Shelbourne Hotel remove historic statues due to association with slavery - *Read OP**

Yellow_Fern

Really worth stressing that most people have a far to black and white view of colonialism. For example Nigeria was colonised by the UK because of a series of events including Nigerian christians begged Britain to invade for the sake of ending slavery. Regions like Malawi and Zambia have a similar history. So of much of Africa Europeans are synonymous with ending slavery. Of course it's different in places like Angola and the Gold Coast but credit where credit is due.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

More of the same oppressed/oppressor BS that's extremely popular in race/gender politics these days. [Insert oppressed here] are always agentless victims and it's always [Insert oppressor here] fault. That's how these muppets see the world, or use it for their own ends.

So the fact that slavery was going on in Black Africa for thousands of years before Whitey showed up and kept going long after Whitey reckoned this was morally dubious and left, right up to today, making serious money for Black slavers along the way never gets addressed. Or when it does the Blacks involved are blameless. Indeed are treated like innocent children bound by culture and not to blame at all. IE simpletons.

Yup. But there's also this sense of entitlement and expectation for something better than what others receive. I watched (unintentionally) the Nationwide show when she was talking about racism in Ireland, and she claimed it was terrible that she needed to prove herself by getting the advanced degrees needed for her job. It didn't matter that everyone needed to do the same. (Or that any qualifications she might have had before arriving were likely suspect, or below standard in terms of quality..) she made the point that it was racist that there was the expectation that she, as a black person, would need to prove herself that way. The same for other Black people who arrived in Ireland, needing to prove themselves for employment... she's encouraging racism herself, by seeking to elevate Black people above White people (and also above any non-whites who are Irish because they're all diminished by her claims)

And RTE supported her, giving her a platform to presume racism among Irish people, pushing the angle of Irish guilt about slavery (and racism) , regardless of the true ethics of the time, or the fact that we were bound by the laws/expectations of being part of the British Empire. I also found it interesting that they based the abolishment of slavery on the US declarations, rather than the British declarations decades before.

The sad part is that RTE, the State broadcaster, are enabling this promotion of reverse racism and double standards. It wasn't just that professor. It was the activists and apologists who had an agenda at play to promote a view of morality and history, that simply wasn't accurate, or willing to take into consideration the realities of different periods.

This is what we really should be fighting against. This desire to elevate one race over others. The use of guilt and victim mechanics to justify that elevation, rather than seeking a society where race doesn't have any importance. I do really wish someone with influence/power was willing to take RTE to account for all this.. It's dangerous and extremely short sighted.

punisher5112

Does she ever actually come to think of it that most of us working are slaves with just slightly better terms on most cases.....


The government want us to continue working till 67 and I can see this increasing.... That's shocking in my book.

Us tax paying fools are paying for the likes of her to come here and then get worse then the two fingers back at us....

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

And RTE supported her, giving her a platform to presume racism among Irish people...

The sad part is that RTE, the State broadcaster, are enabling this promotion of reverse racism and double standards. It wasn't just that professor. It was the activists and apologists who had an agenda at play to promote a view of morality and history, that simply wasn't accurate, or willing to take into consideration the realities of different periods.

This is a silly way to look at things. Just because a television station has somebody to give their point of view on something, it doesn't mean that they as an organisation support it.

The only reason Joseph is getting airtime is because she puts herself forward to discuss matters from how she sees it, even if I think that she's a disingenuous grifter.

So when the subject of Shelbourne Statues or Frederick Douglas comes up, she makes sure that she's front and centre and given that there aren't any other "black" voices around, she'll get top billing. She knows her market and has carved out a niche.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was her calling RTE and not the other way around.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

This is a silly way to look at things. Just because a television station has somebody to give their point of view on something, it doesn't mean that they as an organisation support it.

Isn't nationwide one of their big shows? And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented, but by the push throughout the whole show itself on that evening (hence the reference to the activists and apologists). The focus on slavery being supported and enabled by Irish people in the past, and the creation of a link with modern Irish racism.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was her calling RTE and not the other way around.

Maybe. But they still have a responsibility for the message sent through their medium.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't nationwide one of their big shows?

So what?

It doesn't what show it is. Having somebody with a particular viewpoint on doesn't mean that there's organisational support for that viewpoint. It's simply an interview with somebody expressing their point of view.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented, but by the push throughout the whole show itself on that evening (hence the reference to the activists and apologists). The focus on slavery being supported and enabled by Irish people in the past, and the creation of a link with modern Irish racism.

She's not being "represented". She's being interviewed. That dynamic doesn't change because you don't like what she's saying.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe. But they still have a responsibility for the message sent through their medium.

