Pulling down statues and changing names

There is renewed focus in different parts of the world to re-evaluate the appropriateness of statues and of place names.

This has come to New Zealand (increasingly commonly referred to as Aotearoa).

Newshub:  Bye Hamilton, hello Kirikiriroa? City mulls name change after statue’s removal

Hamilton City Council contractors this morning removed the statue of British army captain John Hamilton from the centre of town, after a formal request from the Waikato-Tainui iwi.

The removal has revived a wider debate about what should be done – if anything – with colonial-era monuments and names around the country.

Captain Hamilton died leading British forces in the Battle of Gate Pā in 1864, regarded as one of the most important battles of the New Zealand Wars.

Local man Kip Ormsby said the statue needed to be removed from public areas because it represented a painful time in history for Māori.

“I just believe it should go. Yes, it is a part of history, but for Māori people it’s not a good part of history,” Ormsby said.

“So why are we glorifying it for Māori people to see it every day? We believe he is responsible for a lot of the atrocities that happened to our people.”

Ormsby said the statue should be in a museum, with a plaque outlining his full history, allowing people to make up their own minds about what sort of character he was.

The Waikato-Tainui iwi formally requested the statue be removed last year.

It seems reasonable to me to not glorify Captain Hamilton.

The statue’s removal is only one part of a longer-term conversation the iwi is having with the council – they have been working together for more than a year on a review of culturally sensitive names and sites.

The removal of the statue of the city’s namesake begs the obvious question of whether the city should be renamed.

“We certainly favour Kirikiriroa over Hamilton,” Schaafhausen said. “Kirikiriroa was acquired as a result of the New Zealand Settlements Act passed in 1863, and that resulted in just over 1.2 million hectares of our land being confiscated.

“The name Hamilton does really confront us as the stark reminder of the raupatu – the confiscations.”

I think there are valid arguments for renaming Hamilton, perhaps as Kirikiriroa.

This of course raises issues of the names of other cities here, like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Those were all imported names, although they now refer to much wider city areas than they originally applied to.

Perhaps Dunedin could also be considered, but at least it is a Scottish name (for Edinburgh), and Scotland was also oppressed by England, so it doesn’t have the same overbearing colonial problems that some other names may have. But the Scottish were also colonisers.

Apparently the Robbie Burns statue in Dunedin’s Octagon is safe for now – No plans to remove statues in Dunedin

Dunedin statues and street names depicting historical figures with problematic pasts are unlikely to be scrapped.

A statue of Queen Victoria in Dunedin’s Queens Gardens was spraypainted with the words “Return stolen wealth Charles” and “Uphold Te Tiriti” last year.

There is also a statue of poet Robbie Burns in the Octagon.

Critics of Burns have alleged he planned to make his fortune in the slave trade before his early death.

But:

But Te Runanga o Otakou kaumatua Edward Ellison said he saw no particular issue with any statues in Dunedin.

“Our focus is on developing our own narratives and seeing artworks that convey our stories, place names and associations, an area that has been neglected, we would suggest, for a long time.

“So while I welcome the discussion on the issue of racism and its negative legacy, how we might deal with the physical reminders, I am less focused on compared to seeing our stories being seen and told.”

Sounds like a sensible approach here.

There’s a lot of prominent street names linked to England and royalty – George, Princes, Great King and Queen streets as well as Victoria, King Edward and Prince Albert roads.

A childhood place name that seems very un-Kiwi and perhaps should be contentious is Cromwell.

Some name changes have already happened. Mount Taranaki is totally appropriate. Aoraki and Mt Cook seem to co-exist without much problem.

Of course the big one is the name of the country. I’d be happy for Aotearoa to replace the irrelevant and inappropriate New Zealand.

The country wasn’t new when Abel Tasman came here briefly in 1642 and he named it Staten Landt – it was later renamed Nieuw Zeeland or Nova Zeelandia by Dutch cartographers in 1646,  and it was later anglicised to New Zealand.

I know that people argue about the history and appropriateness of Aotearoa, but it is at last a lot more suitable than what we currenntly have.

