SIGN UP

Answers

21 to 31 of 31rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dannyk13. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
well a few new signs won't cost a bomb and why not talk about slavery in sugar production and so on?
Because it's a world famous horticultural collection, not a history organisation.
From Wikipedia...

The British slave-trade was abolished in 1807, before Henry Tate and Abram Lyle were born. However, the Tate Gallery states that while neither Henry Tate nor Abram Lyle 'was a slave-owner'; they state that 'we believe the firms founded by the two men, which later combined as Tate & Lyle, do connect to slavery in less direct but fundamental ways'.[6] The Tate Gallery concludes it is 'not possible to separate the Tate galleries from the history of colonial slavery from which in part they derive their existence'.[7]
Good grief! What next? Green Lives Matter?
" Kew, is an internationally important botanical research and education institution".

Nothing wrong with informative signage.

Possibly the biggest mistake is announcing this and of course giving some a new silly phrase to grasp hold of.
Maybe Kew Gardens is looking for a sponsor to sweeten their history linkage to sugar cane etc etc.
some zealots are either jealous envious or want to rewrite british history, for what...that we were the smartest greatest nation on the planet with scientists authors artists generals etc... and here's the rub
what have these rewriters contributed, better question why are they here.. find a nice communist fascist utopia orwellian heaven.
This can only mean the end for Kew Gardens as their economy stagnates, the rule of law goes by the way, innocents are slaughtered and the parkie declares himself Curator For Life.
I am all in favour of acknowledgement of past wrongs, that enables us to learn from history.

But the notion of blacklisting or boycotting in institution because of the way it was funded at a time when social attitudes were a world away from what they are now, seems like pointless attention-seeking flagellation with absolutely nothing gained whatsoever.

Pointing out as a matter of historical context that a building or an institution was founded on money from slavery is fine - but suggesting that it is no longer valid, or that the work it does suddenly becomes 'tainted' is simply not a valid way to look at either history, or the present day.

Denying people today the benefits of something that was financed in a way that was acceptable at the time is a nonsense, it teaches nothing except pointless wokeism, it does nothing to actually educate people correctly, and it causes far more harm than good to present and future generations.
They're rewording some labelling not putting ruddy barricades up.
perlease!

21 to 31 of 31rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Kew Gardens Idiocy.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.