Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "The propaganda of 'British values' is a distortion of history – Akala | In my opinion" video.

  1. Actually, it is no surprise that we know more about Henry VIII and his wives than we do the Peterloo massacre. The issue with Henry's martial problems effected many more millions of people then and since than the incident in Peterloo. The separation of England from Rome is a huge historical event. And not just some trivial bit of soap opera. The same is true of Churchill. In fact, the list that is read out ''...Winston Churchill, the monarchy, empire, received pronunciation, aristocracy, whiteness'' (the music is suddenly cut dead at the word 'whiteness', as if a terrible cuss word has abruptly silenced the room) says more about Akala and his own bias and prejudice than it does British values. Especially the last bit. As does the follow up list of things more 'interesting' 'subversive' and 'counter-cultural'. Akala cannot lay claim to his own list of values. The suffragette movement is British history. And William Cuffay was more than just his skin colour. So he is not someone that Akala can own by default. Moreover, he was of mixed race. Therefore he is as much black as he is white (music abruptly stops). Akala and the Guardian has simply set up a straw man argument. Then slipped in a bit of politics as it knocked it down. Pretty fuckin crude stuff tbh.
    99
  2. 2damecuteUK Not very bright are you.
    14
  3. What a pointless question. All people focus more on their own history than the history of others. I would say that's a good thing. Its important not to be ignorant of how your history has been shaped and by who.
    10
  4. If Akala is a Brit, then he is as responsible for the slave trade, colonialism, the empire, received pronunciation, the aristocracy, and Henry VIII and his wives as any other Brit. His skin colour does not give him a special exemption. Neither do his political views. The word 'structural racism' is a con. Its a get out of jail free card. If there is evidence of racism, that should be invested and dealt with. By inventing the term 'structural racism' you simply point in the general direction of a group or institution. And label that group or intuition as racist. Job done. No further acton required. But groups and institutions are made up of individuals. And by labelling them all as such unjustly condemns the innocent and allows the guilty to hide amongst the crowd. Name names. Point the finger and provide evidence. Sack them. Put them in front of a judge if they have broken the law. Because otherwise you satisfy no one.
    6
  5. Yeah whatever
    6
  6. And lets be honest here, if a police force was 'structurally corrupt' would we want officers filling out extra forms or taking part in 'anti-corruption workshops'? The answer is no. We would want them investigated and the guilty charged.
    5
  7. It was a crude straw man argument. With a little bit of race baiting added into the mix.
    4
  8. I'm sure there are a great many parts of history people don't know. And I'm equally sure that the Brits ain't the only ones who don't know 100% of what went before them.
    4