please empty your brain below

This post is very poorly judged. Please reconsider.
Liverpool Street is named after Lord Liverpool, Prime Minister from 1812 to 1827, who was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery.
East Ham and West Ham may cause offence to some religious communities, renaming them East Chicken and West Chicken will avoid potential offence.

Cyrus - should have 'not the part illegally occupied by Turkey' added.

Oakwood - discriminates against other types of tree.

Seven Sisters - make it clear that child benefit is only paid for the first two.
This post is in the Grand tradition of British satire and should remain as a guide to the complexity of the situation. You can tear down a statue. You can't undo every last stitch of the fabric of history.
Well said, dg. The deranged Maoist-like campaign to rename everything which is rearing its head deserves to be shown up for what it is. And this does so intelligently.
Get where your coming from DG, and what you're trying to say (namely that it's problematic and difficult to review or rename things), but you've left yourself open to misinterpretation here.
The act of taking offence is a peculiar thing. There are lots of things in this world that offend me but I don't expect that world to cower and submit to change because of it. I appreciate different views and move on. And now we seem to be getting people with a level of self-rightousness that they are completely intolerant of all the views of those that don't agree 100% with them. This can only stir up very negative sentiments in a certain unsavory group of people.
Suggestions for better names for the termini would be a fun game.
Using satire always puts one at risk of misinterpretation. However, to me the post serves well to highlight the difficulties faced by "The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm".

The extent to which one makes changes to the public realm as a reaction to past wrongs and today's social beliefs is always going to have trouble with defining its boundaries.
Can we change Arsenal tubes name back to Gillespie Road? I'm suspect rifles made at the Roayal Arsenal were sold to the confederate states.
I think it's very good and makes a fair point without having a go at anyone in particular. Righting injustice is one thing; erasing history another - and the latter is probably, long term, not conducive to the former no matter how good it may feel at the time.
The appendix appears to be missing from my edition.....
IMO you are misjudged in your decision to post this piece. Its 'humorous' approach does not do you credit.

Everyone who thinks for themselves recognises that the issues involved in dealing with our unpleasant past are complex and nuanced and must be handled thoughtfully. The idea that anything so mindless as banning a whole range of unrelated individuals and locations, let alone destroying history, is envisaged by protesters is offensive to those whose lives are even now made hollow by the shadows of slavery and racism.
We all have problematic names as each of us will have ancestor(s) who did bad things. So I propose we adopt a gender/ethnic/etc neutral personal naming system. I claim THX 1138
There are quite enough statues, streets and institutions that are actually named after or for people who demonstrably owned or dealt in slaves, that this “strong nominal connection” stuff feels like ridicule.

There are some interesting cases. Thomas Guy made his money as a shareholder in the South Sea Company before it went bust (and it seems before it made any profit from slavery). He invested something like £50,000 out of £2,000,000 but had no management role. Was he a “slave trader”? If so, the whole of the (then) royal family, and most of the members of parliament at the time, and people such Isaac Newton, are also in the same group.

Gladstone advocated against abolition of slavery, in his family’s financial interest, but he also repeatedly advocated against the Opium Wars. Good in parts? Or perhaps just a more complicated person than a simple dualistic division into good/bad can permit.
This is poorly judged, as others have said, satire can be misinterpreted. Your earlier piece on Milligan may have been coincidence, but when I read it, my immediate thought was that you were inviting trouble. Far be it from me to tell an excellent writer like you, DG, what to put in your blog, but I believe this current topic is one to steer clear of.
Please satirise the other side tomorrow for balance please - the 'I can't even enjoy jam any more', 'what' s wrong with mind your language that show was hilarious' people. Prime example is your second commentor...

There is a valid piece to be written about what changes should and shouldn't be made, how tenuous is too tenuous. Today's would appear to align you with a fairly hard-line, steal the black head before the council can get it group. Satire is a pretty blunt force tool that does not allow for the nuance this topic calls for. What we call things is important to us.

But hey this is just my opinion, man. And who am I, just some guy who doesn't even have his own blog. Do what you do, but be wary - you got that statue removed, so prepare for 'money place'
Brian has articulated my feelings more effectively than I could have done.

