MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
What makes this small minority think it has the right to tell the other 98% what its can and cant have. I dont care who the statue is. Its not important. Its the principle of a tiny minority vandalizing and destroying public property because they have decided to take offence at it
surely everyone takes offence at slavery?
thats what the government would call 'common sense'
surely everyone takes offence at slavery?
Yes, but some people save their most extreme disgust to more recent slavery - say in 19th century USA or ISIS in more recent years. Many of us don't smash up statues of Aristotle or Investors in the Royal African Company in the 17th century. (Who, interestingly, were often the most enlightened liberals of their age. There's at least one statue of Samuel Pepys in London. There's a Statue of Charles II, not far from my front door. There's statues of John Locke all over the place (quite rightly).
Edward Calston lived in an age where he could easily have been on a jury that found a Witch guilty in what would have been regarded as a fair trial. Harsh to judge him by the standards of the modern world or even by the standards of the world 200 years after he was born when Slavery was abolished in Britain.
I'm all for moving this stature to a museum, but the personal dislike of Edward Calston is insane - he was a liberal enlightened philanthropist. One of the good guys by the standards of the time.
Rather than squabbling over individual statues one by one what we need is a consistent national policy on criteria for statue moving. I see no benefit in going back before written word which I guess means, in the UK, we can only start at the Roman invasion. I'm pretty sure every monarch down to at least James II had some kind of monopoly on UK slave trading. I'm not sure when Slavery stopped being a thing within the UK, that might have been 1830ish as well just like the rest of the empire. I'd reckon at least down to James II people including the monarch owned slaves doing work in the Uk. So some statues will be easier to identify and move than others. 'Organized' slavery started when mankind started farming (in the Neolithic) so I guess we'll need to move Stonehenge into a nearby museum. We need a consistent national policy on which statues have to move.
Outofbreath,
....and breathe.....
Outofbreath, ….and breathe…..
STW at it's best though. If you'd asked me at tea time I'd have thought you could sum the Enlightenment up in a few words - all of them positive. Then an STW squabble prompts me to a bit of googling (Enlightenment+Slavery) and I find people like Voltaire... Plus a chilling idea of racial hierarchy straight out of Nazi Germany. The definition of Liberal has certainly shifted a bit over the last 3 and a bit centuries! 🙂
Philadelphia thugs close ranks over beating ,But watch the assault here first.
If you don’t want to watch the above then I’ll parse it for you below....
“We demand the right to beat the shit out of anyone without threat of prosecution”
Outofbreath,
Just because Edward Colston is sleeping with the fishes doesn't mean there's going to be an audit of every statue, monument and artefact in the country, (although I'd be clinging on tight to the masonry if I were Cecil Rhodes.) A few other statues that have been gathering pigeon poo for a century, who nobody really cares or knows about will go the same way.
Statues are symbolic and so is their removal. They don't represent history they represent and reflect the values of contemporary society. In terms of bang for your buck, the symbolism of what happened in Bristol is huge.
The false icon of all false icons for Britons is Winston Churchill. He has been venerated to a degree to which no objective criticism is conscionable. The defacing of his statue got a front page on the Mail online yesterday. No surprise there, though the headline was the words of the tagger responsible, explaining how Churchill had fought the Nazi's to protect colonialism, not people of colour. How else are you going to get that narrativee on to the front page of the Daily Mail?
Churchill embodied the dark heart of those enlightenment values you mention and as you point out, the word liberal has been interpreted differently and variously over time, mirrored not least in the fact that Churchill was a member of the liberal party for a considerable period.
