Agreed, some good could still come out of them. Personally, I’m all for moving them, I really don’t see the point I scrapping them. Just my opinion obviously.
Bristol slaver statue | Protestors found not guilty of criminal damage
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
In a designated space, there is definitely more chance to offer context.
Exactly.
Also seeing them will be proactive rather than people feeling subjected to them in town centres.
I think moving them to a museum just seems like the best compromise really. We’re a multicultural society now, and celebrating imperial figures is something best left in the past.
Exactly again. I’m really quite reluctant to go down the whole cancel culture route but moving overt links to racism / slavery out of the public eye seems a no brainer to me.
It‘s a difficult one when you move away from relative small fry like Colston. When I first lived in Russia, I was appalled by the continuing presence of Lenin statues as, based on my reading of history, he was a mass murderer and borderline psychopath. After a while, though, I learnt to understand the pragmatism behind the decision not to write him out of history. If the “imagined community” of a nation state is to remain coherent, it does need its totems and can only stand so much disruption. I think that’s where the UK (or England) is with Churchill.I obviously don't think thatBut it still backs up the idea that these characters, (no less than the statues here in Ireland) are frequently co-opted by all sorts to push varied agendas. These characters are so complex that a statue or the conversation it may begin can't be in context. With certain characters, especially of the scale and complexity of Churchill, you have to read a few sources to get anything approaching a full picture. The source material's patron, the era it was written, the fluctuating legality and morality, all variables. If a statue starts a discussion, it's a long shot that it's going to be of any value.
They refused to acquit even after the judge locked them up with no food, fire or chamber pot. Fair play to those lads.
I get the Lenin thing from the Russian perspective to a degree, not that I agree, but they were undergoing a huge and abrupt transition so I see the logic. I'm a huge fan of a lot of Lenin's theory, but I can see the pain the material effect of his reign caused, so no issue removing the statues.
Also I think Lenin is much more a part of the USSR than Churchill is to England. Being that he pretty much conceived the state as well as ran it, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I posted these when we had this discussion a couple of years ago, it’s what the Indians have done at the Mutiny Memorial in Delhi, which was originally built in 1863 to commemorate those on the British side (both British and their Indian allies) who lost their lives during the siege of Delhi in 1857. Rather than pull it down they basically just flipped the narrative. As a historian I have doubts that this actually helps to increase our understanding of those events very much, but at least it provides some corrective/balance:
Amendment:
Amendment:
The good thing about putting them in museums is for the vast majority you only have to do it for a short period, until you've proved too few people actually like the statue to justify museum space, and then you can dismantle it, or occasionally sell it to one of the very few people interested, without it being controversial.
Very few of the badly designed pigeon toilets would get any attention without their completely undeserved public prominence.
Judging historical figures by today's moral standards is always a dangerous game. Take Churchill, the guy was a wildly racist dinosaur, who even in his time was considered a stubborn, difficult old prick by many of his peers. However his personality and attitudes to leadership led the UK to come through the war victorious. Do we celebrate him leading the country to victory or do we try and ignore and overlook that because he was morally repulsive?
It opens a difficult conversation about whether bad people doing good things deserve to be celebrated for those acts.
It opens a difficult conversation about whether bad people doing good things deserve to be celebrated for those acts.
The Churchill one always bemused me, the guy had a pivotal role in ensuring Britain and Europe don't fall to either Germany or communism and I can't stress enough, 2 of the most oppressive regimes with extreme ideologies who literally slaughtered millions and millions and routinely engaged in eugenics and genocide.
I really find it disturbing that no matter how racist he was in his notes by todays standards or how he served the imperial needs of his country is genuinely under the threat being censured from public life and depicted as this evil being , the man who helped to defeat the nazi's for God's sake.
Something similar is happening in America with abe Lincoln as well and while thankfully nowhere near as bad im regularly hearing from some of my more lefty friends that Lincoln is also undeserving of the honors bestowed upon him and we should reconsider his position in the national psyche, which i find baffling and a bit scary.
A nation who won't come to terms with its past has no future.
I really find it disturbing that no matter how racist he was in his notes by todays standards or how he served the imperial needs of his country is genuinely under the threat being censured from public life and depicted as this evil being , the man who helped to defeat the nazi's for God's sake.
Something similar is happening in America with abe Lincoln as well and while thankfully nowhere near as bad im regularly hearing from some of my more lefty friends that Lincoln is also undeserving of the honors bestowed upon him and we should reconsider his position in the national psyche, which i find baffling and a bit scary.
A nation who won't come to terms with its past has no future.
It’s not about portraying him as evil, more giving a balanced view, the good and the bad.He was a controversial figure in his lifetime,even from a purely white English perspective - crossing the house twice, the Sydney St siege, the Gallipoli disaster (apparently my great grandmother always hated him because of this - her brother was killed there), the support for Edward VIII. Remember he lost in 1945 as well. When you consider that part of the modern British population are descendants of immigrants from India, Bangladesh or other parts of the old empire, then he becomes even more sensitive a subject, I don’t advocate removing his statue as he is probably the most iconic Englishman of the 20th century but let’s avoid hagiography.
every single major historical character is and has been controversial , that is life. And imagine there is enough critical studys of him circulating in the academic sphere.
Unless your a nihilist or don't belive in national identity in which case i won't argue , i really feel countries need heros or symbols to give them identity or soul even if its a simplistic view of history .
In the end it doesn't concern me and I'm not going to pretend that it does but I do really feel it sets a dangerous precedent.
This is a bit of a straw man. I think deciding whether a statute is fit for purpose 100 years later is a huge leap from judging people retrospectively. The call is being made on the statue, not the person.
There are much greyer areas than Churchill too.
I wasn't talking about that statue in particular. There's been a lot covered in this thread.
As for Churchill, yes sure there have, but Churchill is someone pretty much everyone has an opinion about.
Yeah I meant general, it's the suitability of the statue, not a retrospective judgment of the person.
I mentioned Churchill as not that grey an area as many of his contemporaries had an issue with him.
This seems completely at odds with the rest of your comment. You want to overlook the horrible things people have done because they've done some good, how is that coming to terms with anything?
Judging people from the past by the standards of today can indeed be misleading but these statues are present in the world now, not just in the past. However we judge these historical figures in terms of their own time, the decision as to who we continue to celebrate with statues is a decision for these times and reflects our present values.
With someone like Colston current sentiment was obviously against him, so it's entirely appropriate that it be removed. With Churchill and others I doubt that would ever be the case in most areas of the UK. But that's no reason not to have that discussion on a case by case basis, especially given discussion is a better tool for informing people than the statues themselves are. And if opinion should eventually sway against someone like Churchill to such an extent that the public want to remove a statue then that's an entirely appropriate decision for the people of that time to make. Removing a statue no more erases the past than breaking a clock erases time.
Some of the arguments in favour of these statues make it sound like history is a completed series of facts that we should accept, preserve behind glass and never touch again lest they magically dissappear. Whereas in reality the study of history is about constantly interrogating, re-evaluating, re-contextualising and reinterpreting the past and the way we relate to it today.
With someone like Colston current sentiment was obviously against him, so it's entirely appropriate that it be removed. With Churchill and others I doubt that would ever be the case in most areas of the UK. But that's no reason not to have that discussion on a case by case basis, especially given discussion is a better tool for informing people than the statues themselves are. And if opinion should eventually sway against someone like Churchill to such an extent that the public want to remove a statue then that's an entirely appropriate decision for the people of that time to make. Removing a statue no more erases the past than breaking a clock erases time.
Some of the arguments in favour of these statues make it sound like history is a completed series of facts that we should accept, preserve behind glass and never touch again lest they magically dissappear. Whereas in reality the study of history is about constantly interrogating, re-evaluating, re-contextualising and reinterpreting the past and the way we relate to it today.
I meant as in embracing it , I worded it badly.
So not agreeing or disagreeing but just to play devils advocate. Being so liberal in your interpretation of history , rapidly pulls you into a rabbit hole. For example confederacy , what were the facts? They chose to secede over "slavery" not state rights nor Northern aggression or any other excuse they might come up with , yet its this very re contextualising during the following years by the southern democrats and former confederates has entangled confederate reverence to such a degree that its almost inseparable from southern identity (I've even seen blacks carrying the flag) , so doesn't this constant revision to fit in with the current sentiment do more harm than good? As the constant reevaluation may very well cause us to stray further and further from the truth(if there is any)?
Why would you advocate for the devil? Seems to me that you're both defending someone evil for free and admitting beforehand that you're losing the case.
And just in case you're not roleplaying, the American civil war was 100 % about slavery. If you disagree then you have to argue against the states that tried to secede, because they were 100 % clear on why they did what they did. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that it wasn't all about slavery (it was), or are you saying that it was all about slavery but if we acknowledge that Colston was a slaver then we open the door to American traitors being excused?
It was only semi-serious, but just to make sure: I'm talking about violence between consenting adults within normal limits, something akin to but not necessarily a mosh pit. I'm not assaulting random people, I'm not a psycopath. General queue aggressivess can be fun as well, but I'd never initiate.ps. I'm quite scared of violence because 'm pretty sure it'd end up with my dog being put down! I'll bow to your superior knowledge there
Playing devils advocate as in the term ,trying to understand his points and probe more.
and unto your second point , I was clear enough in my post that I believe it was very exactly because slavery as I have vested personal interest in the matter. My point was to which degree to we try to recontextualise history and where do we draw the line, it had little to of what I think about southern traitors.
Stalin was integral to defeating the Nazis too and look how he's remembered.
With Churchill it's more finding a balance between those arguing he's the greatest Briton that ever lived, as per regular polls, and recognising that he was a flawed character with hideous views, who also caused lots of deaths.
This is a nation coming to terms with its past, rather than glossing over it.