Of course it'll be tricky to consider these things. Of course there will be people that will get things wrong.

Some of the (in my view) tone deaf "don't erase history" comments are a pretty good demonstration of this. No one is erasing history. We just want to not glorify the most problematic bits of our past.

"But it was acceptable then" - No, it was contentious then. Now it is just unacceptable.

A good test is - would you name it / put it up now? And if not, is it doing any harm by staying up / continuing to be named in that way? And if you think it isn't, are you sure you're qualified to comment? Has its meaning changed or lessened over time?

Satire is all well and good, but there's at the very least a question of timing on this one that doesn't sit entirely comfortably with me.
Colston, the subject of the weekend's fury in Bristol was not only a slave trader but also a a benefactor to many institutions - and his wealth was ultimately all donated to charity.

It's a difficult dichotomy to successfully resolve, other than to say that he was, like so many, 'of his time.' That does not excuse of course. I just wonder if, in fifty years when we are all willingly vegetarians if there will be a groundswell to remove the names of streets and buildings named after 'those dreadful people who ate the flesh of living things'.

But at least in the UK we don't go overboard on naming things after people (so no Margaret Thatcher Airport) only to have to rename them a few years later when they fall out of favour (Thatcher, then was probably not a good choice there then...).
This post demeans us all.
I should add I don't agree with others that you should steer clear of this topic, far from it.

It may be that you've penned a suitably satirical post "from the other side" to be posted later today or tomorrow, in which case I will look foolish. I hope so.

Disappointed with your blog today DG, as I was with the Milligan one. Your mayor and his pandering to a militant left wing group has also seriously misjudged his position. For a more balanced view I suggest you read today's John Redwood diary.
Although this entire topic is a tricky minefield, I found the article fascinating. None of us gets the time to research the backgrounds of these people or institutions; so I have to say it opened my eyes, even if the sillier parts could have been cut. One or two of the "anti" comments here seem rather over-sensitive to me.
We're going to have to start dismantling a lot of audist structures and icons too and reconsidering how places, people and buildings have profiteered on the backs of mass discrimination and exploitation and economic strife. These obnoxious systems cannot be considered in isolation and preference given to one over another especially when both are supremacist and it is by and large those who want one removed but the other kept. Such inequalities should not be allowed.
DG: many here who pick up on and enjoy your 'satire' imply that there is no response to the past being proposed other than to tear it down or rename it. It's all just a matter of opinion really, and mature people shrug there shoulders and get on with life; black people DON'T.

I suggest taking a look on BBC iplayer at the play "Sitting in Limbo", which treats the 'hostile environment" policy the governments of David Cameron and Theresa May set such great store by as a means, so they claimed, of reducing illegal immigration, which was, apparently, troubling to law-abiding citizens of our great realm.

Instead the policy was a means to immensely damage the lives of some wholly innocent black people, mostly from the Caribbean. Watch the programme and see if you can then make a joke out of this subject.
I would like to add my voice to those who believe this post is poorly judged. Satire is about punching up at more powerful targets and is something you generally are very very good at. This a bit too close to Daily Mail-esque outrage though - "WHAT WILL THE PC BRIGADE TAKE AWAY NEXT?!" As someone with a large readership of middle aged white men I'd hoped you'd have used your platform to engage with the issues rigorously and encourage others to do the work to inform themselves about issues around institutionalised racism. Send me an email if you'd like some book recommendations.
I think you're satirising the "what next?!" reaction to BLM. If I'm correct and with respect to the readers, I'm not surprised some commenters misread that due to their own sensibilities.

I think this is an accurate version of what some people fearing their imagination of future BLM actions.
I've always appreciated wry satirical reviews of various topics and this is an excellent example, well done DG.

I'm well aware of the historical slave trade and the monuments and street names linking them. But the past is history, note it, comment on it by all means, but let it pass.

