> In September last year, a statue of Drake in Tavistock, Devon, was given a new information panel detailing his slave trading expeditions following a council review.
This feels the preferable route.
We can’t pretend that all our prominent historic figures were only and purely good men with not a blemish to their name. It’s important to understand the history that made them ‘great’, but also the history of the time and the blemishes that they might have too.
You won’t get that by removing the name from everywhere it’s ever used.
What happened in the past is history, we moved on now but doesn’t give the right to totally wipe out all trace of it, that’s so wrong.
What about all the monarchs up through… well, all the monarchs?
I quite like the more honest reframing of our history. We dont need schools named after people anyway. For a nation with a slave trade and empire it would probably be difficult to find establisment figures who didnt benefit – directly or indirectly.
One fact that is getting lost, especially in the reparations discourse, is the role of natives in slavery. It happened, people benefitted from it locally by allowing or expediting it, and we musnt delete facts that dont fit the narrative of the evil imperial faction from across the sea.
Just another normal day on normal island. Actually changing names and pretending nothing ever happened is the most English thing to do.
Why stop at this let’s just wipe out our entire history, after all Britain has never done any good in this world !!
> The school will be renamed Twin Oaks Primary School,
How offensive, what with oak trees links to the slave trade.
This sub feels like the daily mail sometimes.
Naming a school after him serves no historical purpose, you can easily learn about him in a museum, book or history lesson.
He is not being “removed” from history, his name is being removed from a school due to being involved in the slave trade.
Baaah muh history is disappearing, woke CANCEL CULTURE!!!
I’m sure Jimmy saville had some buildings name after him, I’m sure you’d all be happy to defend keeping his name too then as he is a part of “British history”?
fine, so as long as it’s explain it was legal to do and most slaves were sold by other African Warlords, the idea that a small group of whitey just got off a ship and thrown nets at Africans and captured so many without a struggle just seems to make a group of people weak,
​
WHEN the fact is they were brutally captured and enslaved by other tribes with many having been killed, some women being raped and murdered (Or sold as sex slaves, then again most women would of been)
​
​
​
​
Unless we suddenly don’t want to teach history?
Whatever Drake did that was worth having something named after him, hasn’t it been enough time? He’s had several centuries of celebrity for his positive achievements, does he need centuries more?
He’s not being taken out of history books, or getting his wikipedia page deleted.
“A consultation over the name was launched, with 88% of 450 parents, staff, pupils and local residents voting in favour of a new name.”
It’s being done with the overwhelming support of the stakeholders in the school. It’s their school, nothing to do with the rest of us.
But how will I ever find out about him without this school being named after him?
How come we have to call Sir Francis Drake a slave trader but we can’t call George Floyd a drug-addled thug who terrorised a pregnant woman?
13 comments
> In September last year, a statue of Drake in Tavistock, Devon, was given a new information panel detailing his slave trading expeditions following a council review.
This feels the preferable route.
We can’t pretend that all our prominent historic figures were only and purely good men with not a blemish to their name. It’s important to understand the history that made them ‘great’, but also the history of the time and the blemishes that they might have too.
You won’t get that by removing the name from everywhere it’s ever used.
What happened in the past is history, we moved on now but doesn’t give the right to totally wipe out all trace of it, that’s so wrong.
What about all the monarchs up through… well, all the monarchs?
I quite like the more honest reframing of our history. We dont need schools named after people anyway. For a nation with a slave trade and empire it would probably be difficult to find establisment figures who didnt benefit – directly or indirectly.
One fact that is getting lost, especially in the reparations discourse, is the role of natives in slavery. It happened, people benefitted from it locally by allowing or expediting it, and we musnt delete facts that dont fit the narrative of the evil imperial faction from across the sea.
Just another normal day on normal island. Actually changing names and pretending nothing ever happened is the most English thing to do.
Why stop at this let’s just wipe out our entire history, after all Britain has never done any good in this world !!
> The school will be renamed Twin Oaks Primary School,
How offensive, what with oak trees links to the slave trade.
This sub feels like the daily mail sometimes.
Naming a school after him serves no historical purpose, you can easily learn about him in a museum, book or history lesson.
He is not being “removed” from history, his name is being removed from a school due to being involved in the slave trade.
Baaah muh history is disappearing, woke CANCEL CULTURE!!!
I’m sure Jimmy saville had some buildings name after him, I’m sure you’d all be happy to defend keeping his name too then as he is a part of “British history”?
fine, so as long as it’s explain it was legal to do and most slaves were sold by other African Warlords, the idea that a small group of whitey just got off a ship and thrown nets at Africans and captured so many without a struggle just seems to make a group of people weak,
​
WHEN the fact is they were brutally captured and enslaved by other tribes with many having been killed, some women being raped and murdered (Or sold as sex slaves, then again most women would of been)
​
​
​
​
Unless we suddenly don’t want to teach history?
Whatever Drake did that was worth having something named after him, hasn’t it been enough time? He’s had several centuries of celebrity for his positive achievements, does he need centuries more?
He’s not being taken out of history books, or getting his wikipedia page deleted.
“A consultation over the name was launched, with 88% of 450 parents, staff, pupils and local residents voting in favour of a new name.”
It’s being done with the overwhelming support of the stakeholders in the school. It’s their school, nothing to do with the rest of us.
But how will I ever find out about him without this school being named after him?
How come we have to call Sir Francis Drake a slave trader but we can’t call George Floyd a drug-addled thug who terrorised a pregnant woman?