dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
Sure but you can't see the bigger picture of one side and ignore the other than you get a limited view, just like activist, marxist and dictatorships often have.I almost didn't reply to this as the discussion has progressed onto vegetables, but I will.
Perhaps it depends if you see a bigger picture.
Coulston was mainly an trader, put into that position because of his family but he made his money doing trading texiles, silk and gold ivory and slaves when he became member of the Royal african company.(not primarily slaves as often suggested)2pac was mainly a rapper. Churchill was mainly a politician. Coulston was mainly a profiteer.
2pac is the name in which he became famous for his rap, i don't share your opinion that he was mainly an rapper, he met Notorios B.I.G. trough a drug dealer for example. if you dig a bit futher in his history you can't other than conclude that he became that fame led him out of the gang world not the other way round. If you believe his gangster rap was mainly commercial you're wrong.
His parents where both linked to the black panthers and/or black liberation front ans likewise organisations. his stepfather is convicted for robery on a armoured transport killing the an guard and police officers in the progress, his mother was tried with over 150 charges. It's not very complex, he grew up with an broken picture of law and order as so many black persons in the US. That's not the say they the law in the US, is actually broken against black persons, but does not take away the fact that no place is more unsafe or a black person as the area's where 2pac grew up. and that has nothing to do with the Police.2pac became involved in other currents after and because of his roots in conscious black music. The reasons are very complex. He didn't kill anyone.
Read about Nipsey Hussle for example, before he was killed because drugs dealers and gangsters did'nt like the direction he was going, he acknowledged these problems, and that he was a gangster before he was a rapper, and tried to get the black community together, denounce the weapons and built a better life. But he was fighting that battle alone so he was shot.
That's also why black children from not so good neighborhoods are send to family in better off families of possible as seen and off course simplified with added comedy for tv in the fresh prince of bell air.
These are all thing that do not come out of my thumb but those are the facts that are quite easily checked.
agreedChurchill changed his political allegiance over time. He was not most effective in peace time but was able to steer Britain to fight nazis well. People were killed, but the alternative was worse.
I don't have the numbers to disprove that statement but considering he was trading in textiles, silk, gold and ivory and slavery the gold, silk textiles and ivory must have been for show for your statement to be correct.Coulston made lots of money dealing in commodities dependent on enslaved African labour. Many people died through this and future generations suffered. His 'philanthropy' to distant white people is horribly tainted. A statue of him is more like a statue of Hitler than one of Churchill.
So how do you see lots? And are you holding Colston personally responsible for all slave trade? think you're wrong it was much bigger unfortunately (and the further you go back in time to more you discover it was far from ''only'' black persons who where enslaved)
Hitler wanted to exterminate an whole race just because he didn't like them, think your comparision between Colston and Hitler is a bit over the top. Surely slave trade was wrong but he did'nt seek to exterminate black persons.