I believe that we should be paying much more attention to present day slavery in the sex, drugs & fashion/clothing industries to name but a few. Who can say, hand on heart, that they have never deliberately, or accidentally, purchased goods from these sources? These are areas where effective changes of habit can make vast real differences to peoples lives.
Yes, things are sometimes taken too far. But how did we get here? A white policeman kneeling on a black man's neck and killing him, while white colleagues looked on. Everything said and done since follows on from that disgusting fact.
This is like living in maoist china. People need to get a grip and stop being so hysterical
Just want to associate myself with those who think this post is poorly judged.
Malcolm, the 3 colleagues who watched the murder were made up of 1 white man, 1 black man and 1 asian man.
This post looks like it will anger people on both sides of the debate.

Which usually means it is excellently judged.
Just want to associate myself with those who think this post is bang on target. I doubt there are many people of any colour in this country whose family history is entirely spotless, and "Reductio ad absurdum" is always a useful corrective.
Satire, especially of the public school/Private Eye kind, aims to attack in an even-handed way anybody who is hypocritical or pretentious, and anyone knows that there are plenty of those on the left.

However, it also smacks of the 'don't take away our privileges' approach which is clearly hitting the spot for a lot of your responders. One way that this operates is rather in the style of the Daily Mail, i.e. find a ludicrous extreme position and focus on it, even if it is untrue. An obvious example is EU bananas story where it was claimed that only straight ones were allowed by Brussels. This is very much DG's line here.

If we are going to get rid of racism we need to draw attention to it, and one clear way of doing so is to bin a statue or two. I don't condone this, though I understand where it's coming from.

Rather I would want a history reframed and fairly taught in our schools and presented in our media. I know this would be tedious for the privileged: to be reminded of their past misdemeanours constantly, but that's what we have thrown at us every day about the Russians and the Germans, for example. I would not take down a single statue, but I would very lovingly contextualise them, and I would never do it as a public school belly'laugh joke.
Bravo for being brave - though it shouldn’t be brave - enough to satirise the historically ignorant, po-faced woke brigade. The cats-bum-mouth reaction of some means you may lose some readers. So be it.
A few points here

1. Toby: "I think you're satirising the "what next?!" reaction to BLM" - in which case it whooshed over me and others. My bad if that was how it was intended. But, you do wonder if something is misinterpreted, perhaps it's too clever by half?

2. TomH: "Colston, the subject of the weekend's fury in Bristol was not only a slave trader but also a a benefactor to many institutions" - He was not a particularly great benefactor. This twitter thread is educational.

3.Sandra: I'm afraid your simplistic response deserves an equally simplistic, two word response.

4.Colin: Right I see, I didn't realise that was the extremely low moral bar we were going for. My bad.
Sandra: Spot on.
I'm looking forward to seeing material improvement in the lives of black people in this country but the prospects for them and all the rest of the population don't seem good at the moment.
Shining light on history doesn't affect what happened but does change how we interpret and understand it. The entitlement shown by people (there is none free of this sin) when they think they deserve better treatment than the next because they have been here longer, paid more in taxes, the list is endless, all founders when the light of equality is shone on it.
I enjoyed today's instalment of your writing but must point out that your slavish adherence to a daily production schedule will see you investigated by the commission...
Always good to take something to its logical conclusion to see the dangers of blindly following a policy.

Personally, I am sad that statues could be taken down for being out of favour but I do think a plaque should be attached describing the good (if any) and the bad of these people. Pardon the expression, we can't whitewash history. We should face up to it. The statues represent a reminder of how historically people were judged differently. They are 'of their time' and a piece of history but we need a description to emphasise they are not glorified today.

I can quite understand why others may feel differently.
Absolutely Barking....
Bearing in mind the damage this industry has done in Africa over many years, particularly its association with Cecil Rhodes, we must reconsider anything with 'Diamond' in its name.
I'm with Colin on this (despite the admonition from E). Nelson Mandela was unstinting in his praise for the legacy of colonialist Cecil Rhodes, the Rhodes Scholars scheme; but there has been for some time a campaign to remove a statue of Rhodes from Oriel College in Oxford. Does this mean that we should now also consider removing the name of Mandela from the many buildings, roads etc which carry it?
I think you have missed an important one off the list. How can you call yourself diamond geezer with all that infers about your support of the diamond industry? I demand you rename yourself to "decent geezer".
Maybe those of you who are white and have posted above should do a bit more reading and a bit less bantering.
Another supporter of the Sandra school of thought here. If history looks back on these times, it may well think we've collectively lost our marbles.
I'd love to have known what Peter Cook would have made of all this.
I would recommend folks to have a look at the second video in this article.

