That statue in England that ended up in the bay?

Do you have any proof whatsoever to back that up?

 

I'm probably duplicating the other reply but this is Brittanica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Everybody has had them. America has had its share. I remember reading somewhere that Winston Churchill thought them up but don't remember where I saw that.

It can be disputed that the Gulags were prisons, not concentration camps, but Ivan Denisovich might not agree.

 

No one is disputing that the British set up concentration camps during the Boer War.
It's the claim that they were invented by the British which is being disputed. I've already provided examples of such internment before the Boer War.
Britannica doesn't support your claim it merely gives British camps as an example.

 

OIC

Okay. I did give an example of Julius Caesar starving the Gauls at Alesia. Many would say that is internment but others call it a siege.

Terrible thing anyway. Caesar was said to kill over a million Gauls overall, one out of 3. Probably not the first Holocaust either.

 

I think the definition given by Britannica is as good as any.

I'd argue that the rounding up of Dakota and Navajo in 1862 falls within this definition but I wouldn't say that America invented the concentration camp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment

 

Nothing is being rewritten by pointing out that Churchill was a profound racist. He made plenty of racist remarks in his time. And under his cunning leadership, he let millions of his citizens die because he refused to approve them getting any help. Those are historic facts. If you want to deny them: be my guest. And on a personal note according to your previous post, you approve that brown people just die for the cause of the white people which is according to you a better cause than their lives. Your entitled to your opinion of course, but it seems the entire point that black/brown people lives actually do matter as well... goes clear over your head. Kind of it.

 

You have literally made all of that up. I never said anything about anyone's life mattering more. I'm talking about a war effort to prevent the world from falling to Nazism. I also never said that Churchill didn't have racism in him, of course he had prejudice against other races, much like 95% of the world at the time.

 

Really? Well ... who else did implement such camps before with same intention? I know and found no one ... even after a bigger look in history which has of course many evil examples of bad issues.

Even the handling of the Natives in the USA with the so called Reservations was really evil and before this ... but an other issue and not comparable, because it was no intentionby Washington to starve them out as enemy, but to control them etc. That there was a lot of starvation was result of criminal behavior of taking the money for food and giving the Natives only crap to eat and so on ...

 

Well assuming is the mother of all F ups mate.

 

Ehm ... Alesia was a gaul town besieged by Ceasar .... and any siege war is running this way at least... so not comparable.

 

Well, I will not say assuming here, because I can't find any comparable example before ... If tere is one / found by someone else, then OK.
But this opens then again the question if Britian took example from it or not, isn't it mate?

EDIT:
Someone found indeed an example - Spanish - Cuba war (civil war).
Only ... did the British take this as a role model in the fight against the Boers? Good question ... and frankly, I don't know.

 

I also gave 2 other examples of concentration camps being used prior to the Boer War.
I wouldn't call any of them the invention of internment without trial for political or security reasons, ie concentration camps, though. The practice goes back as far as conflict itself.

 

Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King do not have white vests. Each had their own demons.

 

speak for yourself (your kind) thank you.

 

Andrew Jackson, 'Trail of Tears', the Indian Removal Act is one example. More than 60,000 Native Americans were forced to relocate from their homelands to areas west of the Mississippi River.

It wasn't just a random thing or personal preference that Trump chose a portrait of Democratic President Andrew Jackson to be prominently displayed in the Oval Office. This came at the express recommendation of Steve Bannon, the then White House chief strategist. Of course this was before he was banished from the inner circle.

Steve Bannon was very aware of the “Jacksonian” tradition in American foreign policy, Bannon saw a populist kindred spirit in Andrew Jackson and the portrait was a suitably rabble-rousing model for the anti-establishment course he hoped Trump would follow.



Stephen K. Bannon discussed the three most important goals the White House is working towards at CPAC 2017: homeland security, economic nationalism, and "deconstruction of the administrative state."

