London Mayor Says New Statue of Activist Who Beheaded White Colonizers in Front of Their Children Reflects London’s “Achievements and Diversity”

It figures it's be something like this.


London Mayor Sadiq Khan defended the impending placement of a statue of John Chilembwe, an anti-colonial activist who ordered the decapitation of William Livingstone in front of his children and then displayed his head on a pike, saying it served to “reflect London’s achievements and diversity.”

Yes, really.

When challenged on his decision to green light the statue, even as a ‘woke’ statue commission works to remove sculptures of historical European figures, London Mayor Sadiq Kahn said the statue “reflect(s) London’s achievements and diversity.”

Shaun Bailey (who is black) told Khan, “this is a man who sanctioned the murder of people… he did sermons with the head of his opponents on a pike.”

Khan answered that unlike in the case of “colonizers” and other statues he is seeking to topple, the Chilembwe statue is “art” therefore it should be erected.


Continued - Sadiq Khan Says New Statue of Activist Who Beheaded White Colonizers in Front of Their Children Reflects London’s “Achievements and Diversity”

Only idiots believe a Muslim as London Mayor will do something other.
In difference to fluffy - bunny hippie dippie politically correct so-called 'Christians' Muslims strictly follow only one law, that one written in Quran
 
The guy was a hero fighting a cruel regime. Deserves a statue. Only racist trash have a problem with that.

Can you show me a statue in a Muslim country which admires a Christian hero who slaughtered Muslims?
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison.
 
The guy was a hero fighting a cruel regime. Deserves a statue. Only racist trash have a problem with that.

Can you show me a statue in a Muslim country which admires a Christian hero who slaughtered Muslims?
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison.

Mr Khan shall go to Pakistan, otherwise he shall accept feeling of the white majority
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
He was voted in as mayor so that may be why.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
He was voted in as mayor so that may be why.
If that was his sole decision then it is hardly a good idea. It should have taken some committee of the city council to decide.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
He was voted in as mayor so that may be why.
If that was his sole decision then it is hardly a good idea. It should have taken some committee of the city council to decide.
Who told you it was not a good idea?
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
It won a public vote. Its in Trafalgar Square and it changes every 2 years. The current installation is an ice cream cone with flies climbing up it. Here is a more balanced view.


The statue is of two men. One black and one white. The black man is wearing a hat which was illegal in the presence of white folk at the time. See, We are already learning about the happy days of colonisation.
 
It figures it's be something like this.


London Mayor Sadiq Khan defended the impending placement of a statue of John Chilembwe, an anti-colonial activist who ordered the decapitation of William Livingstone in front of his children and then displayed his head on a pike, saying it served to “reflect London’s achievements and diversity.”

Yes, really.

When challenged on his decision to green light the statue, even as a ‘woke’ statue commission works to remove sculptures of historical European figures, London Mayor Sadiq Kahn said the statue “reflect(s) London’s achievements and diversity.”

Shaun Bailey (who is black) told Khan, “this is a man who sanctioned the murder of people… he did sermons with the head of his opponents on a pike.”

Khan answered that unlike in the case of “colonizers” and other statues he is seeking to topple, the Chilembwe statue is “art” therefore it should be erected.


Continued - Sadiq Khan Says New Statue of Activist Who Beheaded White Colonizers in Front of Their Children Reflects London’s “Achievements and Diversity”
The link that you have quoted is the very essence of fake news. The articles author should have warned you as he is an acolyte of Alex Jones the famous vitamin guy.
He has taken a story and crafted it to create antipathy towards Sadiq Khan.

He left out very pertinent points. Firstly Khan was not involved in the process. Secondly the piece was chosen after a public consultation and vote. Thirdly it misdescribed the piece as being of one person when it is clearly of two people.

He also fails to contextualise the revolt in Malawi and explain why the people there were prepared to rise up.

You have been played by a dishonest journalist.
 
The link that you have quoted is the very essence of fake news. The articles author should have warned you as he is an acolyte of Alex Jones the famous vitamin guy.

He has taken a story and crafted it to create antipathy towards Sadiq Khan.

He left out very pertinent points. Firstly Khan was not involved in the process. Secondly the piece was chosen after a public consultation and vote. Thirdly it misdescribed the piece as being of one person when it is clearly of two people.

He also fails to contextualise the revolt in Malawi and explain why the people there were prepared to rise up.

You have been played by a dishonest journalist.

Oh, I see.

So it didn't happen, then?

Khan didn't say that the Chilembwe statue is ''art'' and that therefore it should be erected. Again, unlike in the case of ''colonizers'' and other statues he is seeking to topple?

Nothing to see there, Tombo?

Hm. Well hump me and call me Suzy.
 
The link that you have quoted is the very essence of fake news. The articles author should have warned you as he is an acolyte of Alex Jones the famous vitamin guy.

He has taken a story and crafted it to create antipathy towards Sadiq Khan.

He left out very pertinent points. Firstly Khan was not involved in the process. Secondly the piece was chosen after a public consultation and vote. Thirdly it misdescribed the piece as being of one person when it is clearly of two people.

He also fails to contextualise the revolt in Malawi and explain why the people there were prepared to rise up.

You have been played by a dishonest journalist.

Oh, I see.

So it didn't happen, then?

Khan didn't say that the Chilembwe statue is ''art'' and that therefore it should be erected. Again, unlike in the case of ''colonizers'' and other statues he is seeking to topple?

Nothing to see there, Tombo?

Hm. Well hump me and call me Suzy.
You mean Khan should not accept the result of a public vote ? Only pathetic whiners do that.
But you are avoiding the central point of my post. The article is essentially a hatchet job and not proper journalism. You have been played.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
It won a public vote. Its in Trafalgar Square and it changes every 2 years. The current installation is an ice cream cone with flies climbing up it. Here is a more balanced view.


The statue is of two men. One black and one white. The black man is wearing a hat which was illegal in the presence of white folk at the time. See, We are already learning about the happy days of colonisation.
Yes, thanks. That is a different perspective. In this case I can't help but agree with Khan that this installation is just a piece of art.

Good idea with this changing installations, btw.
 
What does that have to do with the OP? This guy slaughtered whites that had invaded his land. He was trying to take back his country. White colonizers started off on the wrong side of this story. There is no comparison
Well, maybe then the country which he defended would be a more appropriate place for his statue?
They already have statues of him in his country. The people of London decided they wanted a statue in that country.
If they decided then let it be so. Though, I don't understand who financed and approved this project. As I got from the link, Khan only agreed with it.
He was voted in as mayor so that may be why.
If that was his sole decision then it is hardly a good idea. It should have taken some committee of the city council to decide.
Who told you it was not a good idea?
What a strange question. I told it to myself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top