I pissed on the grave of Cecil Rhodes (Worlds View, Malindidzimu hill) when staying at Big Cave Camp in the Matobos National park back in 1994, the grave was a relatively short walk from my hill lodge, come to think of it I’ve also pissed on the monument to the Duke of Sutherland up top of Golspie......I can see a pattern appearing. Got cool pictures of both areas in stunning sunshine (the scenery, not the pissing as that’d just be weird)
The statues were considered important symbols, that why they were put there. The vast majority of pre-WW2 statues celebrate self-sacrifice, warfare, Great Men, doing your duty. They are about obedience to hierarchy and authority, that's why they are sacrosanct if you are keen to preserve the status quo. Every night on HP I hear all these attempts to de-legitimise the protests: vandalism, attacking the police and statues and horses, disease spreading (and this is coming from a 'liberal').
Henry Moore after WW2 created monuments that celebrated humanity, parenthood etc and gave a different feel to public spaces and attitudes towards others. Spaces, structures and resources all reflect the distribution of wealth and power in a society and it's no surprise therefore that there are challenges, debates and sometimes practical action. It's taking back control.
There’s at least one statue of Samuel Pepys in London.
...As many as that..? as the joke goes. If you're gong to cite examples of statues to "prominent enlightenment" figures, then allow me to respond...Pepys was by any measure an odious, creepy, servile, self serving ****, who whipped and beat his serving boys, "took advantage" (ie raped) the female servants of his household (to such an extent with one that Pepys wife had to go on a sex strike until he stopped) The "coded" diary is in fact just shorthand, and was initially resisted for publication, as lots of it is just him recounting visits to prostitutes, and then sniffing his fingers all the way home. The diaries that are published are heavily edited highlights, the bits that actually reveal him for what he is, curiously never seem to get into publication...
Pepys is interesting in that he was indiscreet enough to leave a diary. End
Edit: On reflection, the other interesting thing about Pepys is that it allows a window into a world where outwardly men act in an educated and "enlightened" way, but in fact reveal themselves to absolutely understand the privileged position they're in. Pepys often recounts the activities of other London socialites, noting their beatings stealing, and violent ways (often to women and servants, who couldn't respond in kind). These were men who knew that they couldn't be touched by the law, acted above it almost relentlessly and cried and stamped their little feet when they couldn't get their way. Judge them by their own standards, they knew full well they were getting away with murder (as often that's precisely what they did)
The false icon of all false icons for Britons is Winston Churchill.
I would say he's overdue a reckoning. But, and it's an important but...From May 1940 to about mid '43, he was pretty much indispensable. There wasn't anyone in that cabinet who could've done what he did. not Halifax, not Bevin, or Wood, all those prominent politicians couldn't (and wouldn't) have done what Churchill could. If nothing else he deserves a statue for that. IMO
One of the good guys by the standards of the time.
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
Churchill embodied the dark heart of those enlightenment values you mention
So racist and black of heart, edited highlights are down this thread. In the early 40's he did a cracking job but we mustn't forget that he was not a paragon and his early public life & service is frankly revolting.
https://twitter.com/iraqisecurity/status/1269758212913483776?s=21
That twitter thread Sandwich....It's why we need to be more nuanced when we discuss these figures.
"Churchill engineered the Burma famine of '44"
No he didn't. There's plenty of evidence about why he certainly didn't engineer it, and whats steps were taken to try to mitigate it.
The Merchant Venturers will never allow it. They are the same people who have obstructed the Colston statue debate for 30 years. They also have fingers in may pies in the city and do not appear to be a current force for democratic good. More here
Interesting. As I said, we had student demos against Colston back in the late 80s. Baffled me why the council ignored it, wouldn't even change the plaque.
Just looked at their website, bit like the livery companies in London.
If we are judging all monuments by the bad they have done in the past then there won’t be a single church, mosque, synagogue left in the country. We better get rid of the Tower of London whilst we are at it and every stately home needs turning into rubble starting with Windsor castle.
If we are judging all monuments by the bad they have done in the past then there won’t be a single church, mosque, synagogue left in the country
Sounds awesome, when do we start?
There 's certainly no statue of Mayhew in London who worked himself to death recording the lives of costermongers and the poor. Churchill didn't do too well at Sydney Street and he came out in support of Mussolini. Look at his foul-mouthed lumpen offspring in parliament and how many times has the nation had to buy his memoirs? It ain't all glory. And yet when I was a kid, if you did so much as a throw a snowball at him on Woodford Green cars would screech to a halt (good sport!).
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
Indeed, we need to know. That's exactly what the people who pulled down the statue should tell us, IMHO. Plus how far back in history and how far within the standards of the time the enslaving and murdering needs to be before you start being a good guy again. Or at least good enough that your statue doesn't need to be moved. So I agree, they need to say.
Sounds awesome, when do we start?
What's stopping you up to now? Could it be that you think destroying stuff you find offensive isn't a good idea?
My view on statues is always going to be Who put it up, and why? At the very least, the Colston episode in Bristol will hopefully open up a discussion about who are these Men (and it's nearly always white middle aged men) standing on plinths often in prominent positions in our communities? and often celebrating lives that were under the surface veneer not really worth commemorating.
They are just statues after all, they don't change history by not being there, and TBH most folk have a shaky grasp of even recent history at best, so anything pre-19th century is probs. due for a reckoning. They were put there by people with often scant regards to the folk who had to then live with them, It's no great harm to have a revisit.
Plus, some of them are just terrible bits of "art" anyway.
@nickc I didn't read all the way through the thread and missed the Burma tweet. There was a better thread yesterday that didn't include Burma but I was unable to locate it this morning. I suppose that Bengal wasn't considered bad enough and another famine was thrown in to over-egg the pudding.
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
It's a low bar of one, but you knew this.
Caught up with David Olusoga's series last night, worth a watch as that's about Bristol at the same time. 1830s reform riots interesting too, with many civic buildings attacked and looted. Then they sent the Dragoon Guards in.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/he-slave-trader-murderer-david-4202819
I didn’t read all the way through the thread and missed the Burma tweet.
Yeah, not having a pop at you, but it's often worth noting that both the divisive and factional Indian politics and the Japanese Army's occupation of Burma in '43 is often handily ignored when laying the blame of Bengal famine at Churchill's feet. His views on Indian self determination is well known, and the man clearly was racist, but I don't think for a second that the deaths of all those poor folk is his fault
often celebrating lives that were under the surface veneer not really worth commemorating.
Colston was a leading light of liberalism at at the beginning of the Enlightenment (Pre-dating it slightly). So much so they built a statue to him.
If you'd lived in Bristol at the time when schools for poor kids were founded and you were asked to put a coin in a collection for a statue to the guy who funded it would you not have enthusiastically chipped in?
His views on Indian self determination is well known, and the man clearly was racist, but I don’t think for a second that the deaths of all those poor folk is his fault
This.
There's no doubt that Churchill was prejudiced against Indians (although that doesn't define him) but he only had so much shipping tonnage. How many of us would have chosen different priorities?
Really bad look though. British people sitting in hotels eating bacon and eggs while local people starved to death.
So much so they built a statue to him.
in 1895...Long after his business in the slave trade was well understood. Look, even the Libertarians and enlightenment scholars well understood the dramatic difference between the lives they actually led, and the things they wrote about. Take Pepys again, and a bit of "Science.."
When he was appointed to the Navy board it was broke, so much so that they had to save a shit ton of cash. They did this in part by working out how little food you had to give a black man* before he became too weak to work. Then give him just enough over that to stop him from starving...that's the ration. Pepys was then celebrated for being a "Great Administrator and Reformer" because of this, to them this was good scientific management.
So when you talk about the Enlightenment, remember that sometimes it's treating humans as if they are chattel
* again it was just the black dudes, not the white sailors...just sayin...
It’s a low bar of one
Lots of statues to move, then. Shame 'cos I really like the one of Boudica by the HoC. 🙁
I seem to remember reading that Churchill shipped 40 tons of furniture, at a time of fiercely restricted shipping and rationing, to Canada in case he felt like legging it. Fighting them on the beaches.
in 1895…Long after his business in the slave trade was well understood.
Again, I didn't know that, and it's up to the protesters to point that out. If it's not reasonably contemporary to EC that makes a big difference - I'm not sure it's even worth putting a museum. I shouldn't have to research it, or hear about it on a Cycling forum they should be stating it clearly.
Look, even the Libertarians and enlightenment scholars well understood the dramatic difference between the lives they actually led, and the things they wrote about. Take Pepys again, and a bit of “Science..”
When he was appointed to the Navy board it was broke, so much so that they had to save a shit ton of cash. They did this in part by working out how little food you had to give a black man* before he became too weak to work. Then give him just enough over that to stop him from starving…that’s the ration. Pepys was then celebrated for being a “Great Administrator and Reformer” because of this, to them this was good scientific management.
Yup, it was a different world, unrecognizable to us.
So when you talk about the Enlightenment, remember that sometimes it’s treating humans as if they are chattel
Yup, with a chilling (to modern eyes) concept of race hierarchy. So the liberals of the time weren't liberal by current standards. Is that really a reason to move all their statues around? Or worse do we reverse liberalism because the early liberals weren't liberal enough for us?
Doctors 300 years ago were rubbish, do we refuse to acknowledge the leading doctors of the age because they were rubbish, even though they were part of the process that moved us towards modern medicine.
Again, I didn’t know that, and it’s up to the protesters to point that out.
I think that locally (and really that matter more I think) these issues were well understood, and part of the "problem"
Yup, it was a different world, unrecognizable to us.
Agreed, the 18th C is fascinating, in many ways it's the start of modernity, lots of things they worried about we'd recognise (women's rights, drinking culture, social media, getting fat, the latest trends, too much shopping etc etc) but in huge ways it wasn't anything like our world.
I seem to remember reading that Churchill shipped 40 tons of furniture, at a time of fiercely restricted shipping and rationing, to Canada in case he felt like legging it. Fighting them on the beaches.
I assume ships were going west across the Atlantic empty(ish) for the obvious reasons so no problem. If we accept the incorrect implication of what you're saying that 40 tons of useful space was wasted that could have easily gone to India, then you're effectively saying that you'd have still killed millions but about 20 people less than Churchill.
I'm sceptical of the story though. Google is silent and I can't imagine Churchill doing anything that signalled even one step backwards to the people around him. (Wasn't there a relative of Churchill who wanted to go to Canada and was told they couldn't for exactly that reason?) If things had turned out differently I am certain Churchill would have done a Hitler & stayed in the UK and topped himself when the Panzers were in sight. (I'm also certain he had a shrewd idea it wouldn't come to that in the short term.)
So the liberals of the time weren’t liberal by current standards. Is that really a reason to move all their statues around?
I don't think it's necessarily a problem to revisit who they are and what they did. It doesn't follow that you have to revisit the whole of history, antiquity or even prehistory (I'm willing to bet that Stone Henge wasn't erected by completely willing labour) but I don't think it's a bad thing to look at what is there and make a judgement. After all, that's exactly what the folk who put them up did, they judged these men by their own standards, so what's wrong with judging their worth (as statues) by our own standards. We're not slaves to our past.
Again, I didn’t know that, and it’s up to the protesters to point that out.
It's up to protesters to spoon feed you with information available via a 5 second google search? It's literally the first hit.
There was a plan to evacuate the UK parliament, the Royal family and the "Rump" govts of occupied Europe to Canada, should Op Sea-lion ever really start to happen. For obvious reasons (Op Sea-lion was never ever going to happen or succeed) it was never really taken overly seriously
If you’d lived in Bristol at the time when schools for poor kids were founded and you were asked to put a coin in a collection for a statue to the guy who funded it would you not have enthusiastically chipped in?
actually the people of bristol didnt fund it
a chairity drive failed
so the merchant ventureres put it up
however many schools he put up, they dont negate the horrors of his slave trade
Agreed, the 18th C is fascinating, in many ways it’s the start of modernity, lots of things they worried about we’d recognise (women’s rights, drinking culture, social media, getting fat, the latest trends, too much shopping etc etc) but in huge ways it wasn’t anything like our world.
100pc agree. A turning point.
Of course the Pepys, Colston, John Lock, Charles II - the Royal African Company people we're talking about here - were earlier - 17thC. So either predating the enlightenment or pioneers of it. (Seems like John Lock is 100pc considered an Enlightenment leading light in spite of dying the 17thC.)
It’s up to protesters to spoon feed you with information available via a 5 second google search?
Pretty much yeah. Not much point in protesting without a clear statement of what you want.
You don't know what #blacklivesmatters wants?
Pretty much yeah. Not much point in protesting without a clear statement of what you want.
It's instructive that you can't be bothered to do even the most cursory research, yet are ever eager to waste so much electronic ink here.
Anyway, I didn't have any trouble at all understanding it.
were earlier – 17thC.
erm...Colston dies in 1721, Pepys just scrapes in fo'shure but he's 1703, which puts them both pretty firmly in the 18th C Bear in mind that for most scholars, when you talk about the 18thC they refer to a "long" century so mid 1650-to 1800 ish.
If you’d lived in Bristol at the time when schools for poor kids were founded and you were asked to put a coin in a collection for a statue to the guy who funded it would you not have enthusiastically chipped in?
But I dont and no one alive today did, but many live there now and wanted the statue removed.
If you’d lived in Bristol at the time when schools for
poorsome kids were founded...
FTFY
I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem to revisit who they are and what they did. It doesn’t follow that you have to revisit the whole of history, antiquity or even prehistory (I’m willing to bet that Stone Henge wasn’t erected by completely willing labour) but I don’t think it’s a bad thing to look at what is there and make a judgement. After all, that’s exactly what the folk who put them up did, they judged these men by their own standards, so what’s wrong with judging their worth (as statues) by our own standards. We’re not slaves to our past.
Historians already have revisited everything over and over. But we're talking about statue moving to stop people rioting. And that requires a clear set of demands. If they state their criteria then it might turn out that we can move (say) 4 statues of little significance created after 1900 and everyone's happy. If their criteria require 100,000 monuments moved dating back before Roman times that might be harder.
There was a plan to evacuate the UK parliament, the Royal family and the “Rump” govts of occupied Europe to Canada, should Op Sea-lion ever really start to happen. For obvious reasons (Op Sea-lion was never ever going to happen or succeed) it was never really taken overly seriously
That's not 40 tons of Churchill's furniture though. Agree re Sea-Lion and I heard a Churchill speech recently (part of one of his really famous ones) where he mentioned lack of landing craft so it was clearly understood at the time that getting an army with tanks onto UK soil was highly unlikely to work. So people have been arguing about it for 80 years yet the near impossibility seems to have been well understood at the top at the time.
outofbreath
Member
It’s up to protesters to spoon feed you with information available via a 5 second google search?Pretty much yeah. Not much point in protesting without a clear statement of what you want.
Hiya rydster!! 😆
erm…Colston dies in 1721, Pepys just scrapes in fo’shure but he’s 1703, which puts them both pretty firmly in the
Nah, all the people I reference lived the vast bulk or all of their lives in the 17thC. Certainly all of their active lives. Over 60 years of Colston's life was in the 17thC and his association with the RAC had ended by the end of the 17thC.
18th C Bear in mind that for most scholars, when you talk about the 18thC they refer to a “long” century so mid 1650-to 1800 ish.
In which case I should have said 1600s.
The protest isn't about statues btw, one has been toppled, and it's created alot of discussion, that's about it.
The obscene wealth and privilege statues matter fraternity can stop panicking. 😆
I'm pretty certain this movement is about more current issues.
chrismac,
If you feel that strongly about it feel free to go and put it back up yourself. I’m sure you can round up a posse of like minded law abiding citizens to help you.
Chrismac and his mates earlier...
https://twitter.com/Frenchd0gblues/status/1270050171162894337?s=20
"Don't bother it's not contemporary!". 😀
OK, for the 3rd time for those at the back. BLM is an unorganised collective of groups and individuals, which are campaigning for the equality of BAME people in every sector of society. They are not a political party and do not have a manifesto.
I would doubt if you can find an Enlightenment philosopher that didn't support slavery and the classification of man. Even David Hume wrote "I am apt to suspect that the N*, and in general all other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites"
Why did Hume align with Kant's philosophy rather than Kraus, who praised "the natural genius" of Africa and "Its appreciation of learning"?
Why do we still align with all of the theories of the Enlightenment philosophers?
Why can't we accept that some of their theories were flawed?
They are the foundation of our values and wealth, perhaps to preserve them we need to reassess them and the structures which they support. Science has moved on from Francis Galton's skull measuring devices, to being able to map the genome. So why hasn't our society aligned with modern science?
A large aspect is that, we are generally lazy and the status quo suits us, another is because we seek out information which reaffirms our beliefs, and the first hit on Google satisfies this.
When I was compiling my case against institutional racism I didn't appreciate how difficult it would be to find quality research, based on science rather than observation. It led me to Critical Race Theory, but I'm not going to take you on a guided path to enlightenment.
To suggest that because one statue, or a few statues come down that every bluddy statue in Britain either has to come down or will come down is mad. I've noticed a few writers (Douglas Murray, Domonic Sandbrooke etc) comparing what a few citizens did in Bristol to the Chinese cultural revolution. Hyperbole? False equivalence? Or just fox news style batshit crazy. It's the Jimmy Savile defence.
Critics and protesters have been pointing this stuff out for years, 40 if were talking about Edward Colston. If your petition is unlikely to be heard in your lifetime then you're left with no option other than to take direct action.
Churchill (well Lincoln bombers actually) dropped 6 million bombs on Kenya between 1952 and 1955, trying to finish off those 'rebels that hadn't already been rounded up, relocated to concentration camps and tortured. The British called it an uprising. For Kenyans it was a civil war.
Again, something many have been trying to point out for decades. It took a tagger with a tin of spray paint 10 seconds to bring the truth into public discourse. Many, many more people are now aware of some of the sins of Winston Churchill and even if they are foaming at the mouth at the moment, they can no longer claim ignorance. They have been furnished with information that allows them to make a more objective evaluation of the great wartime leader, a figure whose legacy hitherto has been sacrosanct.
Many, many more people are now aware of some of the sins of Winston Churchill and even if they are foaming at the mouth at the moment, they can no longer claim ignorance.
I think people were more aware in 1945... it's certainly the case that my grandparents were of the view that Churchill did not represent the working classes. They hadn't forgotten his disastrous role in the general strike.
Why can’t we accept that some of their theories were flawed?
I think it's reasonably widely accepted that many of their attitudes, ideas on race, and so on were flawed. That doesn't mean that say Francis Galton wasn't (in some ways) a genius, but we also accept that he was a terrible racist and eugenicist. Francis Crick has somewhat blotted his copy book as well, but that doesn't mean we don't recognise his contribution. Both have many university buildings/depts. named for them, personally I think it's well nigh time for a re-think
Or that Lineaus while grouping men (Homo) in with Simia predates Darwin by nearly a century, but then goes on to put Asians and Africans in different sub species...But then he also created descriptions for fantastical beasts as well in early editions of Systema Naturea...
Because - Humans...
a figure whose legacy hitherto has been sacrosanct.
Only if you're purposefully ignorant. I don't think I've read any sensible bio of Churchill that doesn't mention his flaws (of which there were many) even reading the normally awful Wikipedia, you'd be hard pushed not to become a little queasy.
To all the people complaining that the statue was thrown in the docks, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know Nigel farage agrees with you. He also compared BLM to the Taliban.
Be careful which side of the fence you decide to stand on. Maybe have a look around and see who else is there.
It took a tagger with a tin of spray paint 10 seconds to bring the truth into public discourse.
Give over. My granny knew he wasn't the great hero and she's been dead for 20 years.
If we look at depictions of black people from the Renaissance period and before, we see Kings, emmisaries, traders, musicians and gondaliers. Defined by their occupation not their colour.
Slavery is something that has been practiced by societies from the advent of societies. The Europeans industrialised that process. The Industrial Revolution began with Trans Atlantic slavery. Without slavery there wouldn't have been the cotton that built Manchester, the city I live in.
The Enlightenment was the moment at which the scientific method superceeded superstition. That 'scientific method' was then corrupted to justify slavery, a profitable but unjustifiable business by inventing eugenics, a hierarchy based on perceived racial differences.
I've always thought of the STW forum as a liberal place. Some of the posts on here have served to remind us of the origins of the word liberal and that what we now define as racism is not an 'ism that has persisted through history, it is entirely the product of the Enlightenment
The Enlightenment tried to posit racism as a natural condition. If you are predisposed to consider religion to be the root of many evils consider this: it wasn't a century and a half of religious hegemony that introduced racial heirachies, it was secular Enlightenment thinking.
Interestingly there are now protests going on in Brussels about statues of King Leopold.
Cool.
Dazh,
They could be collecting it for scrap?
It led me to Critical Race Theory, but I’m not going to take you on a guided path to enlightenment.
Thank you for another bread crumb at the start of the trail, I intend to see where it takes me.
Interesting how many books about race are out of stock at the moment - a hopeful sign...?
Only if you’re purposefully ignorant. I don’t think I’ve read any sensible bio of Churchill that doesn’t mention his flaws (of which there were many) even reading the normally awful Wikipedia, you’d be hard pushed not to become a little queasy.
+1. My entire knowledge of Churchill comes from Roy Jenkin's Bio read a few years back and a few Podcasts plus what I may have seen on TV over the years. I've seen nothing I didn't know because of all this. I'd be amazed if any of this was new to anyone.
...and he lost the '45 election.
Interestingly there are now protests going on in Brussels about statues of King Leopold.
That seems like a much more reasonable target to me. Horror doesn't even describe it and much more recent.
Yes Crikey, your GRANNY.
People who lived through the war knew because they lived in the same era as Winston Churchill. They saw the good, the bad and the ugly and could voice an objective opinion.
If your 50 or under, you have grown up with the myth of Winston Churchill, a redacted version of history. A uuge majority of the population are unaware of his darker side and many rush to defend that myth without sharing the knowledge your granny had privilege to.
Shame she didn't pass any of her wisdom on to you. That tagger certainly knew what your granny was talking about.
actually the people of bristol didn't fund it
a charity drive failed
so the merchant venturers put it up
Just to correct your last point one of the Anchor Society (James Arrowsmith) put around half the funds up after around 2 years of stalled fund raising. The last plea to the livery companies raised around £2 10s!
Source: https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/
No King Leopold II, no Apocalypse now. The horror........
Just to correct your last point one of the Anchor Society (James Arrowsmith) put around half the funds up after around 2 years of stalled fund raising.
Yup: a society formed with the explicit purpose of honouring Edward Colston.
OK, for the 3rd time for those at the back. BLM is an unorganised collective of groups and individuals
This is what scares them the most. Do a little research and you'll see that any group which organises itself without leaders, memberships or formal structures are dismissed as anarchists, mobs, terrorists or whatever other hysterical label they can think of. The fact that people can effectively organise themselves without formal hierarchies and rules threatens the entire basis of the political system and the power held by those that control it. They just can't get their head around the fact that people can organise themselves around collective principles or aims, and so they assume there's a hidden group of actors with malevolent intent pulling the strings. Always used to be amusing back in the day on environmental protests when the cops would ask 'who's your leader?'.