 

 

Leave a comment

88 Comments

  1. Duker

     /  13th June 2020

    As I wrote in General Forum yesterday:
    The biggest surrender since the royals rewrote history and their German heritage during WW1….wiping their name from Saxe Coburg Gotha ( actual surname Wettin) to ….Windsor
    Prince Phillip later rewrote history by dropping his father’s name of Glucksberg and using his mother’s name of Mountbatten , itself a rewrite of history from Battenburg.

    There’s a well known NZ blogger whose family on arrival in NZ as refugees found their german name was too close to fuhrer…so some rewriting was in order.
    Will he blog about this or will there be a ‘guest writer’

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  13th June 2020

      Drop us a link about this blogger and his real name. And where you obtained this information from.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  13th June 2020

        He said so on his blog years ago , as well as following the family history back in Europe.
        You never give sources for your claims nonsense KK so youre not getting them now
        Look it up

        Reply
    • David

       /  13th June 2020

      You are such an unpleasant person.

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  13th June 2020

        I’m trying to work out how Duker can be labelled an ‘unpleasant person’ based on those comment and that judgement be supported by others.

        It looks like he said the Duke of Edinburgh’s family changed their name. He also said a person in New Zealand, a blogger changed their name. What do you find unpleasant about that?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  13th June 2020

          I can only guess they misunderstood or didnt read it properly, it can happen to any of us.
          Plenty of jewish refugees that came here didnt change names , like Eichelbaum family one of whom later became Chief Justice.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  13th June 2020

          Probably the Godwin’s Law salutation.

          Reply
    • Ray

       /  13th June 2020

      A bit of a low slur even from you.
      I imagine that the family being Jewish would have lead to the change rather than any changing of history.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  13th June 2020

        Being jewish in NZ is a problem ?
        Vogel our Jewish PM had a german name
        That a family chose a different name is up to them , as I said there was an obvious reason.

        But it puts that blogger in difficult position if he wants to blog against ‘name changes’
        Like he did about Government wage subsidy, after his company got $0.25 mill from the wage subsidy , lo and behold a ‘stream of guest posts’ around the governments actions.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  13th June 2020

          https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/01/dpfs_family_tree_the_feuers.html

          Reminds of the movie , I’d change my name if it was Focker too. I know of a friend who dropped the van part from his Dutch surname.
          But thats not because of political correctness , like the royal family and the descendants of the Feuers

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            Another dutch family here changed their name in NZ because their grandfather back in Holland was executed by the Dutch government as one of the worst nazi collaborators. Thats very understandable in those times of the early 1950s.

            Reply
        • Corky

           /  13th June 2020

          ”Being Jewish in NZ is a problem ?”

          Hell,yeah. Not to the same violent extent as overseas. But the Left reek of being anti Jewish.

          When talkback host Jenny Anderson interviewed Sir Douglas Myers, the first caller was a nasal whining lefty who had to be dumped. When I was growing up I heard from kids talking about someone being as ‘tight as a Jew.’ There’s only one place they got that from. And of course the blind support our Left give Palestine, while criticising the blind support America gives Israel, is another telltale sign.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            Palestine ? What has that got to do with changing names ?
            But wait …isnt there a ‘group’ that denies that name or people exists , despite the older versions being used in Roman and Biblical times.
            Indeed it ask the questions that should they go back more than 2000 years when ‘doing some renaming for political reasons’

            Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            Doug Meyers had bigger issues than his ancestry, who were leading citizens in earlier days in Auckland anyway.
            The wider family ( and others) felt they were hard done by him in his dealings over Lion Brewery.
            https://milfordasset.com/insights/cheers-say-lions-minority-shareholders
            “A number of family members took court action against Myers, in a high-profile case known as Coleman v Myers. These family members claimed that Myers had not disclosed the true situation regarding the company and that he had prior arrangements to sell assets above their disclosed values.
            Justice Peter Mahon decided in favour of Myers but on August 11, 1977 the Court of Appeal reversed the decision when it found Myers guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.”
            Ahhh sweet revenge. I bet the cranky lady might have mentioned the Court of Appeal finding !