It features Marenka Thompson-Odluma Research Assistant at Pitt Rivers Museum and Sir Geoff Palmer a Professor Emeritus in the School of Life Sciences at Heriot-Watt University.

They both sound like sensible people to me.
History is what you make it.

I am fascinated by Churchill. Here was, in many respects, a vile man who by his blundering killed many. He had oodles of other major faults as well.

And yet it was him that galvanised the politicians of the day to resist -- and not appease -- Hitler and all that his philosophy entailed.

So do we take his statue down?
No, I won't wear this. While I agree with the removal of offensive statues to museums as historical exhibits. I think you were on the wrong foot even with your first name, West India Quay. It is an historical place name related to a company and you have to dig down to find out racism. Maybe the Empire wasn't right, but it can't be forgotten.
Reflecting on this, I do have to say, I am sad. Not angry, not surprised, just sad. My partner is a black woman and a big fan of your writing. The last few weeks have been an incredibly stressful, upsetting and emotional time for her in ways that, as white people, we cannot fully relate to. It's important you know that this post has upset her in ways we can't possibly grasp.

DG, your race, age, gender and position in society mean that you will never be able to fully comprehend what it means to live with institutionalised racism. You will not know, experientially, what it feels like for a black person to walk past a statue of a slave trader. While we can listen, read about and empathise with people of colour, the nature of that experience is one we, as white people, will never grasp fully.

Museums, books, art are places to learn about the atrocities of history. Statues are used to signify respect and admiration for someone. Your extrapolation today is unfair and demeaning to people of colour and their lived experiences.

This is clearly an area you are not an expert in DG, and this post does nothing more than highlight your own institutionalised racism (which we all hold) and an unwillingness to engage and listen to people about what it is like to live with black skin in the UK. Instead of reading and learning, it feels like you are giving in to a more reactionary and conservative viewpoint.

Final thing to say - To align yourself with the part of your readership that say things like "people need to get a grip", "people are being over-sensitive" and "poe-faced woke brigade" should ring alarm bells for you that perhaps this post fails to capture whatever nuance you were aiming for.
I suspect (and hope!) that the main purpose of today's post is to elicit the kind of responses that we are seeing, in order to generate a topic for tomorrow. Fingers crossed.
DG, I'm a daily reader and infrequent commenter. Disappointed in today's post. Appreciate the research you've done on the origins of names which would have been great for a straightforward post, but the humour here has missed its mark. A lot of people are now having overdue conversations about the impact of imperialism and the slave trade, as well as current racism in the US and UK, and posts like this simply serve to antagonise further, rather than contribute to the conversation.
One problem with satire like this (and that of private eye) is that one’s interpretation depends on whether one has seen the same things that the writer is satirising. Personally I’ve seen lots of hysterical overreaction on the right to the removal of two statues of people who are known today mostly for their involvement in the slave trade. I haven’t seen much extremism on the left - if people with influence have seriously been suggesting removing statues of Churchill, say, I’ve missed it.
Surely "Hammersmith" should be acceptable as expressing a desire to "hammer Smith"?
Blimey, lighten up folks!!

I found today's post a clever piece of satire while some of the nominal connections also educated me - which has to be a good thing.

