Slavery in 1700s was practiced widely and acceptable to the people of the time, genocide in 1941 was not.

Oh come dear boy. Jews were widely considered pests by all and sundry back then, including many people with statues still standing in the UK today.

How many posts before you remind me Churchill thought the same
Considering someone a pest is a far cry from exterminating them. Even today antisemitism is rife and continues to be a major problem (ironically largely among those kneeling and protesting the death of George Floyd).

Is there a Godwin equivalent for this? Churchill was certainly far from being a saint, so the hagiographic nature of his treatment by certain sections of British society is a bit tone deaf.

Well, the pyramids were mausoleums that have been looted and the looters proudly exhibit the spoils on museums. The stones are still on top of each other, but the meaning the creators gave to the all the objects and structures has been defaced. Little else can be done to further mock and humiliate those mausoleums....we even call them pyramids

I'd guess the list of structures and historical artifacts that still carry their original meaning is very short. If you want to find a structure or artifact that has not been defaced or repurposed, you have to look after the birth of modern nation states.

For example, it spite of the Catholic Church staying strong, we peasants can stroll in the Saint-Chapelle in Paris, visit almost any room in Cathedrals in Spain or drink beer in castles in CH. The original intended meaning was that only royals and some high-ranking clerics could be there....things change.

So we have to be racist to combat racism...

Just curious, you justify this by saying it is still required - at what point do you think it will not be required?

I would say when everyone has equality of opportunity.

If you are more likely to be arrested without cause, unlawfully killed, denied housing, etc etc based on your skin colour, then clearly we haven't reached that point yet.

Diversity quotas are not about equality of opportunity they are about equality of outcome.

Surely they are about giving a wider section of society the opportunity to e.g. go to university, get a job in industry x, etc etc.

You don't know the outcome yet, they might be great students or terrible students that drop out.

How about moving to a different country for higher salary and better quality of life?

Could you explain the relevance of this?

Positive discrimination doesn't balance negative discrimination. Giving people preferrential education/housing doesn't exactly balance judicial and policing policies. They are unrelated in my mind other than allowing people to pat themselves on the back.

Perhaps when some people are hundreds of years behind others on the housing ladder and the legal ability to own land, giving a bit back to try and redress the historical balance isn't the worst thing - not sure how else you can try and level the playing field?

Bad policing/lawmaking disproportionately affects people lower down the socio-economic scale and due to hundreds of years of history black people are far more likely to be down there.

I think everyone agrees that the slave trade was horrific.

History however should not be erased but learned about and from. History put us where we are today, whether we like it or not. I’m sure there are plenty of black people who would not be where they are today if it were not for the slave trade.

Maybe those focusing on pulling down statues and erasing history, would be better focusing their time on stopping today’s human trafficking and modern slave trade, happening right now.... making a real difference.

Okay, now things are getting silly.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52990714

It's a ing fictional story for pete's sake and people can choose to watch it or not.

One you begin pandering to the mob it never stops, which is why you should never start.

Consider that segregation only officially ended in 1964. That means that in the US, everyone 56 years old and older was born in a country where the government/states/businesses/housing authorities/educational institutes and individuals could freely prevented you from buying a house in a certain area of town, refusing to serve you food, refusing to employ you, refusing to educate yourself and your children, refuse to provide assistance when you were in an emergency and so much more.

The US has to atone for those sins, and helping people get a leg into educational institutes, supporting them with housing, welfare etc is the bare minimum.

So I agree, it isn't balanced but its something at a small cost and there needs to be more done.

Isn't that what elections are?

Precisely, much better articulated than my efforts, thank you.

Meanwhile in northen ireland...

In the north they had legislature to ensure some equal employment, although in that case the proportion of the population was far higher than the minority status in the USA. It seems to have largely calmed down. They also reformed the police force in a major way though.

Exactly, it's never enough they just want more.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/statu...19399316480003