britain’s culture was never shaped by slavery.

Fred M. wrote:The purpose of the Roman Italians in coming here uninvited was not to set up ice cream factories, any more than the French Normans’ purpose was to flog us a dozen crates of Beaujolais…they came here to conquer, subjugate, enslave and, if necessary, kill my forebears in their quest to enrich themselves and their families through the labour of others…in other words to serve the interests of their own economies.

And so it is that the British slave trade, if you wish, is not a part of the history of British culture, but perhaps a part of Roman-Italian history.  Study it as such.  The culture that was affected by any incident of slavery surrounds the slave him or herself, particularly when it shaped an economy.  I hear a lot about African-American culture in the south, but not a scintilla about west Africa from whence the slaves came.  That is not where the story is.

Quill, I have no doubt that the authors that you cite are well worthy of tha accolade of “authority” ….but on Americanhistory. You yourself turned this debate onto the subject of British history by opining that in the U.K. (which of course did not exist until the 1707 Act of Union, so for the purposes of this debate it would be more accurate to say Britain) slavery never happened.

But it did. And it existed under Roman, Scandinavian, German and French conquerors for more than a millennium. I gave you numerous examples of the types and effects of slavery, but you seem to be so fixated on the historical slavery and abuse of black people in the American cotton fields that you are incapable of accepting that equally brutal slavery existed in many parts of the world including my own homeland.

Fine. Continue with your obviously passionate and eloquent defence of black people and condemnation of the privations which they suffered three and more centuries ago, but their sufferings were not unique and the history of slavery cannot continue for ever to be presented as some sort of excuse for law breaking and civil disobedience, let alone the risible demands for “compensation” which are emanating from some quarters.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Quill, I have no doubt that the authors that you cite are well worthy of tha accolade of “authority” ….but on Americanhistory. You yourself turned this debate onto the subject of British history by opining that in the U.K. (which of course did not exist until the 1707 Act of Union, so for the purposes of this debate it would be more accurate to say Britain) slavery never happened.

Actually, it was always about American history.  My lament, along with Ben, was that somehow the Brits had managed to intrude themselves into the BLM issue...where they didn't belong.

The BLM matter pertains to American slavery.  I clearly said:

Original Quill wrote:The UK would do best to stay out of it...period.  With no understanding of basic causes, y'all have no feeling for the problem under discussion.  Without feelings, y’all end up judging from British standards, with no history by which to understand.

It’s an American problem that only Americans can understand, having lived with a slave culture in the south.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Quill, I have no doubt that the authors that you cite are well worthy of tha accolade of “authority” ….but on Americanhistory. You yourself turned this debate onto the subject of British history by opining that in the U.K. (which of course did not exist until the 1707 Act of Union, so for the purposes of this debate it would be more accurate to say Britain) slavery never happened.

But it did. And it existed under Roman, Scandinavian, German and French conquerors for more than a millennium. I gave you numerous examples of the types and effects of slavery, but you seem to be so fixated on the historical slavery and abuse of black people in the American cotton fields that you are incapable of accepting that equally brutal slavery existed in many parts of the world including my own homeland.

Fine. Continue with your obviously passionate and eloquent defence of black people and condemnation of the privations which they suffered three and more centuries ago, but their sufferings were not unique and the history of slavery cannot continue for ever to be presented as some sort of excuse for law breaking and civil disobedience, let alone the risible demands for “compensation” which are emanating from some quarters.

It's not just about slavery. Slavery was the condition black people found themselves in when they came to America, but their plight certainly did not end when slavery was abolished -- far from it.

I'm sure you know who this guy is.



Samuel L. Jackson's 72 now, but he's still in every Marvel blockbuster film that's come out since the mid-2000s. He's very much alive, kicking and active.

Racial apartheid in the American South ended when Samuel L. Jackson was 16 years old, so it surely shaped him in his upbringing.

And the plight of black people in America -- brought on simply because they're black, remember -- didn't end when Southern segregation was ended, either. It didn't end when black people started appearing regularly in TV shows in the 70s, it didn't end when Michael Jackson met President Reagan, and it didn't end when Obama was elected. It probably won't end for a long time, actually.

America is still full of racist institutions and people, and it's simply disingenuous to pretend that the only grievance black Americans have ended centuries ago.

You know, by and large, how many of us witness or see racism in our everyday lives? I’m not talking TV or media reports...but how many of you actually personally witness racism?

I’m betting hardly ever.

Just saying.

eddie wrote:You know, by and large, how many of us witness or see racism in our everyday lives? I’m not talking TV or media reports...but how many of you actually personally witness racism?

I’m betting hardly ever.

Just saying.

It depends on where you live, and if you live in America, you're more likely to see it.

Ben wrote:It's not just about slavery. Slavery was the condition black people found themselves in when they came to America, but their plight certainly did not end when slavery was abolished -- far from it.

But an economy based on slavery was a condition precedent that the UK never had. It has been woven into the American fabric, and that's why it did not end when slavery was abolished. It has continued as long as that economy has continued...and still goes on today.

eddie wrote:You know, by and large, how many of us witness or see racism in our everyday lives? I’m not talking TV or media reports...but how many of you actually personally witness racism?

I’m betting hardly ever.

Just saying.

I witness it every day...many times a day.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:You know, by and large, how many of us witness or see racism in our everyday lives? I’m not talking TV or media reports...but how many of you actually personally witness racism?

I’m betting hardly ever.

Just saying.

It depends on where you live, and if you live in America, you're more likely to see it.

Well not in Texas, right? Because you actually said that you’d never witnessed anything racist other than once in Arkansas.