Re: Bristol/Gloucestershire - did you mean 1973 instead of 1373?
On a lighter note, I’d like to point out that the Mayor's post that DG linked to contains an inappropriate apostrophe (“London's people and it's many, many cultures”).
It’s perhaps a pity that the emotion and action roused by the legacy of historic injustice hasn’t also been directed at the contemporary scandal of the 40,000 - 60,000 Covid-related deaths resulting from government callousness and incompetence. Where are the demonstrations about this carnage?
Alan - the Churchill statue is a potential flash point this Saturday with one set of demonstrators intent on attacking/defacing it and another set (being organised by a right wing football stpporters group, I kid you not) vowing to defend it.
Oh mate, no. Ann is right: the research is interesting but this isn't how to present it. How many straw men make a wicker man?
I get that you're trying to be "edgy" and "satirical", but that's really not what's needed right now. What's happening with BLM and the removal of statues needs to ignite serious and reasoned debate- not LOLs and """banter""". You can do better than this.
Yeah, this is basically Quentin Letts and Richard Littlejohn going 'HARRIET HARPERSON!' and thinking they're hilarious, for 2000 words. Whoever you're mocking, it just isn't very good.
Anyone expressing a view on Black Lives Matter at the moment needs to make their communication as clear as possible.

Satire is not an appropriate vehicle right now as it is too easy to misunderstand, unintentionally or otherwise.
I really didn’t enjoy this. As satire, it’s rather heavy-handed and crass. Clearly, there’s a debate to be had about statues, street names etc, and this sort of knee-jerk reductio ad absurdum just plays into the hands of those who’d rather just push the whole thing away. It’s your blog and you write what you like, but as a regular reader, I’m disappointed.
Exactly, let's rip up the history books and rattle a few petals and snowflakes in the meantime.
Humour is meant to punch up, not down.
I’m sure TfL and the Mayor are on to it.

It’s not like they have any other problems at the moment.
Jeez DG, what a hornets’ nest of vitriol you’ve stirred up today! Can I please plead in DG’s defence? (although he won’t like me doing so I’m sure). He has never posted anything racist in the 17 years of his daily blog. I think he’s a fellow Guardianista. He was in my school year, although 20 miles away. Don’t judge today’s post as anything other than a sideways look at what’s happening in wider society - and the worldwide reaction to George Floyd’s killing has been humbling to see. Maybe (?) no need for the looting and statue-toppling, but peaceful protest rarely achieves as much as direct action. We could more peacefully reach a better society by banning the Sun, Mail & Express. Not very democratic though.

We need satire, even (and especially) in serious times. The film Dr Strangelove may have averted WW3 - although some conservative types thought Kubrick suitable for the gallows for making it. Long may blogs like this inform us of stuff we didn’t know.
Wow, that was quite the researched article, DG!

I’ve been similarly impressed by the level of engagement and diversity in the comments of late, particularly following today’s post. That tells me you’re probably doing something right.
When I read the post first thing I never imagined that the foregoing splurge of comments would result - from people with a spectrum of views. Let alone, what seems likely to be the first ever use of 'my bad' in Comments. Irrespective of my age/gender/skin colour I feel able to take a balanced position on this difficult topic, and empathise with those who are most affected. My aim is to learn more each day to inform my understanding. But I also think it is a convenient but uncomfortable distraction from the scandal of Governmental mismanagement that has led to the 40,000+ COVID-related deaths, and an incredible setback for the prospects of the current generation.
But hey.. look over here: statues and street names, eh? Football is back.. Bread & Circuses anyone?
not sure if this post will ever actually be funny

but definitely too soon

xx
BLM, like all discrimination, is seen from two different viewpoints - those inside the envelope (ie those being attacked) and those outside of it (ie never been attacked or never realised it). Racism is an ongoing pandemic - it grows invisibly and can only be stopped visibly. Those trying to stop it are seen as attacking something invisible, so what's the fuss about?

It's not just skin colour, but also age, gender, creed, culture, everything which makes you different from me. I've been "the enemy within" because I'm not visibly different; that separation only emerged in conversation or being seen in the company of others who are recognisably different.

We're brainwashed (not always effectively) to distrust what's different - it's all around us. Efforts to counter it are 'not normal' - deliberate inclusion in images of those differences to show we're all equal but different. It looks and feels artificial; the very existence of images designed to show equality never feel natural.

