First, in a spirit of confession, let me admit a personal prejudice, which seems to be characteristic of many of my fellow countrymen these days: I have always been, and still am, somewhat opposed to statues.
The reasons for this are both religious and historical.
My national history (I am Scottish) includes ancestors who destroyed statues. John KnoxThese iconoclasts rejected the corruption of the Roman Church and worship of bells and smells conducted through the senses, choosing a simpler and more austere worship centered on the ideas contained in the Bible. The Scottish response to this was a flowering of intellect, study, thought and debate that transformed a small, impoverished country and placed it at the forefront of human endeavour. Centuries later, books are being written about the Scottish Reformation. How the Scots invented the modern worldIn this way, the destruction of statues in our country has helped improve our society. It is good to try and destroy symbols of corruption.
In the Bible, God's laws were thundered from the mountain top by the Lord Himself, and they included:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
This led to a long decline in the monumental statue business that lasted for millennia.
So, in short, I am naturally sympathetic to image-destroyers of various stripes: that is, when their cause is just and their reasons are genuine.
But the events of the past week have left me deeply concerned. Why is this the case?
Part of the reason is a lack of truth. Our country entered the slave trade, a trade almost as old as mankind, very late. We soon developed a distaste for the industry and a distrust for the Church of England and its Methodist sibling. The first blow came in 1772. Somerset v StewartStewart, a Scottish sea captain and customs officer, returned to England with a slave he had purchased from the American colonies. Somerset, the slave, escaped, and was received and befriended by the churchmen, who baptized him, so that when he was later recaptured he was by no means without friends. The whole matter was brought before the courts.
William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, a Scottish peer, was Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench at the time. He ruled as follows:
Slavery is of such a nature that it is impossible for a court to now introduce it upon mere inference or deduction from any principle, natural or political. Slavery originates from statutes, and cannot, in any country or age, trace its origin to any other source. Ancient customs retain the memory of statutes after all traces of the occasion have vanished. The reasons, authority, and time of the introduction of statutes are lost. The power asserted in this report has never been used here, where the condition of a slave is so abhorrent that it must be strictly interpreted. It is not authorized here to forcibly remove a slave, and sell him abroad, on the ground that he has deserted his commission, or for any other reason whatsoever. As the causes stated in this report cannot be said to be authorized or approved by the laws of this kingdom, the negro slave must be discharged.
Thus, he effectively ruled that England was free and that no man or woman who set foot on its soil would be enslaved.
This was the result of the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833 (It was abolished during Tony Blair's first term in office in favour of international “human rights”The 1833 Act abolished slavery in the British Empire, freeing over 800,000 enslaved Africans. West African Fleet It eradicated the transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas.
This cost was equivalent to 5% of UK GDP at the time (5% of UK GDP today is equivalent to around £140 billion). The loans taken out to cover the impact of this abolition were finally repaid by British taxpayers in 2015. This means that most Britons are in a position to claim that they made a personal financial contribution to the abolition of slavery.
To quote an Irish historian: William Leckie:
Great Britain's tireless, sober, and ignominious crusade against slavery may perhaps be counted among three or four entirely honorable pages in the nation's history.
So what is the destruction of statues about when there is a history of slavery around the world and Britain has long opposed the practice? What is happening is an attack.
Far-left activists Black Lives Matter Understand what George Orwell understood:
The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and erase their understanding of their own history.
And in an attempt to destroy Britain, they are trying to portray our history as shameful – one for which we must never stop apologizing, or fail to make reparations (5% of our national wealth is not enough). And they are trying to divide the people of this island on the basis of skin color, telling dark-skinned people to think of themselves as perpetual victims – a feeling that is even more harmful to human flourishing than shame.
But this is not just an attack to demoralize and divide us. It wants something more. It wants power. Orwell again saw this coming.
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
BLM controls the narrative today. Current Political EnvironmentThis allows them to Shaping the past Through state-controlled education, state-enforced hate crime laws, and state-controlled media, we will be reshaped as people in the months and years to come. Cabinet Office Nudge Unitwill only be deployed on a large scale.
This attack will do nothing less than destroy Britain as a viable, independent nation capable of shaping world affairs, as it did in 1772, 1833 and on so many other occasions. Instead we will become a divided, self-confident and unstable home.
Why has this attack been so successful? Because it is not unfounded. Our historical past has many failures, but fewer than those seen in our dark present.
The trick played by the radical left is False ComparisonOur history is not compared to the history of other nations, but to an unstated but assumed perfection.
Utopia is unknown in this fallen world, plagued by human failings, but the Left still sees a weakness in the parts of British culture that strive for the good and value justice, and correctly recognises that our country cannot fully live up to its own values. Critical theorythese imperfections are brutally presented to us and we are asked to kneel.
You shouldn't do that.
Instead, we ask ourselves, “Are we not good enough? what?”
The standard that God thundered from the mountains? If that is the standard, then we are certainly far from it, along with every other country. But of course, that is not the standard that the Left employs. As soon as this deception becomes apparent, the attack begins to crumble.
Would we compare it to countries run on socialist principles, where 160 million people were killed in the 20th century alone, excluding wars? Or to post-colonial Africa, with its rampant corruption, poverty and genocide? Or to the India of the revered Gandhi, where 18 million people are now in slavery and rape has reached epidemic proportions?
Any human As a benchmark, the UK has nothing to be ashamed of. Against the standards that roar from the mountains, the UK has plenty to be short of.
The importance of standards beyond human manipulation is that they provide a unified mindset that allows people to work together against evil. Based on truth, not powerThis is a foundation that cannot be used or controlled, but rather one that leads us to work together and serve one another.
BLM doesn't care about the truth. They don't care about black lives. Otherwise they would be destroying abortion clinics instead of electronics stores. All they want is power.
To resist their attacks, the sword of truth is our weapon, and we must become adept at using it.
Main Image: Chris McKenna (CC BY-SA 4.0)