            Reply
  2. artcroft

     /  13th June 2020

    Renaming Hamilton could only be done under the consensus of a referendum. We should not be allowing a tiny minority to bandy about new place names at their whim.

    Reply
    • I agree that there should at lest be wide and proper discussion and consultation before any significant names are changed.

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  13th June 2020

        Do you think there were wide and proper consultations before significant names were changed in the 1800s?
        Granted there might not have been signs on the edges of town, ‘Welcome to…’ wherever.
        If there were formal protocols and paperwork, I wonder how they came about and how they operated.

        Reply
        • Probably little or no consultation.

          On Cromwell, there may have been a Maori name for the location or area, but it was just a place that was passed through. probably the firsdt European visitor was in 1853. Surveys started in 1861 and there was a sudden influx when gold was discovered just down river in 1862.

          The town location was known as The Point, Kawarau (after the river that joined the Matau/Mata Au/Clutha there) and The Junction until named Cromwell in 1863, probably by a surveyor J. A. Connel from the north of Ireland. I think a different Irish surveyor then gave many of the streets Irish names.

          One street was named Gay Street, and in the 1960s there was a Gay Motel, but they were renamed in the 1970s. Renaming isn’t new thing. At least one other street was been renamed.

          Reply
        • artcroft

           /  13th June 2020

          Popular consultation and democracy are valuable additions to more modern society, so is the vaccine for polio. We should retain all three.

          Further, do you think Hamilton is just and enlargement of Kirikiriroa, that is the settlers moved into the village, or a complete new development? Remember Kirikiroa is on the eastern side of the Waikato River and Hamilton City is on the west. It was not a renaming, just a naming.

          Reply
          • duperez

             /  13th June 2020

            There were names of specific places and general areas. Some areas were known by several names.

            It is certain that in many places the local historic names for places were ignored or discarded by settlers. They brought in their systems and gave names to places.

            If a mass of immigrants were to arrive now and settle in one area and say henceforth it would be called what they wanted it called and previous names got rid of I wonder what the reaction would be.

            Reply
            • artcroft

               /  13th June 2020

              What are you on about? The mass immigration and place naming was 170 years ago. If you wish to wind back the clock to the 1860’s good luck but you’ll find some resistance from a little place called reality.

            • Gezza

               /  13th June 2020

              There may have been Maori settlements dotted around Whanganui-A-Tara, but the settlers built the port & the town so they can name it & it’s Wellington as far as I’m concerned.

              I gather even Poneke – which some Maori seem to use for Wellington – is itself a truncated transliteration of Port Nicholoson, the original Pakeha settlement.

            • That’s more or less how I feel about here. The specific part of Otago Harbour that was called Otepoti (wherever that was) can still be called Otepoti, but the city built as Dunedin can stay as Dunedin.

              There seems no need to change Otago either, even though it is generally regarded as a variation of Otakou (where there is a settlement and marae).

            • duperez

               /  13th June 2020

              Artcroft, what I’m on about is settlers coming to places which already had names and by deed said those names were irrelevant and were henceforth to be called something else.

              That’s just the way it happened. Was that treating those already there with disrespect, treating their history like shit? With the implied threat that ‘some resistance from a little place called reality’ would be visited upon them if they object? In the parlance, they’d ‘get the bash,’ metaphorical or real?

              Can you see that even if it was back in the 1860’s there could still be resentment about that? And that saying “get over it, it was years ago” could be seen as perpetrating the same bullying again?

            • artcroft

               /  13th June 2020

              And ignoring the subsequent 170 years of history is equally as wrong. Resetting the clock to 1860 ignores the fact that it is 2020 and the population and culture have changed. The settlers are long dead and only their kin survive and they have equal claim to this land and its names.

              Some things can be done to redress past wrongs but allowing a minority to hold sway over the majority is a recipe for conflict and further resentment. That’s why we aim for majority consensus. Minority rule is what all our ancestors fled from.