I liked today's DG post - the danger of it is as many of the previous commenters have said, is that it's 'out of place', 'too soon', or 'not the sort of thing for here'. Free speech has a price - someone, somewhere won't like what's being offered. We need the past in context, not represented without explanation. They were 'of that time' but that doesn't make things any better - we have grown up since then. Some of us need to keep growing at least a bit more (that includes me), as my 'lefty' outlook often rails before thinking and I feel a bigger twit than usual later.

DG - keep posting stuff like this now and then - we (your readership) can make up our own minds, and (obviously!) express that.
Probably best to remove the word "native".
Bravo dg.
If 'bad' people cannot redeem themselves by doing good works for the greater good of society, WTF is the point of forcing the issue? If all the descendants of people treated badly by a minority of others could never improve and were condemned to live/die in perpetual misery; that would be a cause worth fighting for. That condition does not apply in the current mania for wanton 'virtue-signaling' criminality.
These last few days have proved that the future is no longer in the hands of OLD WHITE MEN.
I sent a link to this post to some of my black relatives. Rather unexpectedly, they all enjoyed it.
Excellent post.

I'm looking forward to giving up Enid Blyton.

More power to your quill pen.
Why are people saying this is "too soon" anyway?

This post isn't satirising the actual events which led to the death of Floyd and others at the hands of the US police force, or the genuine racial discrimination which still exists in the UK, but rather the slightly hysterical reaction to 200 year old statues and place names that the vast majority of people (of all races) before this week would barely have noticed or paid attention to.

For example I'm struggling to find ANY suggestion before this week that the statue of Thomas Guy should be removed, it just wasn't an issue.
You could have chosen to not be a cunt, but no - you thought you'd make some satire out of people's struggles against systemic racism.

Perhaps you should reconsider why you posted this.
Some very brave words from some commentators... I suspect this article has been flagged up on some BLM website and there is now going to be a massive pile-on.

It's best to leave these things in-situ and educate people about them through museums and interpretation boards. Removing them from the public eye does not right any wrongs. Remove the glorification, which can be done through comprehensive education and interpretation boards.
Wow, you know you've gone through the rabbit hole when John Redwood is being suggested as a balanced commentator!!

I'm with Cornish Cockney on this one. As an experiment in seeing what people read into things, this has been fascinating. I did find it funny as a person of colour whose family background originates from the empire, if that makes any difference.
Seconded of the opinion of Sam (1.02pm). The diversity of replies is a pretty good outcome I'd say.

Ps. Us regulars know you have the ability to stop comments being posted. The fact that you have allowed some particularly strongly worded and occasionally rude comments to still remain I think demonstrates your own resilience as well as your openness to the opinions of others. Stay well DG
There's a statue of General Havelock on one of the plinths in Trafalgar Square.

Over the years there have been occasions where some peoples have protested about it, sometimes the issue being Havelock's role in causing misery in India during the colonial days around the time of the mutiny.

However, it's still there.

There's a street in Southall, West London which goes by that name too. And on it the Sikh community built one of the largest temples of its kind outside of India. The Havelock Road temple, as it is almost always referred to by the ordinary person, is famous for what it is.

The peoples most affected by the names and legacies of Havelock and his cohort have suffered significant oppression and prejudices, and to this day in modern Britain still do. Those people are also 'within scope' of Black Lives Matter.

As a proud British Citizen of Indian heritage who has suffered from profound and blatant (sometimes violent) acts of racism during my lifetime, I too get tearful at all the things that I've personally suffered and witnessed within my community.

However I would say that I think that as a whole, our community has moved on from the calls for statue removal and street-renaming. I think we've learned to live with, and then dare I say it; love Havelock for what his presence in statues and street names serves to convey today.
Regarding Havelock Road in Southall, there is to be a consultation on renaming it.
The history of diamond mining is not entirely illustrious. Please consider adopting, say, Rhombus Geezer or Heart Geezer as your nom de plume.
Quite a few non-regular readers here today methinks, who are just not getting how DG ticks, and probably have been sent here by Farcebook or similar posts on forums. A great shame.

As a middle aged white woman, who has spent my professional life working with the educationally disadvantaged (of many backgrounds and ethnicities), and training those who work with them on a daily basis, I believe I have a good understanding of the issues here.

