Black Soldier in WW1 KOSB

#2
gobbyidiot said:
Interesting - multi ethnic Scots units are nothing new. The best bit is that he (essentially) never mentions his colour in the diary, so maybe nobody gave a sh*t. Your great grandpa might have been a liberal who would have punched the crap out of Nick Griffin.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/he..._of_one_of_scotlands_first_black_soldiers.php
Never had the pleasure of meeting mine, of course. But I do know he fought in WWI as a soldier in one of the Highland Regiments. I have little doubt that he would happily have bayonted Griffen. :twisted:
 
#4
gobbyidiot said:
Interesting - multi ethnic Scots units are nothing new. The best bit is that he (essentially) never mentions his colour in the diary, so maybe nobody gave a sh*t. Your great grandpa might have been a liberal who would have punched the crap out of Nick Griffin.
The army in WWI was extremely racist. In fact the whole country pretty much was. Nick Griffin would have fitted in well.

What made you find this non event topic interesting anyway?
 
#5
Fallschirmjager said:
gobbyidiot said:
Interesting - multi ethnic Scots units are nothing new. The best bit is that he (essentially) never mentions his colour in the diary, so maybe nobody gave a sh*t. Your great grandpa might have been a liberal who would have punched the crap out of Nick Griffin.
The army in WWI was extremely racist. In fact the whole country pretty much was. Nick Griffin would have fitted in well.

What made you find this non event topic interesting anyway?
I'm sure there was an incredible amount of what we would recognise as racism, but people forget the other side. The first mass political campaign of ordinary people was against the slave trade - most of the people involved didn't have the vote themselves, and the arse was out of their trousers, but they still went out of their way to protest agaimst slavery.

I suppose at the minute I'm a bit wound up about fat f*cks appropriating the term "British", and meaning by that "racist, inbred, mindless, incoherent ********". Britishness is about ideas - parliamentary government, the rule of law, toleration, and it's been brought low by a bunch of self-seeking politicians and then picked back up by the scum of the earth. I'm white with blue eyes, but I'm not labouring under any misapprehensions that being "British" implies being any particular colour. It's an incidental historical fact that most Brits are white - not an inherent attribute. We're like the Americans - majority white, but irrelevantly so, because we have principles while "lesser breeds without the law" are lesser "breeds" precisely (and only) because they lack the law.

Paraphrasing Russell Crowe, the Anglos (not Rome) might be "the light", but not because they are white.
 
#6
gobbyidiot said:
Fallschirmjager said:
gobbyidiot said:
Interesting - multi ethnic Scots units are nothing new. The best bit is that he (essentially) never mentions his colour in the diary, so maybe nobody gave a sh*t. Your great grandpa might have been a liberal who would have punched the crap out of Nick Griffin.
The army in WWI was extremely racist. In fact the whole country pretty much was. Nick Griffin would have fitted in well.

What made you find this non event topic interesting anyway?
I'm sure there was an incredible amount of what we would recognise as racism, but people forget the other side. The first mass political campaign of ordinary people was against the slave trade - most of the people involved didn't have the vote themselves, and the arse was out of their trousers, but they still went out of their way to protest agaimst slavery.

I suppose at the minute I'm a bit wound up about fat f*cks appropriating the term "British", and meaning by that "racist, inbred, mindless, incoherent *". Britishness is about ideas - parliamentary government, the rule of law, toleration, and it's been brought low by a bunch of self-seeking politicians and then picked back up by the scum of the earth. I'm white with blue eyes, but I'm not labouring under any misapprehensions that being "British" implies being any particular colour. It's an incidental historical fact that most Brits are white - not an inherent attribute. We're like the Americans - majority white, but irrelevantly so, because we have principles while "lesser breeds without the law" are lesser "breeds" precisely (and only) because they lack the law.

Paraphrasing Russell Crowe, the Anglos (not Rome) might be "the light", but not because they are white.
A very sensible post for a Sunday afternoon! Pubs shut where you are?

I think attitudes to racism are interesting. The Army is racist in that we understand people are different and rip the p*ss accordingly - But there's nothing wrong with that, because we also respect each other. I imagine it wasn't all that different back then!
 
#8
gobbyidiot said:
I'm sure there was an incredible amount of what we would recognise as racism, but people forget the other side. The first mass political campaign of ordinary people was against the slave trade - most of the people involved didn't have the vote themselves, and the arse was out of their trousers, but they still went out of their way to protest agaimst slavery.
Are you talking about America or Britain? Because I can't find anything saying the British public cared one way or the other.
 