I know what the term means. It means that you're arguing for something that you don't believe, and it implies that it's 100 % contrary to what you actually believe. In practice, though, it's rarely that. For instance, you say that you're not trying to agree or disagree. If you're actually playing devil's advocate you have to agree. So you're not playing devil's advocate, because you don't know who the devil is regarding slavery.
Didn't larkin help the germans and hamper allied war efforts?
Last edited:
I'm being pedantic here but I've went to Russia and Stalin is semi popular especially among some of the older cohorts .
And in regards to Churchill , what do you think defines a great briton and I mean a major historical leader and character, not a cop out answer naming some philanthropist who was never in the position to make hard choices to begin with. Every single leader in history of mankind has blood on their hands and thats the nature of it thats our nature .
Despite my better judgment I'm getting more and more nihilistic as time passes so I'm very susceptible to the idea that we're just animals roaming around with no real moralistic sense of right or wrong existing so I readily accept the notion that we live in a society without things to venerate or revere and no need for statues at all.
But I feel a large portion of those who call for these sort of actions have their own heros and martyrs and I find it telling that a large part of discourse about Churchill is dominated by the fact that he wrote mostly racist things in his diary in an era where they were the common sentiment compared to the war crimes that he may have committed or the lives that were lost due to his choices , clement atlee a man revered by this group(whom I from an independent view point find to have been a good leader deserving of reverence) ordered the bombing of dresden, killing thousands , a major warcrime much worst than harboring racist thoughts
This to me just seems like political struggle between two schools of thought and search of a new identity for the rapidly diversified new generation, less to do with morals and ethics of it . So I really find the whole exercise futile.
Last edited:
I was just trying to arouse discussion, wasn't really concerned with the technicalities of it.
Also I do obviously consider slavery to be evil if that's what your asking, one of my ancestors gave his life serving in the union army so no I don't have much if any reason to sympathize with the confederate cause.
As with cancel culture and metoo the original intention was noble. And the problem wont be this colsten statue which i assume everyone would have no problem with being taken down.
But someone somehow will make a crusade out of this and start to demand absurd and grey characters to be taken down.
What if the next person wants clinton or Obama memorabilia or plague taken down because they allowed drones that kills certain groups of people? Where do we draw the line?
It's a dillema, one person heroes could be other persons villain.
But someone somehow will make a crusade out of this and start to demand absurd and grey characters to be taken down.
What if the next person wants clinton or Obama memorabilia or plague taken down because they allowed drones that kills certain groups of people? Where do we draw the line?
It's a dillema, one person heroes could be other persons villain.
Of course you consider slavery evil, I don't doubt that, I'm just obnoxiously expressing my distaste for the "devil's advocate" phrase.
Yeah I too have tendencies to be pedantic from time to time
It's a useful phrase to engage in debates with though so maybe your beef with it is uncalled for.
Anyway as difficult as it can be to discuss such topics due the strong feelings harbored by both sides, i do reckon its better for everyone involved to nevertheless engage and face it head on.
Yeah in Georgia he seems to be (or was) remembered as something of a national hero, first pic is the book shelf of a family home I stayed in there, the others are from the Stalin museum in his home town of Gori:
(edit): just read that the statue above was removed in 2010 - https://www.rferl.org/a/Gori_Residents_Divided_Over_Stalin_Statue_Removal/2084814.html
Last edited:
Yeah pretty muchYeah in Georgia he seems to be remembered as something of a national hero, first pic is the book shelf of a family home I stayed in there, the others are from the Stalin museum in his home town of Gori:
I haven't had the pleasure of visiting Georgia of which I heard great things about.
In mainland Russia i spoke to a lot of the older generation and the consensus seems to be that he represented a calmer more stable time where they where an imminent power and had national pride and led them to victory in the great War while bringing them socioeconomic stability during the latter stages of his reign( most of them came of age during the late 40s) while the younger generation were rather ambivalent. putin seems to be trying to rehabilitate him as well , presenting himself as stalinistic leader but without the ideological and extremism that comes with it . In the former soviet states the consensus seems to be much more mixed for example the Ukrainians talk about him as if he is the devil himself incarnated which I guess is fair knowing about that borderline genocidal famine they went through.
Erm..there are a lot of people, including a loud part of the current government who have a problem with the Colston statue being pulled down.
Let's draw the line at the racist fecks hiding behind anti-woke bullshit
Impressive shoulders on that statue. Was that a school exchange programme you went on?Yeah in Georgia he seems to be (or was) remembered as something of a national hero, first pic is the book shelf of a family home I stayed in there, the others are from the Stalin museum in his home town of Gori:
(edit): just read that the statue above was removed in 2010 - https://www.rferl.org/a/Gori_Residents_Divided_Over_Stalin_Statue_Removal/2084814.html
As Red the Bear said, I thought Pugin had deliberately been rehabilitating Stalin's rep. I've never been to Russia, sadly.
No I spent a month there traveling around in 2008.
I don't recall. What did he do? He was a member and attendee at the International Commune and us reds kinda hated the Nazis.
That's a tricky line to draw in some spots in all fairness.