            • artcroft

               /  13th June 2020

              Duperez; As might be apparent I have a connection to Hamilton and an attachment to it. Therefore if the name was to be changed I would like to be consulted even though I no longer live there. This is why I suspect Wayne is correct when he says central govt gets to make these calls.

              You argument seems to hinge on the principle that two wrongs make a right.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              “Artcroft, what I’m on about is settlers coming to places which already had names and by deed said those names were irrelevant and were henceforth to be called something else.”

              You could say that about almost every place in Europe. Even Rome was ‘renamed’ but myth and legend and mists of time mean the name of the very first ‘settlement’ is really known.
              The cradle of civilization, the Middle East , which places still have their ‘ancient names’.
              Even Maori names are changed in different ways. I was looking up Lake Okataina the other day relating to something else ( maori living in caves)
              and apparently its original name was Te Moana-i-kataina-a-Te Rangitakaroro

    • Ray

       /  13th June 2020

      “No crisis should go to waste”.

      Reply
      • Taitimu (TImi) Maipi is a bigoted bully; it was he who vandalised the statue. He is a horrible person; I was surprised to see him described as a kaumatua.

        Renaming a city is an extremely expensive and time-consuming business. We are in a recession, we shouldn’t be spending money on the whim of a bully like Timi Maipi;

        Reply
  3. Corky

     /  13th June 2020

    Hamilton City Council has done the wrong thing. They have caved into threats. And there has been no consultation with ratepayers. To be fair, the police and our government has set a good example about caving into minority interest groups.

    Talking of statues..and maybe portraits and pictures in the future…Labour will need to remove
    Michael Joseph Savage and King Dick Seddon from their offices and the government precinct. Both were xenophobes… and if I was to hazard a guess, probably weren’t too fussed about Maori.

    Rodney HIDE summed it up well for me: ”Where is the consultation?”

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  13th June 2020

      Hides for ‘consultation’ now?
      Where was that when he decided to give un-elected people seats on the Auckland Council, as well as ignoring most the Royal Commission on the Super City to have his own pet ideas.
      That guy is a caricature of a failed politician, as if they need one

      Reply
  4. Patzcuaro

     /  13th June 2020

    The odd thing about the Hamilton statue is that it went up in 2013, did the council consult with Tainui then? It doesn’t reflect well on the council engaging with the community.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  13th June 2020

      Tainui have enough money to put up their own statues. Or isn’t that how shared sovereignty works?

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  13th June 2020

        Tainui definitely have enough money to put up their own statues but most entities prefer to get other people to pay if they can.

        My point is that you would have thought in 2013 the Hamilton Council might have been able to foresee issues developing around the statue, this was not the case 100 years ago.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  13th June 2020

          ”My point is that you would have thought in 2013 the Hamilton Council might have been able to foresee issues developing around the statue.”

          That shows how exponentially wokism( political and cultural) has expanded in a few short years. Likewise the viciousness of social media for those who don’t hold soppy woke views.

          But trust me, Patzcuaro….everyone has now received the memo.

          I’m waiting for the fight back. And I’m wonder where it will come from.🤔

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  13th June 2020

            So if things are woke now was the council asleep in 2013?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  13th June 2020

              2013 was an eon ago in terms of PC and wokism. Please read my post.

  5. NOEL

     /  13th June 2020

    Local school wanted a brief history of Maori which included the area I lived. As PTA President I took the task. In my area there was a history of temporary residence for fishing and shell fish but no permanent sites. Reason been the area was prone to drought.

    Then along came London based planners surveying for a settlement for those who had served in the Land Wars, All drawn on paper in London.

    Was to be called Pakington after the Minister for War and Colonial something.
    Never promoted further than a plan when they found shipping grounded early in the channel.

    Decades later a Councillor who farmed the land saw a change coming in the District Plan and quickly fenced the original surveys into life style blocks.

    One of my boundaries ended in the middle of a creek. Good for laugh with visitors.
    .

    Reply
  6. Wayne Mapp

     /  13th June 2020

    I don’t think Councils can unilaterally change the name of their city. It requires the agreement of central government. For the obvious reasons that it has wider effects than the immediate community

    Reply
  7. The New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (NZGB) can alter the local authority names for a district or region over which a territorial authority or regional council has jurisdiction.