And I am totally offended by what is being done to my country's history.

Had these events happened at a different time, I doubt the knee-jerk instant reactions that have transpired would have happened.

Those in power are doing all they can to remove flash points - with many people unemployed, about to be unemployed, or furloughed, it is essential that flash points are avoided, or widespread civil unrest could follow.

I can see why it's being done, but I am offended.

As is my right.
I think a few people coming to this blog for the first time may have misinterpreted it spirit.

That said, I'd be for renaming the 'Elizabeth Line' to the 'Bob Crow Memorial Line'.
Cubic Zirconium Geezer! Although that might be considered sexist of course.

What no one above, on either side of the argument, seems to acknowledge is that this is a personal blog, not in receipt of any public funding, and does not in fact owe its readers anything. As a long time reader of Private Eye I have long taken the view that some people will be offended by things that I find amusing, and the quid pro is that I should be tolerant of things I find offensive. I would not be saying any of this if I believed there was the slightest racist motive underlying DG's satire, but there isn't and no good will come of looking for one.
Blue Witch, I've been reading DG for a long time now (2003? 2004?) and very much love and appreciate his sense of humor. But I, too, think he's a bit off the mark here. The whole "nominal connection" idea seems to be making light of connections both direct and tenuous, the point of which I don't get. I'd like to know how many of those making comments on this post are of African descent and get their opinion (I am not).
2nd generation immigrant here (a brown one). I wouldn't be in the UK if it wasn't for the British Empire and everything that encompassed - both good and bad. My parents and to a lessor extent myself suffered racism and probably some discrimination, although I've never really felt as though I've been discriminated against.

Why would anyone be offended by DG's post? Even more so why would the majority white British readership (I'm guessing at the demographic here) have suddenly thought that we need to change the way we look at British history?

We definitely need to ensure an equal opportunities UK and black lives do matter. The UK still has a long way to go but we have made huge progress since I was a kid in a very white East London. But I fail to see how renaming things, pulling down statues and not allowing satire helps us on that journey.

Great Post DG. Please continue to post whatever you want to. It is your blog and if some people no longer want to read your excellent content then so be it
Hazel: re Havelock Road renaming consultation: I think it's a real shame that this is being considered; I don't think it's necessary at all, and in fact I think it's completely counter-productive. I, for one, would oppose it.

Havelock's name is a powerful, and effective brand for many 'right' reasons. I'm with Blue Witch on it: I feel offended that it's being considered at all.
Excellent post DG good to see you have rattled some cages and interesting to see some people can't argue without swearing. I trust all those complaining about police brutality will be protesting against the attack on two police yesterday in Hackney by people of colour (but i wont be holding my breath)
Much of what I can see and read on this site comes about because you have a position in society that allows you to go about your business freely, unafraid of being challenged.
I wish this could be the case for everyone but that is what the sense of the Black Lives Matter movement is for me.
So I feel disappointed in this post that in satire seems to look at the extreme and trivialized endpoint for an initiative that those minority communities affected are not seeking.

In the end, renaming things, pulling down statues doesn't erase history - it adds extra layers to it. And you are very good at putting together a comprehensive and compelling telling of it.
Sarah - very well put.
I read all comments to see whether anybody would grant to the writer the privilege (or rather, the common right) of freedom of speech. I for one do.
I am a regular visitor to this site, and this is my fourth post on this thread. I remain firmly committed to the site and don't imagine for one second that DG's motive in posting was in any way suspect. That I disagree with him is my right; that he can post what he likes is his; that we both have a duty at the current moment to behave responsibly is equally true.
You know some idiots will believe this.
Well it's taken me nearly 14 hours to stop laughing at the recommendation by davews @ 8:51a.m. that...

"For a more balanced view I suggest you read today's John Redwood diary."

You can't be serious.
Why exactly can't davews be serious? I don't understand - it would be good to understand what you mean.

But if you were making a flippant comment, then I respect that too.

I read the John Redwood blog, and actually found his blog quite balanced, and thought-provoking - even though I have no idea who he is, or how significant (or not) he is.