 

What kind are you claiming weren’t or aren’t racist somewhere along the line?

 

my kind, its in my blood.

 

You didn't know about it and neither did I. However there had been work going on for years in Bristol to get it removed.

 

I think this kind of support - the kind we are seeing now which both in the UK and in the US appears to be built on premise that we no longer have racism belongs in the UK more to the far right in England - the English Nationalists of Brexit led by a man who used as propaganda that if we did not leave the EU we were going to have to take in lots of brown refugees.

On the other hand I think that Britian has failed to look more deeply at what she did during the colonial period which I understand is far worse than most people have any idea of. This is in no way to try and make people feel shame which itself is a meme created by the far right. No people are responsible for what those who came before them did. However looking at history and understanding how it has affected the present is something which needs to be done if we are going to be able to make informed judgements and let go of past misbeliefs for example white is superior to Brown or Black. Being white means you have the right to exploit non whites etc.

 

I think there was a genocide intention in the Colonisation of the US. I am thinking of the deliberate killing of the Buffalo and there was apparently a deliberate attempt at giving them smallpox. Then the US reneged on most of their treaties. I don't see them deserving any lightening of the harm they did and continue to do to the Indigenous people. They did as bad as they could get away with including many massacres including massacres of children.

White people believed they had a right to take whatever they wanted. I remember reading in Jung's Memories, Dreams and Reflections that when he was in the US he was speaking to some Indians. They told him they thought the white man was mad. Jung asked them why. They said that the white man says he thinks with his head. Jung asked them what they thought with. They put their hand to their heart. Jung said he never thought of white civilisation in the same way again - and in that I think you can see what was lost in our colonisation of the world - although it needs also to be remembered that prior to that colonisation, we too were little more than serfs with no freedom. We gained but it was at the destruction of others and the loss of our hearts.

 

I sympathize with the statue, a hero of the past, having to suffer from the ignorance of the present.

 

Well this one is going to the Bristol Museum for discussion of Slavery. That is where he belongs.

 

A happy ending for all concerned. See what happens when we apply understanding and kind forbearance instead of simple coercion. Non-living beings have feelings too.

Notwithstanding that though do we really need all these works of controversial sculpture? Defund art departments.

 

Without any question I will call te handling of the Natives in the US by the US government in history also a genocide at least. Let us take the massacre at Wounded Knee / South Dakota in 1890 on the Lakotas as one of countless examples. General (actually only Colonel) Custer, who is still so venerated today, slaughtered 300 unarmed Lakota - women, children and the elderly - with parts of the 7th Cavalry.
And this ... even according to values at the time etc. ... crime was still considered a glorious victory, just disgusting.
Sure, the natives were only considered sub-humans in most Americans at the time and also the inhumane oppression of the natives, e.g. by prohibiting language and culture itself, went on until the 1960s. Likewise, many Americans still have a problem today when one confronts their "a la John Wayne myth" of the Wild West with the actual facts regarding genocide against the Natives and thus destroys the Hollywood fairy tale hour.

But ... as bad as it was in the reservations ... I dare to call them the concentration camp. A lot of the bad things were more locally-related and perpetrated crimes ... such as, for example, largely refusing to pass on the food deliveries and illegally selling them privately at a profit. The Christian missionaries here in the reservations were once the purest rats to whom a black SS uniform would have been good, but in another reservation they were good people again. So it wasn't a general thing when it came to the miserable treatment ... neither locally nor in time.

 

You basically said that people dying by the millions is not a cause worthy enough to help vs having a war. And all I did was put in the appropriate ethnicity to that.

Prejudice? lol
He called them beasts with a beastly religion and believed in racial superiority much like Hitler.
And the reason Churchill let millions of people die from starvation, is because he found stockpiling more important.
His own secretary of state put down that Churchill aint all sane, and he is just like Hitler on that regard.
95% of the world wasn't like Hitler. You're just downplaying what Churchill did or think brown lives don't matter much.