No, they don't.

They merely interviewed someone. The only one responsible for her words or thoughts on any matter is Ebun Joseph.

TomTomTim

Tony EH wrote: »

This is a silly way to look at things. Just because a television station has somebody to give their point of view on something, it doesn't mean that they as an organisation support it.

In the days of diversity of opinion you'd be correct, not anymore. If there's constantly people from one side on the air, and never a counter to said views, then it's not a leap to assume they support said views. If they wanted to hold the mantle of impartiality then surely they'd let both sides air their views? Modern media is completely one sided, dissent hardly exists in any sort of serious sense.

Yellow_Fern

Tony EH wrote: »

This is a silly way to look at things. Just because a television station has somebody to give their point of view on something, it doesn't mean that they as an organisation support it.

The only reason Joseph is getting airtime is because she puts herself forward to discuss matters from how she sees it, even if I think that she's a disingenuous grifter.

So when the subject of Shelbourne Statues or Frederick Douglas comes up, she makes sure that she's front and centre and given that there aren't any other "black" voices around, she'll get top billing. She knows her market and has carved out a niche.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was her calling RTE and not the other way around.

I saw that interview too and the they also had a Cork professor who was full of insight into Douglass and his impact. Dr. Joseph on the other hand wasn't able to say anything that was new or generally known. She doesn't even claim to be a historian or an expert in cultural history or slavery or the abolition movement. If being black makes you an expert on Douglass we should interview David McWilliams on the impact of Napoleon.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

So what?

It doesn't what show it is. Having somebody with a particular viewpoint on doesn't mean that there's organisational support for that viewpoint. It's simply an interview with somebody expressing their point of view.

The whole show was dedicated to that message without any countering views.

Did you see the show?

She's not being "represented". She's being interviewed. That dynamic doesn't change because you don't like what she's saying.

I get the feeling you're seeing what you want to see here. Looking for an argument that wasn't made.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I get the feeling you're seeing what you want to see here. Looking for an argument that wasn't made.

You said RTE was "representing" her Klaz. That's not what happens when someone is interviewed for their POV.

gozunda

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

if i hear another black person try to enlighten, or educate me i'm likely to implode !
NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS !

That's the thing. According to what is being pushed all white people are born racist and privileged. And all institutions are inherently racist.

This comes from "Critical Race theory" (CRT) - has a nice ring to it - doesn't it?

However Critical race theory is a bs theoretical framework, that singularly identifies individuals as either oppressed or oppressor based on their skin color. The framework for this is accomplished through engaging with counter-stories / story telling. No other proofs required. This stuff ran riot in US Universities in the last decade.

Not only is ebun now pushing this garbage on TV and radio she is promoting same with her lectures in UCD and has even published her own book about it.

Ebun appears to have no issues with privilege herself. Coming from a wealthy African family (Her bio details her Da was a politician and a 'chief')

Oddly she is not more interested in righting the huge societal inequalities in her home country instead of telling all whiteys here they are racist.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You said RTE was "representing" her Klaz. That's not what happens when someone is interviewed for their POV.

no I didn't.

I said "And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented,".

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me, what I wrote and what you're arguing about are two different things.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

no I didn't.

I said "And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented,".

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me, what I wrote and what you're arguing about are two different things.

"...being represented" by who?

As it stands, that reads like you're saying she's being represented by RTE. If that's mistaken, explain what you mean.

Tony EH

TomTomTim wrote: »

In the days of diversity of opinion you'd be correct, not anymore. If there's constantly people from one side on the air, and never a counter to said views, then it's not a leap to assume they support said views. If they wanted to hold the mantle of impartiality then surely they'd let both sides air their views? Modern media is completely one sided, dissent hardly exists in any sort of serious sense.

"Bias" is an extremely weak argument just because you don't like what someone is saying in an interview on the air. Especially in the case of Ebun Joseph, where in the few interviews I've seen her take part in she's been shown up by the other guest, who's invited on to counter her, like Michael McDowell.

She even shows herself up with her overly aggressive "style".

punisher5112

Seems to be a big thing with these types where shouting is seen as the way to get across.

Tony EH

punisher5112 wrote: »

Seems to be a big thing with these types where shouting is seen as the way to get across.

She comes across as ridiculous and overly aggressive in her manner. The interview with her on RTE with McDowell was a perfect example of that.

But she knows her market. She's carving out a nice little living putting herself forward as a voice for black people in Ireland and pushing an the Irish are racist line.

She's a flash in the pan though.

gozunda

Tony EH wrote: »

"Bias" is an extremely weak argument just because you don't like what someone is saying in an interview on the air. Especially in the case of Ebun Joseph, where in the few interviews I've seen her take part in she's been shown up by the other guest, who's invited on to counter her, like Michael McDowell.

