Removing statues is it right or wrong

FatCat said:
That is one of them also - but you get the point - for many people he is a hero.
Click to expand...

You can't expect wartime leaders fighting wars of national survival to be able to do their job without some people losing their lives.

Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh and others worked under the despotic Elizabeth I but I doubt they'll be taking down statues to any of them very soon.
 
EI_Owen said:
I guess we could start with the disastrous campaign in Gallipoli during the First World War and then as First Lord of the Admiralty then Prime Minister in The Second World War.
Click to expand...

Hmm, Gallipoli maybe, but this can't be a serious comment about Churchill's role in WWII.
 
Soutra said:
Hmm, Gallipoli maybe, but this can't be a serious comment about Churchill's role in WWII.
Click to expand...

To be honest this isn’t really about Churchill’s statue, it’s about the slave master Colston. Churchill’s name only came up as a result of some classic Whataboutary from people who think Colston’s statue shouldn’t have been removed.
 
EI_Owen said:
To be honest this isn’t really about Churchill’s statue, it’s about the slave master Colston. Churchill’s name only came up as a result of some classic Whataboutary from people who think Colston’s statue shouldn’t have been removed.
Click to expand...

That and people calling for the Churchill statue to be taken down and vandalising it.
 
What was racist about Gallipolli? - attacking Turkish men? Poorly executed campaign by incompetent generals it definitely was.

Churchill was an imperialist - he never agreed to Britain giving up control of India. He was wrong in my opinion. Is this judgement he was racist. Canada and Australia were given self rule much earlier.
 
Soutra said:
You can't expect wartime leaders fighting wars of national survival to be able to do their job without some people losing their lives.
Click to expand...
that's true but ordering to bomb innocent civilians with incendiary bombs is another level.
 
BoroMart said:
that's true but ordering to bomb innocent civilians with incendiary bombs is another level.
Click to expand...
Yes we were the bad guys in world war 2! I guess the Germans were Dropping fairy dust then.

I know it’s doesn’t fit with today’s sensibilities but the Second World War was total war And that’s just what it meant total war kill or be killed so personally I’m just glad we aren’t sending our gypsies and Jews to death camps and quaking in fear as the gestapo patrol the roads looking for the latest prey.

but yes we were the bad guys.
 
Looking at Churchill's life he had some conflicting views - he supported social and economic reforms to help working class people in the period up to WW1 and was even called a Lefty in this period, but he hung on to views of Imperialism for a long time. He had doubts about bombing Dresden - it was wrong, but I think people's hearts had hardened after 6 years of war and also a lot of the atrocities committed in the concentration camps were first coming to light too.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Yes we were the bad guys in world war 2! I guess the Germans were Dropping fairy dust then.
Click to expand...
that isn't the point I was making, as I'm sure you are aware. Regardless of what Germany were doing and who the "bad guys" were, he did choose to torch a city, packed with civilians as a revenge tactic. The german citizens were not generally the bad guys. The nazi's were not voted in with 100% vote, in fact they were voted a distant second in the election. There were like any war, many civilians that didn't agree with it, and they were innocent victims. The war was already largely won at that point, within 10 weeks Berlin was being overrun, the idea that it was kill or be killed simply isn't true at this point. I know he faced a lot of opposition and dissent for this target. It wasn't of any major military significance, it was way down the list, but he wanted to do it, and took the decision against many of his commanders advice. 1200 bombers, sent over, barely any resistance, 25,000 civilians killed, many torched alive.
 
BoroMart said:
that isn't the point I was making, as I'm sure you are aware. Regardless of what Germany were doing and who the "bad guys" were, he did choose to torch a city, packed with civilians as a revenge tactic. The german citizens were not generally the bad guys. The nazi's were not voted in with 100% vote, in fact they were voted a distant second in the election. There were like any war, many civilians that didn't agree with it, and they were innocent victims. The war was already largely won at that point, within 10 weeks Berlin was being overrun, the idea that it was kill or be killed simply isn't true at this point. I know he faced a lot of opposition and dissent for this target. It wasn't of any major military significance, it was way down the list, but he wanted to do it, and took the decision against many of his commanders advice. 1200 bombers, sent over, barely any resistance, 25,000 civilians killed, many torched alive.
Click to expand...

It was indeed an appalling act, history doesn’t really dwell on that, in the same way that nobody mentions the thousands of German women that were raped by allied troops at the end of the war. History is indeed written by the victors.
 
Facefuzz said:
what’s your thought on tony Blair? Out of interest
Click to expand...

Blair and his weapons of mass distraction, the dodgy dossier and his blind commitment to backing up Bush at every opportunity resulting in the loss of innocent lives that were somehow justified because we were fighting a war on terror against a country that had nothing to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center?

What do you think?
 
Redwurzel said:
What was racist about Gallipolli? - attacking Turkish men? Poorly executed campaign by incompetent generals it definitely was.

Churchill was an imperialist - he never agreed to Britain giving up control of India. He was wrong in my opinion. Is this judgement he was racist. Canada and Australia were given self rule much earlier.
Click to expand...

Nothing was racist about Gallipoli, just mass incompetence from Churchill after which he resigned.

I’m not advocating the removal of Churchill’s statue, I too dont agree with imperialism but it’s part of our history.
 
Excuse the pun but too many people see this issue as "Black and White" . Good people do some bad things ( sometimes) and bad people do some good things (sometimes).
Doing good can cause bad results and the reverse is true ( occasionally).
Some acts are so abhorrent as to overshadow any " good" that come of them.
As a person of 100% western Irish stock, I'm sure I can rest assured that none of my ancestry had any direct involvement in what is understood today as slavery (other than as victims of oppressive British rule). However, I ,as Human Being can feel ashamed of the the very act of slavery as a Human crime, be it the African Slave trade, eastern medieval ( where the term Slav comes from), Barbary Pirates raiding Devon and Cornwall for white slaves, the time honoured process in early times of taking the people's of a conquered land as slaves and the modern people trafficking( simply a sanitised term for slavery).
We need to be aware of the brutal nature within us as a species to use cruelty for profit, we need to question fairly, the means and aims of historical figures and we need to remember that Slavery is simply the most extreme example of the strong taking advantage of the weak, a behaviour we see everyday in every level of society.

If we challenge this aspect of human nature , every time we see it, we can make a better world, making all the badness result in some good.
 
I think the " sending to their deaths" is the point, not wether they were conscript or volunteers( of which there were many in WWI).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top