Re Writing Of History

[PRESLEY 1,221]

6 minutes ago, Halibut said:

So are you saying Churchill wasn't a great leader?

 You said he was a great leader,   A great leader leads by example,  I wouldn't say being a racist is a good example or a crudential to lead anyone.  You started up with the Churchill rubbish, best get  back on topic and stop trying to bicker like you always do on here,  end of.

[RJRB 682]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53006006

 

That’s one statue that we won’t have to worry about

[Box11 28]

At the end of the day you need to know where racism comes from it is taught to people when they are young by older generations,all races from around the world can be racist even to their own kind.....

 

 

Many black people will call black people that have done well for themselves ie ......

 

Big house,nice clothes and wealthy, COCONUTS or BOUNTY BARS what they mean by this is that they are black on the outside but white on the inside...

 

 

 

No-one will ever be able to stop racism i have a very good friend who is black and he says you should rise above it...

 

He says tearing down statues does not stop racism talking to each other and understanding other peoples cultures is a start....

 

There is good and bad in every culture around the world and that's the way it will always be.....

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Box11

[RollingJ 1,976]

Thanks, @Box11, a very intelligent and truthful post.

[carosio 185]

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

Do you now accept that Churchill was a racist?

It depends what you mean by racist, Halibut. Before WW2, half the country could have been racist (or rather prejudiced) in some sense. In Sheffield, my mother told me that black people were relatively rare and people would stop in the street and stare. In fact, it was considered amongst many that it would encourage bad luck to befall any houshold that let a black man over the threshold. Prejudice I know, but that's how it was.  Africans in there own countries would be thought of as natives or savages wearing a loin cloth and holding a spear.

[Halibut 12]

17 minutes ago, carosio said:

It depends what you mean by racist, Halibut. 

How does the following sound to you ''I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."?

[Jim Hardie 517]

Most of the posts on this thread seem to have nothing to do with its title. 

Removing a statue is not rewriting history: it's making history.

Banning a comedy show that doesn't conform to today's standards is not rewriting history: it's an act of sensitivity towards other people's feelings.

Removing a certain word from the books of Mark Twain is not rewriting history: it's censorship of what are works of fiction for the same reason.

Of all the examples I've heard this week of the supposed rewriting of history, the renaming of Guy Gibson's dog in a screenplay is the only one that stands up to scrutiny.

[RollingJ 1,976]

1 minute ago, Jim Hardie said:

Most of the posts on this thread seem to have nothing to do with its title. 

Removing a statue is not rewriting history: it's making history.

Banning a comedy show that doesn't conform to today's standards is not rewriting history: it's an act of sensitivity towards other people's feelings.

Removing a certain word from the books of Mark Twain is not rewriting history: it's censorship of what are works of fiction for the same reason.

Of all the examples I've heard this week of the supposed rewriting of history, the renaming of Guy Gibson's dog in a screenplay is the only one that stands up to scrutiny.

Valid point. Maybe the title should be changed to something like 'Denying History'?

[the_bloke 17]

24 minutes ago, Halibut said:

How does the following sound to you ''I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."?

So it's clear you think that Churchill was a racist. Should his statues and other commemorative installations be removed? Does his racism carry more weight than his accomplishments? 

[Halibut 12]

Just now, the_bloke said:

So it's clear you think that Churchill was a racist. Should his statues and other commemorative installations be removed? Does his racism carry more weight than his accomplishments? 

It's clear by his own words that he was. Should statues of him be removed? They can stay for me - but I think it's time we were more honest about our history. We should be giving schoolchildren the full picture, not just the glossy, palatable bits. It's clear that some people still regard it as almost sacriligeous pointing out Churchill's racism and his other flaws, but I think we need to be honest about such things.

[tinfoilhat 11]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

Sorry I don't understand what you mean?  I have found the following information which contains reasons why the statue was Grade II listed.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1202137

And you said it can’t be moved from 1977. It was moved after 1977 - mid 90s I think.

3 hours ago, the_bloke said:

We still don't know who should decide if a statue stays or goes.

 

The statue of Colston for example; apparently he was a huge beneficiary to the city, which is why roads were named after him. Charities, hospitals, schools all received vast sums of money (70 grand in the late 1600s was a lot of money) all after he sold his shares in the Royal African Company in 1869 to William, Prince of Orange after only being involved with it for 9 years.  There are charities and schools today that have links to his money.

 

Going back to the comment I made about the Guardian and it's roots in pro-slavery, the consensus is that the newspaper changed it's viewpoint so it's forgiven. Like a politician saying 'sorry'. Did Colston redeem himself through his charitable works?

 

Are people trying to destroy all statues of James II too? He headed the Royal African Company.

Those charities were very selective. No catholic charities received anything.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, carosio said:

It depends what you mean by racist, Halibut. Before WW2, half the country could have been racist (or rather prejudiced) in some sense. In Sheffield, my mother told me that black people were relatively rare and people would stop in the street and stare. In fact, it was considered amongst many that it would encourage bad luck to befall any houshold that let a black man over the threshold. Prejudice I know, but that's how it was.  Africans in there own countries would be thought of as natives or savages wearing a loin cloth and holding a spear.

I’d say a bit more than half. I recall spike Milligan’s wartime memoirs and is was funny, moving and, to be honest, pretty racist in places.