She even shows herself up with her overly aggressive "style".

Yes her style is noticibly aggressive and dictatorial imo.

The RTE interviews are far from being fair and balanced - especially where the other interviewee is faced with the dictate that they are inherently racist because they happen to be white.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

"...being represented" by who?

As it stands, that reads like you're saying she's being represented by RTE. If that's mistaken, explain what you mean.

"And RTE supported her, giving her a platform to presume racism among Irish people, pushing the angle of Irish guilt about slavery (and racism) , regardless of the true ethics of the time, or the fact that we were bound by the laws/expectations of being part of the British Empire. "

"And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented, but by the push throughout the whole show itself on that evening (hence the reference to the activists and apologists). "

I explained what I meant quite clearly. They provided her with a platform, along with a whole show which was dedicated to linking past Irish involvement with slavery, and the modern use of racism by Irish people, suggesting that it was a serious problem. Her views before this show aired were well known.. any amount of research would have shown what her views were, and they would have prepped/edited her contributions... so RTE do have a responsibility for the message that was projected outwards.

Now, oddly enough, I am entitled to the opinion I provided. If you watch the show, and come to a different conclusion, fine... but I get the feeling that you didn't watch it. So, what are we arguing about?

Your interpretation of my use of the word 'represented'.

Tony EH

gozunda wrote: »

I'd strongly disagree. Her style is noticibly aggressive and dictatorial imo.

What did you think I meant when I wrote "She even shows herself up with her overly aggressive "style"."

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

"And RTE supported her, giving her a platform to presume racism among Irish people, pushing the angle of Irish guilt about slavery (and racism) , regardless of the true ethics of the time, or the fact that we were bound by the laws/expectations of being part of the British Empire. "

"And I'm not basing this opinion based solely on her being represented, but by the push throughout the whole show itself on that evening (hence the reference to the activists and apologists). "

I explained what I meant quite clearly. They provided her with a platform, along with a whole show which was dedicated to linking past Irish involvement with slavery, and the modern use of racism by Irish people, suggesting that it was a serious problem. Her views before this show aired were well known.. any amount of research would have shown what her views were, and they would have prepped/edited her contributions... so RTE do have a responsibility for the message that was projected outwards.

Now, oddly enough, I am entitled to the opinion I provided. If you watch the show, and come to a different conclusion, fine... but I get the feeling that you didn't watch it. So, what are we arguing about?

Your interpretation of my use of the word represented.

The INTERVIEWED her for her point of view.

When RTE interviewed David Irving, did that mean they were giving him a "platform" or "support", or "representation"?

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

The INTERVIEWED her for her point of view.

When RTE interviewed David Irving, did that mean they were giving him a "platform" or "support", or "representation"?

I give up. What I said is obvious enough.. and I'm done trying to explain it to you.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I give up.

Have it your way so. I get it, you don't like her or what she says.

But just because someone appears on TV with disagreeable views, it doesn't mean that they are getting "support" or "representation" by the interviewer.

gozunda

Tony EH wrote: »

What did you think I meant when I wrote "She even shows herself up with her overly aggressive "style"."

Ah grand so. I simply presumed you were being ironic with the word "style" being highlighted in inverted commas, given your argument to this point. Reply has been updated.

sabat

I see rumours elsewhere that intellectual titan Dr Joseph has been quietly given the heave-ho from UCD. Developing story no doubt...

statesaver

sabat wrote: »

I see rumours elsewhere that intellectual titan Dr Joseph has been quietly given the heave-ho from UCD. Developing story no doubt...

Maybe her 15 minutes are over

feargale

sabat wrote: »

I see rumours elsewhere that intellectual titan Dr Joseph has been quietly given the heave-ho from UCD. Developing story no doubt...

Wasn't it DCU? Racial discrimination, no doubt.

ChikiChiki

She brought UCD into disrepute with her inane ramblings. Good riddance.

givyjoe

sabat wrote: »

I see rumours elsewhere that intellectual titan Dr Joseph has been quietly given the heave-ho from UCD. Developing story no doubt...

Doubt it based on her twitter. Up to yesterday faffing about some talks re: UCD.

nullzero

sabat wrote: »

I see rumours elsewhere that intellectual titan Dr Joseph has been quietly given the heave-ho from UCD. Developing story no doubt...

I'm sure she'd walk into a job anywhere with her qualifications.

sabat

givyjoe wrote: »

Doubt it based on her twitter. Up to yesterday faffing about some talks re: UCD.

UCC no?