All the best to you!
Please don’t dismiss the negative comments on the false assumption they come from non-regular readers.

The fact some of the very first comments were critical should be a clue.

I am a regular reader, and a big DG fan, but this one did not sit well with me.
Well, that opened a tin of beans, didn’t it? What else is still at the back of the cupboard I wonder?

Official name erasures are the game of despotic leaders. I hope the trend is not gathering momentum here.

Keep blogging away, DG.
Michael.
Taking the.
A strong nominal connection remains.

Raises eyebrows.
This is an excellent, bang-on post. Thank you for a bit of sanity in times when some seem to think it sensible to go from toppling statues of slave-traders to bringing down ones of Prime Ministers...
In reply to Anonymous but proud to be British - of Indian Sikh heritage

Sat Sri Akaal my friend.
My comment about John Redwood was indeed flippant and sarcastic, but hopefully not offensive. I don't particularly care for the man or his brand of politics, but I will always defend his right to exist. I don't think they'll be erecting a statue to him any time soon, so no worries there!
Seriously though drowning a statue in Bristol Harbour won't help the matter, nor will hiding another in a cupboard in Docklands.
The teaching of British history in this country is very poor, only if serious attempts are made to educate the populous rather than agitate them then perhaps we'll start to make progress. 🤔

I'm off to bed now DG, far too much stimulation for me today, I'll have trouble getting to sleep 😉 I wonder what tomorrow will bring?
The topic of tomorrow's post will be interesting. I predict it may be all about.. bus stops.
I'm putting money on DG commenting about the 'my bad' which appeared today 🙄 night night 😴
Cracking post DG, made me laugh the most I’ve done in a while reading one of these posts. A lot of work must’ve gone into all the research so fair play for writing and posting. Keep it up!

Also if anyone is “upset” or “offended” by the post, I get offended by lots of things. But when I do, I don’t kick off and tell people how to live their life. I get on with mine. Think of a TV guide. You may think a horror movie glorifies violence and is a waste of money, but you wouldn’t go around telling people to ban them and go nuts whenever you see a poster for one. So if you do get upset by satire, maybe just skip past it.
DG used ‘My Bad’ on May 14th, 2009 - it seem unlikely it’s never been used in the comments. Perhaps he can confirm
Perhaps now is not the time to point out that there is a rogue apostrophe in one of the quotes in the Mayor's press release re the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm.
Not a comment on the post itself but my observation of the previous day’s events and reactions.

The idea that the removal or toppling of a statue is re-writing history seems absurd to me. A statue or a street named after you is an honour bestowed upon you or your memory. In fact, the act of toppling a statue is as symbolic as the statue itself. Look at Libya and Iraq, for example, where the very public toppling of statues is the first act of newly empowered peoples. I don’t think they would consider that by doing so they had just re-written their history.

Unfortunately our country’s wealth and power is built upon a horrible history of Empirical acts; we can’t deny that fact or the fact that, in turn, we have all benefitted from this in our lifetimes. But, knowing better, we don’t need celebratory symbols of the perpetrators in our public realm.

As a nation we have too frequently been quick to jump to acts of adulation and exaltation only to come to collectively regret upon learning more. More recent examples being the posthumous stripping of Jimmy Savile’s knighthood or the calls for the removal of Phillip Green’s. No one is arguing that this is re-writing history, their horrible stories remain.
What concerns me about all this is that some statues will be removed, some TV shows delisted and some things renamed, and the problem will then have been deemed to have been 'solved', meanwhile the entrenched problems that result in young black males killing each other will be ignored (and the police criticised for stopping back people), as these require solutions that can't be delivered overnight and don't provide the same photo opportunities.
I just have to come back for a third time, I'm afraid, to point out the delicious irony of someone who is so keen to call people to task for perceived racial insensitivity being so utterly blind to the misogyny inherent in using the word 'cunt' as a term of abuse.
Sarah - another ping.
Anon 11:26am - I have been struggling to grasp this white privilege thing; I think I'm 'getting it' now. Your words have really moved something in me in a useful way.
anon | 11.06.20 - 11:26 a.m is TRIGGERED.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy