- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
His work's far too clever for the likes of me, chief. At least his books have pictures though.Doc said:Ooh Steve, Schama, you sexy bastard.
Last edited:
His work's far too clever for the likes of me, chief. At least his books have pictures though.Doc said:Ooh Steve, Schama, you sexy bastard.
Fyi having a statue from the 1970's removed isn't the same thing as someone life getting expunged from history.You kind of proved your agenda yesterday when it was pointed out to you that in later life Churchill reflected on his racist views and accepted they were never acceptable, but apparently that still isn't good enough and his whole life should be expunged from history.
Page 26 of this thread.As many others have pointed out that if you go far enough back into a nation's history you will inevitably find horrible things, I am yet to see anyone condone colonialism. It was abhorrent, but to ignore that it happened or rewrite history because of previously held beliefs is both insincere and IMO disrespectful for any person that had to be subjugated and treated as a lesser person because of the colour of their skin.
The onus isn't on me to prove anything. This is a forum and I'll state my point of view. Uncomfortable for you as you know most British people would fail a test if they had to prove every thought or action of theirs wasn't racist.But your blanket, all British are inherently racist is simply not true and the onus is on you to prove it. Not liken anyone who doesn't agree with you with Tommy Robinson or other racist dickheads.
You kind of proved your agenda yesterday when it was pointed out to you that in later life Churchill reflected on his racist views and accepted they were never acceptable, but apparently that still isn't good enough and his whole life should be expunged from history.
As many others have pointed out that if you go far enough back into a nation's history you will inevitably find horrible things, I am yet to see anyone condone colonialism. It was abhorrent, but to ignore that it happened or rewrite history because of previously held beliefs is both insincere and IMO disrespectful for any person that had to be subjugated and treated as a lesser person because of the colour of their skin.
@RUCK4444 Tone it down a notch pleaseI agree but the people doing the vandalising of war memorials are sub human scum.
You can’t re-educate that level of ‘human.’ It’s untrainable, feral.
There’s a debate to be had on Churchill and individual statues of a singular person but memorials for people who were forced into war to protect their country and made the ultimate sacrifice are sacred. It’s a basic mark of humanity to respect such a thing, regardless of your views on the war itself, the dead it represents didn’t have the first world luxury of deciding if they agree with a war, they were thrown in as kids.
The act of forced enrolment and subsequent mass death of that generation is ironically far worse than anything these people are protesting for today. I’m sure the majority of the protesters would be disgusted at this, all it does is allow the news coverage to focus on the negative.
I have a BA in History, so you can't downplay this. One of my professors was a specialist in the French Revolution and he talked about Citizens all the time, even read to us from it.His work's far too clever for the likes of me, chief. At least his books have pictures though.
Oh don't worry, I knew you agreed and just wanted to use it as a launchpad to elaborate further.Yeah this was basically what I was thinking, you’ve just fleshed it out a lot better than me. The idea that as historians we’re somehow uniquely immune to the passions of the moment, that we have frozen the interpretation of certain symbols, events, individuals etc., in time so that any challenge to them represents an attempt to “undo” history is, well, bollox.
Of course, and it happens on a conscious and unconscious level, too. History is a subjective discipline, and historians fit their evidence to their arguments, no matter how much they try to avoid doing so. For a figure like Churchill, about whom so much is known, even the process of distilling his life down into a manageable narrative requires judgement calls about what to include and what not to include. Those judgement calls are as much reflections of our society as the way what is included is written about.I've been reading Simon Schama on the French Revolution recently. He states that many historians often have themes or implicit biases (in their books), and frequently avoid 'negative' incidents that might upset the validity of those themes or biases. Could it be the case that some historians aren't so much guilty of dismissing/downplaying Churchill's various errors and personal faults but rather that they're afraid the alternative would spoil their 'bigger picture'?
To be fair most of the buildings were built off the profits from the slave trade and colonies. But what about Arc de Triumph then? Should the French knock that down?Do you really believe those things to be equivalent to wanting to remove a statue of a racist from the near past, or are you on a complete wind up?
Yeah but the thing is it’s kind of true up until a certain point in history where education, opinions improved.So basically it's like all white caucasians are racist until proven innocent? That's kind of the vibes I'm getting from samssky1.
No it’s not a stupid argument. My home town Amsterdam is built on the slave and has literally 1000’s of monuments and statues of some pretty nasty slave traders in particular. Would it really be constructive to get rid of them all or would it be more beneficial to reform the way educate our kids about our past and use said landmarks as tools to teach future generations about our past?This is a stupid argument. Mainly because history as a subject, has long moved past this type of thinking. If anything, identifying as a historian doesn’t actually mean much if you don’t specify which lens you’re viewing the subject from. Thanks to the work of people like Dubois, Stuart Hall, Fanon, Edward Said, etc(list is endless) we not only have a better understanding of the subject but also can view these events from a different lens. This is also the reason why, over the last few decades we have seen more calls to decolonize our education system and rectify it on a fundamental level.
This notion that history is something that exists in vacuum and should remain untouched is just a lazy argument that aims to reinforce hierarchies.
Which is again, stupid and impossible to sustain, because history, if anything, is a record of evolving racial cognizance.
You start of saying I’m wrong then end up admitting that historians are against destroying historical landmarks. Not sure what to think about that. Personally I would keep them as they are but the main point I’m making is that we should not destroy the past, and rather learn from it. So I guess we agree then.Hi Rams, I'm currently finishing writing up my PhD in history focussing on, hey get this, the memorialisation and commemoration of the past.
So when I tell you that if you'd done your reading you'd realise how facile those arguments are you can trust me, I've done the reading so you don't have to. I can also tell you with absolutely certainty that the vast majority of historians that I know are massively in favour of removing statues. I doubt many would argue for their outright destruction, (although frankly, I suspect most would cream their pants about how historically interesting such destruction would be) but they would tell you that the removal of the Colston statue, for example, is history and is significantly more informative about out attitudes and relationship to the past than a contextless (ironically) whitewashed commemoration of the man as a an unproblematic hero of Bristol ever was. If our aim is to preserve these monuments as historical sources, then they serve a far better job of that in museums.
It depends what you mean by 'particular insight'. For me, I think the historian's voice in this debate is to counter the lazy invocation of 'history' as an opposition for the statues removal. You and I both know that writing history is rewriting history, and that these debates are hardly novel in the historical record. What does strike me as novel, however, is our society's failure (I think, actually a failure driven by historians of recent generations past) to realise that we do not sit aloof and unaffected by history and we are, in fact, a part of it. Our actions, our decisions to preserve, and to conserve monuments, commemorations and celebrations to slavers, racists, and mass murderers or not do so (if we so decide to) are not neutral or somehow reflective of a noble pursuit in historical objectiveness, but are actually themselves active decisions which reflect our values as a society and our attitude to the past just as much as destroying or removing them would be.
By all means debate whether a statue of Churchill is a suitable memorial in the 21st century (I'd be surprised if even given everything the majority decision would be in favour of removing his right now anyway) but let's not pretend that it's a battle ground fought out between ahistorical hooligans hellbent on wrecking the past and virtuous paragons of said past, because such a battleground is utterly impossible.
I would suggest to do both, get rid of statues that effectively glorify "some pretty nasty slave traders" and reform the way we educate our kids.No it’s not a stupid argument. My home town Amsterdam is built on the slave and has literally 1000’s of monuments and statues of some pretty nasty slave traders in particular. Would it really be constructive to get rid of them all or would it be more beneficial to reform the way educate our kids about our past and use said landmarks as tools to teach future generations about our past?
Well since Samssky1 mainly talked about the British it's good that I am only half-british so I only have to half-prove that I am not a racist. Obviously the notion that white caucasians are inherently racist until proven otherwise is obviously not in anyway what so ever a racist belief in itself.Yeah but the thing is it’s kind of true up until a certain point in history where education, opinions improved.
It’s why I got hammered for defending people of Churchill’s era.
You are what you know. Your parents and peers hardwire your thought process as you develop and without doubt that is why so many back then we’re inherently racist, at least to some extent.
I mean I’m 35 and consider racism absolutely abhorrent. But I only have to look back a couple of generations and the thought process is very different, I’m sure many of us white British are familiar with older generations that say something and you think wow that’s terrible and try to reprogram their thinking at that stage is impossible, they don’t intentionally think that way it’s just what they were brought up with.
It’s a million times better now but it’s a fact imo that the vast majority of white British from a few generations back have a racist outlook in some form, however it is on the whole a naive almost hereditary racism.
This is the sort of thing we need to take ownership of and accept, hopefully the BLM will help to point this out as I feel it’s still a lingering issue but one I hope will die out.
But this is the whole point though, that these landmarks represent a period of our past. If we start getting rid of then we take away the opportunity for future generations to learn about those periods of our past.I’m a historian. I’m not against tearing down statues as a matter a principal. Majority of the historians I know wouldn’t be either, although there is of course no one historian’s view on the matter.
We can look back across history and recognize that statues have risen and fallen again and again, and it’s actually these events which are of more value for us than the worth of the statue in informing us on the life of the figure being commemorated (which is zero), as they bring into sharp relief the significance and mood of that particular moment in time.
In any case, I don’t think being a historian right now gives us any particular insight on the subject of this thread, since it’s more related to current issues in society rather than actual history.
...The onus isn't on me to prove anything. This is a forum and I'll state my point of view.
What?Statements without evidence don't cut it for me.
Glorify? Is not as if they are used by certain groups to commemorate racism, it fact hardly any Dutch realize they’re there due to the the complete failure of the Dutch educational system to address the issues of it’s slave trading and colonialist past.I would suggest to do both, get rid of statues that effectively glorify "some pretty nasty slave traders" and reform the way we educate our kids.
I’m still trying to work out why I’m so uncomfortable with statues being removed. I suppose I just prefer to reflect on things...I went to the reichstag in Berlin and it was amazing, bullet holes everywhere from the Russians I think. should those be repaired? I find it fascinating really.But this is the whole point though, that these landmarks represent a period of our past. If we start getting rid of then we take away the opportunity for future generations to learn about those periods of our past.
Btw, what’s your opinion of Churchill? Evil racist bastard or national hero? I’d guess it’s probably somewhere in between..
That's what you took from that post and my reply to 2cents?You start of saying I’m wrong then end up admitting that historians are against destroying historical landmarks. Not sure what to think about that. Personally I would keep them as they are but the main point I’m making is that we should not destroy the past, and rather learn from it. So I guess we agree then.
Having said that, there are examples where I do believe it’s right to get rid, for example the monuments built 100 years after in confederate states just to piss the black population off.
But this is the whole point though, that these landmarks represent a period of our past. If we start getting rid of then we take away the opportunity for future generations to learn about those periods of our past.
Btw, what’s your opinion of Churchill? Evil racist bastard or national hero? I’d guess it’s probably somewhere in between..
The initial purpose of these statues is glorification which is exactly why there is a case for getting rid of them, if you disagree with their original purpose. It sends a signal that what these people stood for isn't accepted anymore by the City and its community. And the second part of your post support my point get rid of them and educate, the former is a strong gesture and signal while the second is the long term remedy.Glorify? Is not as if they are used by certain groups to commemorate racism, it fact hardly any Dutch realize they’re there due to the the complete failure of the Dutch educational system to address the issues of it’s slave trading and colonialist past.
how does this only get a "tone is down' @Raoul, "sub human" human in inverted quotes, untrainable, feral. this is pretty roughI agree but the people doing the vandalising of war memorials are sub human scum.
You can’t re-educate that level of ‘human.’ It’s untrainable, feral.
You know nothing about me so how can you judge what I know about history??? In any case I’m entitled to my opinion as you are yours. And trust me, I’m well aware of just how fluid and abstract history is, hence why I’m emphasizing to be careful not to judge history or historical figures from our current values and perceptions. Keep it neutral.That's what you took from that post and my reply to 2cents?
I'm saying you fundamentally don't understand what history is, and your reply below seems to indicate that I'm right. I'm not sure how else I can put it other than how I did there.
I’m talking about people vandalising a monument for totally innocent, brave, hero’s that were forced into war. They should in no way be brought into these protests.how does this only get a "tone is down' @Raoul, "sub human" human in inverted quotes, untrainable, feral. this is pretty rough
you'd think he's talking about a pedophile not vandalism
It's not what you know 'about history' which I take it you've taken to mean 'facts' but what your multiple posts in this thread show you clearly don't understand about what history actually is or why the second part of your post is impossible.You know nothing about me so how can you judge what I know about history??? In any case I’m entitled to my opinion as you are yours. And trust me, I’m well aware of just how fluid and abstract history is, hence why I’m emphasizing to be careful not to judge history or historical figures from our current values and perceptions. Keep it neutral.
@Niall and @Raoul, we're meant to be civil with people like this? we're meant to read these posts and be constructive? we're meant just make nice civil arguments of "actually no, they're not subhuman" as if that's a good and normal thing to have to do?I’m talking about people vandalising a monument for totally innocent, brave, hero’s that were forced into war. They should in no way be brought into these protests.
You talk about them like a couple of naughty school kids writing on a wall or something.
They are indefensible in my opinion, if you think what I said is harsh and you don’t think what they did is absolutely reprehensible then that is your problem, and a problem it is.
You called human beings "sub human scum", it's self-evidently harsh. And that in a thread which has had rather rough tone to begin with, which surely doesn't help.I’m talking about people vandalising a monument for totally innocent, brave, hero’s that were forced into war. They should in no way be brought into these protests.
You talk about them like a couple of naughty school kids writing on a wall or something.
They are indefensible in my opinion, if you think what I said is harsh and you don’t think what they did is absolutely reprehensible then that is your problem, and a problem it is.
Please specify exactly what sentences from my posts proves I know feck all about what history is (and I do not mean just the facts) . The argument “based on your posts” does not hold up as somebody with a PhD should well know. And you just keep making it personal whilst you’re at it, cos I’m not falling for that trap.It's not what you know 'about history' which I take it you've taken to mean 'facts' but what your multiple posts in this thread show you clearly don't understand about what history actually is or why the second part of your post is impossible.
Yeah in fairness if you want to have a civil discussion with me about how it’s ok to deface a monument to disrespect people who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country your going to struggle pal.
Your usage is ironic because the people that some of those who made such sacrifice fought against used the same language to create the impression that certain others were, indeed, sub-human so as to make the act of exterminating them more palpable. You wouldn't think that their grandchildren and great grandchildren would adopt the same language as their great enemy.Yeah in fairness if you want to have a civil discussion with me about how it’s ok to deface a monument to disrespect people who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country your going to struggle pal.
Don’t worry I’ll leave this thread alone again for a while so you can discuss without having to tell the teacher on me. Ffs it’s like being in school.
There is plenty of evidence that deep rooted culturally pervasive institutional racism exists in UK since a long time ago and still today....
What?
Bye then.Yeah in fairness if you want to have a civil discussion with me about how it’s ok to deface a monument to disrespect people who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country your going to struggle pal.
Don’t worry I’ll leave this thread alone again for a while so you can discuss without having to tell the teacher on me. Ffs it’s like being in school.
No I mean it... I’m really going this time
I'm not sure what you feel is personal here, Rams. But fine, I'll repeat the points I've already made. I said this half of your post recent post is impossible:Please specify exactly what sentences from my posts proves I know feck all about what history is (and I do not mean just the facts) . The argument “based on your posts” does not hold up as somebody with a PhD should well know. And you just keep making it personal whilst you’re at it, cos I’m not falling for that trap.
we all know what you mean, we just don't know what the admins insist we treat you nicelyYeah but is it though. I mean if a person can’t feel offended by something like this then do we resign ourselves to only be offended by rape and murder? Anything else goes no matter how disrespectful an act is?
Who am I to tell you what offends you? I shouldn’t be able to tell you not to be offended by something... ya know what I mean.
Shall we all just calmly mutter to ourselves our opinions and not speak them? That’s not what the people on the street are doing.
Oh please don’t go out of your way to be nice to me Silva. I’ve got my big boy pants onwe all know what you mean, we just don't know what the admins insist we treat you nicely
I have nothing more to say on this issue. I don’t disagree with your ultimate aims but I fear you are falling into the trap of dealing with the country as you want it to be rather than how it actually is. Kind of like last December when some excitable Momentum types on here were saying “ignore the polls showing Corbyn is less popular than cancer because there’s an earthquake on my social media feed”.This is just willfully ignorant. Because immigrants have known this for most of their lives. Arguments such as these are just insensitive towards BAME. I thought the rise of Trump, Boris would help usher a new understanding when it comes to issues like this. But clearly, we are stuck in repeating old worn out rhetorics that only aim to scare minorities instead of listening to them.
You can feel offended by all means but someone doing an offence act doesn't result in them being sub human imo.Yeah but is it though. I mean if a person can’t feel offended by something like this then do we resign ourselves to only be offended by rape and murder? Anything else goes no matter how disrespectful an act is?
Who am I to tell you what offends you? I shouldn’t be able to tell you not to be offended by something... ya know what I mean.
Shall we all just calmly mutter to ourselves our opinions and not speak them? That’s not what the people on the street are doing.