if youโre gonna @ me combat me
Joined November 2011
- Tweets171K
- Following500
- Followers1.1K
- Likes176K
My dentist has to square up on my next check in bc I can barely sleep without a lisps of mispronunciations (I know itโs part of the process but still)
๐๏ธ๐
๐๏ธ retweeted
years of building cycle lanes to accommodate these lunatics just for them to think they own the road. sadiq please.
โWhat wrong with you?โ Terrified pedestrian asks dangerous Lime bike rider skidding past her on pavement opposite St Thomasโs Hospital, London. Other pedestrians subjected to people riding bikes at speed & close passing them when they have green man to cross road. @ShabanaMahmood
No one in the Tory government challenged the compensation of slave owners that went on until 2015. Compensation that tax payers FOOTED. You are all just racist and weaponised language for political points.
Slavery was abhorrent. Fact.
But to issue a formal apology today is dangerous virtue-signalling that could expose Britain to reparations costing us millions or even billions of pounds. This is very much how the Chagos disaster started under the Tories.
There is no good reason why people living in 21st Britain should pay for the wrongdoings of centuries ago.
And letโs also not forget the role that Britain played in ending slavery- often overlooked in our schools, museums and by the BBC.
And then there are the clear benefits of the British Empire. Investment, infrastructure, legal systems, education, healthcare- there was also much that was good. I write a lot about this in my best-selling book, โPatriot: Empire, betrayal and hopeโ.
Letโs teach history in a balanced and truthful way; not through the lens of political ideology.
And Burnham should stand up for 21st century Brits, not pay for the wrongs of 18th century slave-traders.
The false equivalences in the chattel slavery conversation is an intentional attempt to rewrite history. Anyone who says โAfricans sold their ownโ has never studied pre-colonial African history nor the transatlantic slave trade.
These internet talking points are ahistorical.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britainโs role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who donโt know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britainโs greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britainโs deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
โYou can celebrate Halloween, but donโt force it on others,โ said the group of people who are, of course, famous for never forcing their views on anyone.
I donโt even have the bandwidth to engage with Kemi. That is someone who is not in community with black people.
So crazy when people still recognise me from my dating tiktoks all those years ago! Ugh I wish dating was still fun man, Iโd love to keep doing em
๐๏ธ๐
๐๏ธ retweeted
Statements like these are what happen when you align yourself with people who would not spit on you if you were on fire.
When it comes to discussing the transatlantic slave trade, it is not African territories that gained in wealth like Britain and other European nations did.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britainโs role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who donโt know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britainโs greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britainโs deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
๐๏ธ๐
๐๏ธ retweeted
Kemi, congratulations on leading a major British party as a Black Woman. It takes real talent to rise to where you are and deceit is what it takes to rise as a Black leader in a western Conservative Party.
It is a pity the climb did not leave room for a history book and since you chose to argue in the language of history, let us do the history. Letโs dissect your verbal diarrhea point by point.
Everyone participated." Slavery existed on every continent. So did war, and nobody calls a village feud the World War. The transatlantic trade ran for 366 years (1501 to 1866) and put about 12.5 million Africans on ships, of whom about 1.8 million died before they saw the Americas, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. It ran through joint-stock companies, chartered monopolies, Lloyd's underwriters and acts of Parliament. It was hereditary, because the law made the child of an enslaved mother property from birth. It was racial, because a whole continent was defined as chattel. No other system in history combined those features at that scale. Dissolving all of it into "people from every continent" is far worse than intellectual dishonesty.
Britain was a market leader, not a participant. British ships carried about 3.2 million Africans, second only to Portugal and Brazil. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave Britain the asiento, a thirty-year monopoly to supply 4,800 enslaved Africans a year to Spanish America. The Royal African Company, chartered in 1672 and headed by the Duke of York, later James II, branded its captives "DY". During Edward Colston's years in its leadership it shipped about 84,000 people, and roughly 19,000 died on the way.
You say British taxpayers should not answer for what happened before they were born. They did. In 1833 Britain borrowed ยฃ20 million to compensate slaveholders, and taxpayers serviced that loan until 2015, including the descendants of the enslaved. So the principle you invoke was not applied when the cheque went to slaveholders. It only appears when the cheque changes direction.
"Navel-gazing" is a curious charge from someone whose party spends more energy on the past (Empire nostalgia, culture war crusades) than most of those you accuse. Defend Britain if you must. But do not use your Nigerian name as the permission slip for arguments Nigerians know better than anyone.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britainโs role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who donโt know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britainโs greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britainโs deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
๐๏ธ๐
๐๏ธ retweeted
They think black people in other countries want to be black American when we say we're black. That time we don't want to be them at all. We are just referring to our skin colour.๐คฃ
๐๏ธ๐
๐๏ธ retweeted
Black Americans call Africans recounting very true lived experiences of being subjected to vile xenophobic racism from them, โDiaspora Warsโ to diminish and dismiss it, the same way men call women recounting true experiences of male violence โGender Warsโ to dismiss and diminish it, and Whites call true accounts of racism from black people, โPlaying the Race Cardโ to dismiss and diminish it.
All the oppressors always come up with a derisive name for the oppression they are inflicting in order to diminish it and portray their victims as unserious characters just stirring up trouble.
They then accuse their victims of trying to start the Gender / Race / Diaspora War and pretend the people they harmed are the aggressors.
This is devastating