    Altering New Zealand city, town village, locality or suburb names

    If you wish to suggest changes to the name of a New Zealand city, town village, locality or suburb, the NZGB requires the support of the relevant local authority before it will process a proposal for a populated place.

    The local authority:

    1. Needs to advise of the current official district or region name.

    2. Must ensure there is a formal Council resolution to alter the name of the district or region. The Council’s resolution should be included with the proposal form.

    3. Must meet the NZGB’s naming requirements. There are rules that the proposal must follow and requirements for additional information, including a completed Checklist of Required Information.

    Policy on minimum requirements for geographic name proposals (PDF 64KB)

    Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa
    Checklist of required information to assist with proposals meeting minimum requirements (PDF 44.1 KB)

    https://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/propose-place-name/proposing-alter-district-or-region-name

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  13th June 2020

      Should be renamed Taniwha Town as appropriately wet and deluded?

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  13th June 2020

        How are things in Kororareka?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  13th June 2020

          Pretty cool. No statue of Lord Russell or of Hone Heke. Nothing black or white here. The flagpole is still available for chopping down and putting up again.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            The original Russell was nearer where the ferry runs now ,Okiato. The hill there had the flagpole as it was the first capital. …Old Russell as its sometimes called.
            Doesnt seem to have been a ‘renaming’ of Kororareka , just turned out that way

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              Wrong Hill
              “The flagstaff that now stands at Kororareka was erected in January 1858 at the direction of Kawiti’s son Maihi Paraone Kawiti; with the flag being named Whakakotahitanga, “being at one with the Queen.”[8] As a further symbolic act the 400 Ngāpuhi warriors involved in preparing and erecting the flagstaff were selected from the ‘rebel’ forces of Kawiti and Heke – that is, Ngāpuhi from the hapu of Tāmati Wāka Nene (who had fought as allies of the British forces during the Flagstaff War), observed, but did not participate in the erection of the fifth flagpole. The restoration of the flagpole was presented by Maihi Paraone Kawiti was a voluntary act on the part of the Ngāpuhi that had cut it down in 1845, and they would not allow any other to render any assistance in this work.[8] The continuing symbolism of the fifth flagstaff at Kororareka is that it exists because of the goodwill of the Ngāpuhi.”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagstaff_Hill_(New_Zealand)

  8. One could legitimately ask on whose behalf she is speaking.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  13th June 2020

      Its the royal ‘we’

      Reply
    • artcroft

       /  13th June 2020

      Of course she wants them removed. Those aren’t her forebears. However without those pioneers would she be here today? Would she be part of the privilege few in parliament?

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  13th June 2020

      Anti-Pakeha. And an import.

      Reply
  9. Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  13th June 2020

      There are two kinds of people – those who delight in creating and those who delight in destroying. One lot makes wealth and the other makes poverty.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  13th June 2020

        So those people who tore downs statues of Stalin or Sadaam Hussein were ‘just delighting in destroying’ and creating poverty

        “In 1680, he became involved in the slave trade through his work on the committees of the Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves He was Deputy Governor of the company in 1689–90. ”
        Yep , created wealth for sure , over 80,000 slaves

        Like Corky and Dough Meyers, careful who your heroes are

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  13th June 2020

          When will the tear down The Guardian?

          That was founded on slave money.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            The Scott Trust, current owner and its originator CP Scott werent involved in slave trade . He bought an existing paper in 1905. The earlier paper was founded in 1821 , cant see how they were selling slaves from Africa, by 1807 it was illegal throughout the Empire.

            You should look elsewhere
            “The large slave owners, the men of the “West India interest”, who owned huge estates from which they drew vast fortunes, appear in the files of the commission. The man who received the most money from the state was John Gladstone, the father of Victorian prime minister William Ewart Gladstone. He was paid £106,769 in compensation for the 2,508 slaves he owned across nine plantations, the modern equivalent of about £80m. Given such an investment, it is perhaps not surprising that William Gladstone’s maiden speech in parliament was in defence of slavery.”

