There is a movement in the United States called the 1619 Project. It was created by the New York Times, and it aims to change the founding date of America as a sovereign nation from 4 July 1776, to the alleged and disputed date when the first slaves arrived!
It is a deliberate (and racially-charged) attempt to reframe American history from "Land of the Brave" to "Land of the Slave"; to change from a generally hopeful and optimistic national story of American goodness, to a shameful story of oppression involving all things bad.
The intention is to break down the sense of the good, and replace it with an overall sense of the bad; to change the aroma from fragrant to foul.
This is because, for revolutions to succeed, the past must first be destroyed so life can begin from the present moment.
The BLM movement in the UK takes the same approach to British history.
It's working from the same script. It wants the history of Britain to be reframed as one of "oppression", as a direct consequence of "racism" (by white people), which apparently is the origin of everything – the secular "original sin" – the evil centre of every single matter in our country. This ideology is called "Critical Race Theory" or CRT for short, and has become very influential in sections of academia since the 1970s. It is now coming into its own.
It's a divisive and absurd ideology, but that doesn't stop it being a dominant and aggressive one in the media, academia and politics; and a very lucrative one for race-hustlers of all colours.
Here in Scotland, the BLM approach fits smoothly into the SNP's anti-British story.
After all, for the SNP, the story of Britain is one of the alleged "oppression" of Scotland.
As pro-UK people, we know that story is rubbish. But that is how the SNP councillors, MSPs, MPs and many of its members and supporters see things, even when the opposite truth of things is staring them in the face.
They know that by attacking our British history in this way, it will help to break down the sense of the goodness, the rightness, the legitimacy, of the Union itself.
Therefore, the SNP is happy to go along with BLM's lies, and its false and divisive and racially-charged ideology, because it helps to promote their aim of breaking up Britain.
They will do this even when it is famous Scottish people who are being attacked. They have no sense of loyalty to such Scottish people.
Therefore, it's left to pro-UK people such as ourselves to defend the honour of such men and women. It's a mantle we're happy to hold!
SNP PLAN TO DESECRATE DUNDAS
This brings us back to Henry Dundas and his statue in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, which the SNP council, in hock with the local BLM people, are intending to befoul.
They are intending to append a plaque, "to explain Henry Dundas's history and to acknowledge his role in delaying the abolition of the slave trade."
This is now at the Planning Application stage (see below).
"Delaying the abolition" is factually wrong. It is an utter misrepresentation of the facts. It is, basically, a blatant lie.
It is astonishing that such a plaque is even being considered.
So, what's the story?
The year was 1792 and the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, wanted to abolish slavery. To those worthy ends, Dundas, who was Home Secretary, introduced the word "gradual" as an amendment in a proposed abolition Bill.
He did this because he knew he could not get the Bill through the House of Commons unless that was explicitly stated. In any case, abolition would have to be gradual since the economy of so many Caribbean islands – not to mention business interests of many MPs and Lords – depended upon slavery at that time.
Introducing the word "gradual" is the reason why the SNP and BLM people say that he somehow "delayed" the abolition. However, that is where their study ends, and they don't look to see what happened next.
What happened next was that his amendment was successful, in that it ensured that a previous defeat in the House of Commons was turned into a 230-85 victory for the abolitionists. However, the Bill was then presented to the Lords, where it failed, meaning the Bill was not enacted.
It wasn't until 15 years later, in 1807, that the Slave Trade Act was passed, resulting in the ban on the trade in slaves in the British Empire. (And it wouldn't be until 1833 that the actual practice of slavery was abolished in the British Empire via the Slavery Abolition Act.)
So, Dundas's amendment succeeded in getting the Bill through the Commons but – through no fault of his own – the Lords rejected it.
Therefore, in what possible way can it be said that Dundas's amendment delayed the abolition of the slave trade? Indeed, if anything, it helped to move the concept of "abolition" forward a pace.
THE WORDING ON THE PLAQUE
The proposed wording can be read by clicking on the icon under 'View' at 'NEW PLAQUE TEXT' here.