#9
That is a very interesting story. Stop and think about it for a moment though, another young British man who's life almost slipped into obscurity. The part he personally played in the wider scheme of things would have been very small but would also have been very large as well. He fought the fight and was almost forgotten, like so many. Just a personal reflection, that's how I see these things. We will always owe so much to these fine men.
 
#10
They will all be forgotten in the end.

Who remembers the Battle of Brunaburgh?

or the Battle of Ashdown?

or Maldon?

or Hastings?

or the Battle of Gravelines?

They were all important battles to keep the invader from our shores. The only reason recent wars will be remembered is because we have photos and video footage and it is the current trend to remember our fallen. It won't last forever, especially when we become a Muslim state.
 
#11
DeltaDog said:
gobbyidiot said:
Fallschirmjager said:
gobbyidiot said:
Interesting - multi ethnic Scots units are nothing new. The best bit is that he (essentially) never mentions his colour in the diary, so maybe nobody gave a sh*t. Your great grandpa might have been a liberal who would have punched the crap out of Nick Griffin.
The army in WWI was extremely racist. In fact the whole country pretty much was. Nick Griffin would have fitted in well.

What made you find this non event topic interesting anyway?
I'm sure there was an incredible amount of what we would recognise as racism, but people forget the other side. The first mass political campaign of ordinary people was against the slave trade - most of the people involved didn't have the vote themselves, and the arse was out of their trousers, but they still went out of their way to protest agaimst slavery.

I suppose at the minute I'm a bit wound up about fat f*cks appropriating the term "British", and meaning by that "racist, inbred, mindless, incoherent *". Britishness is about ideas - parliamentary government, the rule of law, toleration, and it's been brought low by a bunch of self-seeking politicians and then picked back up by the scum of the earth. I'm white with blue eyes, but I'm not labouring under any misapprehensions that being "British" implies being any particular colour. It's an incidental historical fact that most Brits are white - not an inherent attribute. We're like the Americans - majority white, but irrelevantly so, because we have principles while "lesser breeds without the law" are lesser "breeds" precisely (and only) because they lack the law.

Paraphrasing Russell Crowe, the Anglos (not Rome) might be "the light", but not because they are white.
A very sensible post for a Sunday afternoon! Pubs shut where you are?

I think attitudes to racism are interesting. The Army is racist in that we understand people are different and rip the p*ss accordingly - But there's nothing wrong with that, because we also respect each other. I imagine it wasn't all that different back then!
I think we should be sure of our definitions when we talk about racism. My definition is assigning characteristics and traits (mainly negative) to whole groups of people on the basis of their ethnicity and excluding them or treating them less favourably because of it.
P1ss taking in the Army is done without vindictiveness or malice and is generally a sign of inclusion and respect rather than the opposite. Similarly jokes that poke a bit of fun albeit of an ethnic nature, such as lobsters on a beach or large penises although by nature poke fun at racial characteristics they are not designed to degrade or offend and therefore I feel are acceptable and not per ce racist.
This is purely my personal definition.
 
#12
stacker1 said:
gobbyidiot said:
I'm sure there was an incredible amount of what we would recognise as racism, but people forget the other side. The first mass political campaign of ordinary people was against the slave trade - most of the people involved didn't have the vote themselves, and the arse was out of their trousers, but they still went out of their way to protest agaimst slavery.
Are you talking about America or Britain? Because I can't find anything saying the British public cared one way or the other.
Why not come up to Hull and let me take you round the Wilberforce Museum that should settle things for you irrefutably.
 
#13
Markintime said:
Why not come up to Hull and let me take you round the Wilberforce Museum that should settle things for you irrefutably.
Wilberforce spoke for the majority of the country then did he?
Wiki said:
Wilberforce was deeply conservative when it came to challenges to the existing political and social order. He advocated change in society through Christianity and improvement in morals, education and religion, fearing and opposing radical causes and revolution.[45] The radical writer William Cobbett was among those who attacked what they saw as Wilberforce's hypocrisy in campaigning for better working conditions for slaves while British workers lived in terrible conditions at home.[153] "Never have you done one single act, in favour of the labourers of this country", he wrote.[154] Critics noted Wilberforce's support of the suspension of habeas corpus in 1795 and his votes for Pitt's "Gagging Bills", which banned meetings of more than 50 people, allowing speakers to be arrested and imposing harsh penalties on those who attacked the constitution.[155][156] Wilberforce was opposed to giving workers' rights to organise into unions, in 1799 speaking in favour of the Combination Act, which suppressed trade union activity throughout the United Kingdom, and calling unions "a general disease in our society".[155][157] He also opposed an enquiry into the 1819 Peterloo Massacre in which eleven protesters were killed at a political rally demanding reform.[158] Concerned about "bad men who wished to produce anarchy and confusion", he approved of the government's Six Acts which further limited public meetings and seditious writings.[159][160] Wilberforce's actions led the essayist William Hazlitt to condemn him as one "who preaches vital Christianity to untutored savages, and tolerates its worst abuses in civilised states."[161]