            History had previously been rewritten in UK expunging the names and connections to Slavery in West Indies and elsewhere
            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              The Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor, a cotton tycoon.

              Profits from the backs of slaves. It must be torn down.

              Your article from The Guardian supports this. The Guardian only exists because of the history of British slavery. I’m surprised they have not torn themselves down.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              No it doesnt . The Scotts and their Trust which control the current paper date from 1905.
              The founder John Henry Taylor, his father was a Unitarian Minister and he would have been 16 when slave trade abolished in British Empire. His younger son, same name , ran the paper until sold to the Editor CP Scott in 1905
              The cotton mills were in England and the cotton largely came from India

              Overall a fail , no direct connection from Taylor or Scott to owning or trading slaves.

            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              “No it doesnt .”

              It was created with money from slavery. That’s the fact of Manchester. Just read The Guardian, it is very clear on this issue.

              “The Scotts and their Trust which control the current paper date from 1905.”

              Still part of the family. CP Scott was Taylor’s nephew.

              “The founder John Henry Taylor, his father was a Unitarian Minister and he would have been 16 when slave trade abolished in British Empire”

              How are you so wrong about so many simple things?

              John Henry Taylor, born 1791
              The Guardian established 1821
              Slavery outlawed in the British Empire in 1833
              Taylor was 42 when slavery was ended in the British Empire.

              “The cotton mills were in England and the cotton largely came from India”

              India you say? Slaves of the British Empire! I read that in The Guardian.

              Fun Fact, The Guardian opposed the Proclamation of Emancipation, supported the Confederates and described Lincoln as abhorrent.

              https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/24/1865-guardian-stance-us-civil-war

              The Guardian must fall! It’s past sins cannot be tolerated, that is what we have learned from The Guardian.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              So the Guardian says so but you don’t link to those words, other than something about the Civil War
              And what does it say?
              “The issue that caused the problem for the Guardian was not slavery. The Guardian had always hated slavery. But it doubted the Union hated slavery”
              Guardian always hated slavery they say.
              You should really read these things when you use a ladder to climb on to your high horse
              Their real reason for supporting succession
              . “It had supported independence for the Slavs, the Hungarians, the Italians and the Egyptians – so why not for the Confederates, too?”

              Nothing about bebefitting directly from slavery, there’s some that say unless you were a slave , then you benefitted.
              Overall a pathetic fail with irrelevant link which tends to refute your claim

            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              ‘Nothing about bebefitting directly from slavery”

              This is not the measure. It’s not about directly benefiting from slavery. No one in west has directly benefited from that for 150 years in the west.

              The Guardian measure is that someone, somewhere, sometime in the past, might have benefited in someway, so you must be torn down. Which of course requires The Guardian to be torn down.

              The Guardian writes these daming words;

              “Yet that 1865 leader writer was of his era. ”

              If The Guardian can be a paper of its era, so can Edward Colston be a man of his era.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              The paper says Guardian hated slavery , all ways did.
              Where’s you quote where they said ‘0only exists because of British slavery’?
              Were they using slaves to deliver the papers?
              It’s typical of your low intellectual capacity which you show time after time here….what did Trump say once ..”that he loved the low educated people ”
              Exactly where you are coming from , no doubt

            • Pink David

               /  14th June 2020

              “It’s typical of your low intellectual capacity which you show time after time here”

              What do you actually do for a living? I recall you claiming to be an engineer, yet I can’t believe that for a second. Where is your evidence for your towering intellect?

              “Where’s you quote where they said ‘0only exists because of British slavery’?”

              This does not require a ‘quote’. The industry of Manchester was based on trade that revolved around product from the Americas. A large amount of it was based in some form on slavery. Manchester had a significant recession during the US civil war due to the embago on southern cotton. The cotton mills did not really recover after that, not to the same scale.
              As you want a quote;

              “A year into the civil war, the effects of the cotton embargo really began to bite. Lancashire, which had imported three quarters of all cotton grown on southern plantations (1.3 billion lbs), found that 60% of it spindles and looms lay idle, leaving many out of work, thanks mainly to the blockade.”