Inspired by the other thread about best movie scenes, surely there is no more prescient a scene than the murder of Radio Rakim in 'Do the Right Thing.'
Consider how Spike Lee drew the character, Rakim was a belligerent and intimidating presence throughout the film and he ends up in a fight with a pizzeria owner. These character traits are illustrated in order to bring plausabillity to the story's finale. Had Rakim been an unfit guy selling untaxed cigarettes on the pavement the film would have been seen as lacking all plausibility and all credibility.
Consider also the final scene where Sal and Mookie meet up. After being paid Mookie throws the money back at Sal, he then picks it up before they part. In that moment we see how as a black person earning on average a tenth of what a white person does, Mookie can't afford such noble gestures, showing us how poverty crushes pride.
Black lives matter is a club you don't have to be black to get into, it has been inclusive from the outset. Hell, they even let Mitt Romney join in!
There's no entry requirements, as long as you're prepared to show a little humanity you're welcome to the party.
To all the people complaining that the statue was thrown in the docks, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know Nigel farage agrees with you. He also compared BLM to the Taliban.
Yep, caught that this morning. The Taliban blowing up numerous monuments of historical and religious importance is exactly the same as a few people pulling down a statue. They don't do any of the shit that the Taliban do but that one thing that is similar if you squint hard enough is enough for Farage. BLM is also left wing and Marxist apparently so extra points from me if that were the case.
On Farage a football journalist tweeted about him this morning and received a threatening email from the House of Commons
https://twitter.com/danohagan/status/1270343135512670208?s=19
If they state their criteria then it might turn out that we can move (say) 4 statues of little significance created after 1900 and everyone’s happy. If their criteria require 100,000 monuments moved dating back before Roman times that might be harder.
Ah, the classic "we can't have any change until you have defined all possible change" argument...
Why do you think the removal of statues cannot be addressed on a case-by-case basis?
Oooooh! I like a nice bit of IT-based threatening behaviour. On a technical level, that should be super-easy to sort out if the right people are involved and, given that it is pretty threatening, I'd be tempted to get the police involved.
Ah, the classic “we can’t have any change until you have defined all possible change” argument…
Why do you think the removal of statues cannot be addressed on a case-by-case basis?
If they state their criteria then it might turn out that we can move (say) 4 statues of little significance created after 1900 and everyone’s happy. If their criteria require 100,000 monuments moved dating back before Roman times that might be harder to do.
The Taliban blowing up numerous monuments of historical and religious importance is exactly the same as a few people pulling down a statue
excellent, by Farages' logic then, that makes the US Marines the same as the Taliban after they helped pull down the Statue of Saddam in 2003...
If they state their criteria then it might turn out that we can move (say) 4 statues of little significance created after 1900 and everyone’s happy. If their criteria require 100,000 monuments moved dating back before Roman times that might be harder to do.
Is there an echo in here?
excellent, by Farages’ logic then, that makes the US Marines the same as the Taliban after they helped pull down the Statue of Saddam in 2003…
I've been thinking about that incident a lot since this all came up. It passes my 'contemporary' test but it was fairly recent so I reckon it was fine to pull it down.
If it had been there for 350 years and was contemporary to Saddam himself my vote would be for it to stay.
Wartime statue of Stalin? I'd vote to keep at 80 years distance with some text explaining about Stalin.
My problem with Buddhas of Bamyan was a) The age. b) The significance. c) The devastation economy of the area which relied on them. Personally I think the Buddhas of Bamyan thing was pretty low. Ironically the Taliban weren't interested in them until they were asked to preserve them which indicated their value to the west and the Taliban blew them up out of spite. If we'd kept our mouths shut they'd still be there. (According to a local bloke on a podcast I heard once.)
How about this monstrosity? It's estimated he's responsible for at least 40 million deaths...
Keep the plinth, but replace Genghis with the Sugababes, they were brilliant.
(I really want someone to pop up and offer a credible argument that Genghis was a forward thinking progressive by the standards of his time.)