1828Wilberforce's views of women and religion were also reactionary: he disapproved of women anti-slavery activists such as Elizabeth Heyrick, who organised women's abolitionist groups in the 1820s, protesting: "[F]or ladies to meet, to publish, to go from house to house stirring up petitions – these appear to me proceedings unsuited to the female character as delineated in Scripture."[162][163] Wilberforce initially strongly opposed bills for Catholic emancipation which would have allowed Catholics to become MPs, hold public office and serve in the army,[164] although by 1813 he had changed his views, and spoke in favour of a similar bill.[165]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
Can't see to many people who didn't even have the vote care what happened on the other side of the world.
Those who wanted a trade union or were female or were catholic couldn't have been his biggest fans.
 
#15
#16
Sixty said:
Wiki? Seriously?
It makes our 14 year JNCO pleased to be able to spout his racist propaganda wherever he can. He really is a most bitter little man. Perhaps he should look at himself for his lack of promotion rather than trying to vilify people because of their skin pigmentation. Altogether a rather nasty chap and certainly not one, one would welcome into polite society and I doubt the servants would welcome him either. ;)
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#17
stacker1 said:
Sixty said:
Wiki? Seriously?
So its all lies then?

Um, as grammatically appalling as your contention is, I'm assuming you were going for "It's all lies"?

I'd much rather read an informed source than one cobbled together via Wikipedia.
 
#18
Markintime said:
Sixty said:
Wiki? Seriously?
It makes our 14 year JNCO pleased to be able to spout his racist propaganda wherever he can. He really is a most bitter little man. Perhaps he should look at himself for his lack of promotion rather than trying to vilify people because of their skin pigmentation. Altogether a rather nasty chap and certainly not one, one would welcome into polite society and I doubt the servants would welcome him either. ;)
Oh dear have I pissed on your parade that the great British public didn't give a shit about slavery. I didn't mention anything about being racist did I. You were the one who brought it up, Was that because I've just pointed out that Wilberforce was in fact a bit of an arsehole?
 
#19
Sixty said:
stacker1 said:
Sixty said:
Wiki? Seriously?
So its all lies then?

Um, as grammatically appalling as your contention is, I'm assuming you were going for "It's all lies"?

I'd much rather read an informed source than one cobbled together via Wikipedia.
The link (from Wiki) is: William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner. I'm not going to buy it to see if it is really in there, but is anyone going to say its wrong?
 
#20
William Wilberforce (1759 - 1833)

William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce ©
Wilberforce was a deeply religious English member of parliament and social reformer who was very influential in the abolition of the slave trade and eventually slavery itself in the British empire.

William Wilberforce was born on 24 August 1759 in Hull, the son of a wealthy merchant. He studied at Cambridge University where he began a lasting friendship with the future prime minister, William Pitt the Younger. In 1780, Wilberforce became member of parliament for Hull, later representing Yorkshire. His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1784 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.

The abolitionist Thomas Clarkson had an enormous influence on Wilberforce. He and others were campaigning for an end to the trade in which British ships were carrying black slaves from Africa, in terrible conditions, to the West Indies as goods to be bought and sold. Wilberforce was persuaded to lobby for the abolition of the slave trade and for 18 years he regularly introduced anti-slavery motions in parliament. The campaign was supported by many members of the Clapham Sect and other abolitionists who raised public awareness of their cause with pamphlets, books, rallies and petitions. In 1807, the slave trade was finally abolished, but this did not free those who were already slaves. It was not until 1833 that an act was passed giving freedom to all slaves in the British empire.

Wilberforce's other efforts to 'renew society' included the organisation of the Society for the Suppression of Vice in 1802. He worked with the reformer, Hannah More, in the Association for the Better Observance of Sunday. Its goal was to provide all children with regular education in reading, personal hygiene and religion. He was closely involved with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He was also instrumental in encouraging Christian missionaries to go to India.

Wilberforce retired from politics in 1825 and died on 29 July 1833, shortly after the act to free slaves in the British empire passed through the House of Commons. He was buried near his friend Pitt in Westminster Abbey.

Source
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top