Re Writing Of History

[altus 540]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

Or, just leave them as they are - there is an easily accessible source of information for those who wish to know more about a statue (or many other things) these days - it's called the internet.

That just makes it look like you're celebrating the bad things they did.

[RollingJ 2,042]

Just now, altus said:

That just makes it look like you're celebrating the bad things they did.

Not to me, @altus- I merely mentioned an option if you wished to research a subject further. I've done a lot of travelling since retiring, visited many different places and seen different statues, buildings , w.h.y., many of which have inspired me to research, many which I have merely admired as statues or whatever.

[melthebell 864]

removing statues is NOT rewriting history, the history is there, it can still be read, seen, learnt. certain parts are just not thrust into your daily lives as much

[Pettytom 1]

8 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

I'm sorry Pettytom you must have read my post wrong.

I did exactly say that we should infact teach our children the rights and wrongs of history and certainly didn't say anything about glorifying slave traders.

Rocker.

In which case, you will listen carefully to the many voices who would like the statues of tyrants removed and replaced with something more suitable.

 

Those statues can go to museums to help to teach about their rights and wrongs

[the_bloke 17]

28 minutes ago, L00b said:

It is a fun fact.

 

So, aside from the fact that Guardian clearly changed its tune about that a good while back...where are the statues, street names and/or memorials to the Guardian?

 

And does the duration and extent of its championning antiracism/antislavery/etc offset its earlier slavery support sufficiently, to warrant leaving them alone now?

There is a considerable art collection donated to Manchester University by the founder of the Guardian, but I'm not aware of statues or memorials. I'm sure no one will demand its destroyed though.

 

Who determines if the wrongs of the past have been forgiven? What's to say that some of the subjects of these statues wouldn't have changed their viewpoint if they had managed to live long enough, like the Guardian changed it's viewpoint? We don't know.

[the_bloke 17]

46 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

@the_blokeYou cannot erase the past - you can learn from it, make use of it, base your opinions on it, but you cannot erase it.

 

In any case, as has been asked before, who is the final arbiter on the subject - those to the left, those to the right, or those that just don't like it?

 

I'm not arguing with you, btw - I agree with you.

Indeed, see my reply just above. Who determines what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

This is why I mentioned Karl Marx in an earlier post. If the criteria for destroying a statue or a memorial or anything that celebrates the life of someone  is that they had views on race that are unacceptable in today's society, then why is there only a sub set of statues being targeted? 

 

Why should anyone celebrate Karl Marx (who did indeed have awful views on race) yet want to destroy the legacy of Churchill?

[Halibut 12]

Just now, the_bloke said:

Why should anyone celebrate Karl Marx (who did indeed have awful views on race) yet want to destroy the legacy of Churchill?

Presumably because they lay aside the racism and focus on other qualities/achievements of their man which they believe outweigh the bad stuff.

 

 

[RollingJ 2,042]

2 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

Indeed, see my reply just above. Who determines what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

This is why I mentioned Karl Marx in an earlier post. If the criteria for destroying a statue or a memorial or anything that celebrates the life of someone  is that they had views on race that are unacceptable in today's society, then why is there only a sub set of statues being targeted? 

 

Why should anyone celebrate Karl Marx (who did indeed have awful views on race) yet want to destroy the legacy of Churchill?

Warped standards?

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

Presumably because they lay aside the racism and focus on other qualities/achievements of their man which they believe outweigh the bad stuff.

 

 

Works both ways, that, @Halibut

[the_bloke 17]

13 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Warped standards?

Works both ways, that, @Halibut

Exactly.

 

At what point does achievements out trump their world views.

 

I see earlier Orwell's 1984 was mentioned; Orwell was famously a massive homophobe. Does his contribution to literature outweigh his awful views of homosexuality, and is his contributions greater than that of Churchill, whose contributions it seems don't outweigh his negative views on race?

 

Or is it, as I suspect, Marx and Orwell get away with being racist and/or homophobes because they were socialists.

[PRESLEY 1,230]

I admit my initial post was wrongly stated,  my meaning was as  Sir Kier Starmer stated these statues should not be destroyed, people should see them every day in museums, Madam Tusauds ect because they are reminders of  terrible wrong doings by people  in our history and  should not be repeated.  

[Halibut 12]

1 minute ago, PRESLEY said:

I admit my initial post was wrongly stated,  my meaning was as  Sir Kier Starmer stated these statues should not be destroyed, people should see them every day in museums, Madam Tusauds ect because they are reminders of  terrible wrong doings by people  in our history and  should not be repeated.  

Do you now accept that Churchill was a racist?

[altus 540]

51 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Not to me, @altus- I merely mentioned an option if you wished to research a subject further. I've done a lot of travelling since retiring, visited many different places and seen different statues, buildings , w.h.y., many of which have inspired me to research, many which I have merely admired as statues or whatever.

Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to do that and will just rely on what's on the plinth - 'That Jimmy Saville must have been a great guy, it says here he did loads of stuff for charity'.