              “The paper says Guardian hated slavery , all ways did.”

              That never stopped it’s being the beneficiary of it. That’s the same argument being used against these statues.

        • Pink David

           /  13th June 2020

          This is a statue of a slaver and oppressor of entire regions. He became one of the wealthiest people in history on the back of conquest and slavery.

          Should his statue be torn down?

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  13th June 2020

            What do the descendants of Roman slaves say ? are they still suffering from racism.
            Oh thats right its a ludicrous diversion , even sillier that Molly Malone

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              Do you think there was a single person pulling down these statues that was a descendant of a slave in the Americas?

              Edward Colston was pulled down by a crowd of liberal university students who’s closest experience of slavery was when their parents told them to tidy their rooms.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              Racism.
              Desecedents of blacks taken to carribean now live in Britain. That’s were a lot of UK blacks are descended from
              Are you now geographically challenged as well as ethically and morally?

            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              “Desecedents of blacks taken to carribean now live in Britain. That’s were a lot of UK blacks are descended from”

              How many of them were present when the statue of Edward Colston was pulled down? Care to name them and their connection to actual slaves from the past.

            • Duker

               /  13th June 2020

              You said slave in the America’s?
              Black carribean is probably 40% of UK black population

              You said was there even a single person?
              Care to name those people in the demonstrators who weren’t black Caribbean?
              I’ve never asked those demonstrators if they were black enough to be there. You did and thus fail your own standard, as if you had any .
              As Trump said he loves the poorly educated , and they love him back

            • Pink David

               /  13th June 2020

              “I’ve never asked those demonstrators if they were black enough to be there. You did and thus fail your own standard, as if you had any .”

              I asked no such thing. This is your thinking, not mine.

              “As Trump said he loves the poorly educated , and they love him back”

              Rather random thought. I guess it’s nice for you to know someone out there loves you.

            • Duker

               /  14th June 2020

              So you set up a straw man arguement , thinking that the UK black population only comes from Africa itself, then you flail around demanding proof inspite of never offering any for your straw men.
              I despair for your work colleagues and the contortions they must endure as you flail and flip flop even there, to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding..

            • Pink David

               /  14th June 2020

              “thinking that the UK black population only comes from Africa itself”

              I think no such thing. This is your thinking, not mine. You fail at mind reading.

              I specifically used the term ‘Americas’, not America for a reason. Someone with your towering intellect would have had a pause, surely, for why I used that far less common word.

              I used it to include the Caribbean, because that is where the majority of black people in the UK come from.

              “I despair for your work colleagues and the contortions they must endure as you flail and flip flop even there, to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding..”

              Love it! I asked you a specific question, “how many people with some connection to slavery were present involved in the removal of that statue.”

              You just waltz off into demographics. The truth is you have no idea. Not a clue. I ask the same question again, and you just reverse it, throwing in some insults. Talk about epic projection.

              “I despair for your work colleagues and the contortions they must endure as you flail and flip flop even there, to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding..”

              What do you do, seriously? This tower of intellect and knowledge that is wasted here. You must be important, successful and wealthy.

  10. Pink David

     /  13th June 2020

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  13th June 2020

      When people from the right loved renaming and the statues coming down
      Remember the cries of dissent …”its rewriting history”

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  13th June 2020

        Yes, that is correct. Statues of Lenin being pulled down are symbols of the end of the murderous system he established.

        It’s not about statues being pulled down. It’s about which statues are being pulled down. The goal of these people isn’t to pull statues down, it’s to destroy the system which they represent. In this case the statues targeted are going to be all those that represent western culture. No one has gone after Marx’s statue, despite his history of extreme racism.

        If you cannot see that, you are an utter fool.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  13th June 2020

          And the slave trade wasnt a murderous system ?
          Theres nothing wrong with your justifications, just you cant see it when its not ‘your tribe’…wealthy white males
          And the murderous slave trade system through its ugly child racism continues to this day.
          Then on top of that you get flippant about an invented person

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  13th June 2020

            “it when its not ‘your tribe’…wealthy white males”

            This is the incredible danger of identity politics. I am not a member of this ‘tribe’, this is your construct. I do not agree with other because of their skin colour. I do not share values with others just because of their skin colour.

            You may share the world view of lurcher with his ‘old white men’ nonsense, but this undeniably makes you, by definition, a racist and a bigot.

            Reply
          • Pink David

             /  13th June 2020

            “Then on top of that you get flippant about an invented person”

            Not flippant. Mocking. I am mocking people who, like you, support this.

            Reply
            • I thought for a terrible moment that the MM was in danger.

              She needn’t be quite so, er, obvious, I must say.

  11. Gerrit

     /  13th June 2020

    Interesting discussion regarding slavery with a Maori acquaintance. I asked if he knew about Maori Mokai and how the Treaty of Waitangi gave every Mokai their theoretical freedom.

    Blasphemy he cried. “Maori never had slaves”.

    Asked him if he knew how many forced labour mokai, Hongi Hika had to grow the potatoes and flax to trade for more muskets. None he said. Well the answer was around 2000.

    Interestingly the very idea that Maori used captured enemy as slaves is being diluted and explained away as being normal behaviour and relevant in the context of the times. So we may not have a “colonisers” acting in the context of the times but Maori can be.

    “This is the “struggle” of the book’s subtitle, the still-unresolved questions about the meaning of the word “slave”; who they were; and how they were treated. Any answers to these questions, Petrie argues, must be read in the context of the times in which the reports of “so-called slavery” were written.”

    https://www.noted.co.nz/archive/archive-listener-nz-2015/slave-stories

    Double standards being applied?

    “In her book she describes a missionary’s justifiable horror at seeing a six-year-old boy killed for stealing a potato. “But from the Maori point of view it is a very different situation. The boy is of little use to them, he is a war captive from the enemy and (in taking a precious resource which may have been under tapu) he has done something absolutely dreadful.””

    Reply
  12. Duker

     /  13th June 2020

    Well the Treaty did give their freedom as Slavery had been abolished in British Empire

    Was it really chattel slavery in the way it was in almost every other country, where once a slave always a slave and their children and childrens children etc ( unless freedom was bought).
    As they werent a different race, maori slaves may have been treated more like indentured labour . But were probably a different iwi.
    Certainly slavery was an almost world wide phenomenon, so no reason why we cant consider Maori slavery as such.

    The real issue today is the continuing racism NOW , felt by Black people as a legacy of slavery. The brutality dished out by the police echoes the treatment to the slaves where their lives meant nothing.
    Now thats the post of the day, if I do say so.

    Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  13th June 2020

      So will removing statues fix that problem? Dont think so. But if it makes people feel good, go for it. Remove them all. Wont change history or attitudes. Might even harden attitudes.

      The other side of the coin is that people can see the uselessness (as in it wont change a single thought or action) of it and deepen their resentment.

      Notice the Newshub pole was running at 80% for retaining the statues and 20% for removing them. Not winning friends and influencing people by the action to demolish or deface statues.

      https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/06/poll-should-new-zealand-pull-down-statues-memorialising-colonial-figures.html

      Is there a better way to diminish the brutality from both sides of the divide? Or will pulling down a few statues really make a difference in good will versus building greater overall resentment?

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  13th June 2020

        It’s more of a celebration much as the removals of statues in Communist countries and other countries like Iraq did when they came down

        Reply
  13. Pink David

     /  13th June 2020

    Protests in London will be far more peaceful today than last week. All significant monuments have people guarding them in the absence of Police.

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  13th June 2020

      Football firms showing up too. Lots of peaceful protest assured.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th June 2020

      “Protests in London will be far more peaceful today than last week. ”

      Yesterdays claim , shown as words of foam the next day….hahahahaha

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  14th June 2020

        “Yesterdays claim , shown as words of foam the next day….hahahahaha”

        Really? Seems like history has shown this to be exactly the case. The protests were far more peaceful. Last week was out and out rioting. Yesterday, not at all.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s