Removing statues is it right or wrong

One argument I keep seeing on Facebook/Twitter is "this is our history, they need to stay up as a reminder". But the argument itself is entirely ad hominem.

Firstly, people didn't take day trips to Bristol to visit the statue of Colston. It didn't serve any educational point as the statue didn't say anything about his slave trading. Neither did Milligans statue taken down in London. If there was a true desire to educate people on our slaving history, then these people screaming about keeping statues would also be lobbying the government to ensure our slaving history is prominent on the national curriculum. Of course these people are not lobbying for that, because it's not the reason they want the statues to remain.

Secondly, a statue isn't in itself history. Colstons was 120 years old, 1,000s of people have watches, tables and cameras older than that. Colston is a prominent figure in the history of Bristol but a statue of him is no more history than a t-shirt of him, or a mug with him on. I've seen people saying the pyramids and colosseum should come down, because of slavery. But they are actual historical sites, 2,000 years old not 120 and they are the actual sites, rather than a replica of a person.

I believe most of the people using this history/education argument are doing so because they see the removal of the statues as a 'victory for the left' and that enrages them. I don't even think it's because they are racists, although, undoubtedly some of them will be.
 
I don't even they thought of it as 'racist' , just an opportunity to make money.

Still leaves an angry taste for most. Ignorence surely cant be held in defence.
 
Muttley said:
Simon Clarke MP for Middlesbrough and East Cleveland just made a complete arsh of himself on Twitter, trying to justify the retention of statues like the one of Colston...

" it’s precisely because Germany has bravely confronted her past that Auschwitz still stands as a memorial of man’s inhumanity to man."

Oh dear...

1. Firstly Auschwitz is in Poland so nothing to do with Germany

2. It is there as a memorial to those killed, the victims NOT the SS Guards, Heinrich Himmler or Adolf hitler

FFS
Click to expand...
3. Auschwitz IS history, a statue of a historical figure ISN't history in itself.

4. A representation of a person isn't the same as building. A better, more relevant comparison would be Germany retaining statues of Rudolf Höss....I don't believe there are any.
 
This is a great debate and for me always comes down to this question “where do you draw the line?”

Interesting debate on ITV just now and the question of Nelson Mandela came up. There is no debate in his early days he was linked to and a members of terrorist groups - question was should we then be pulling down statues of him?

they seemed to conclude that it’s the overall contribution of the person - so they were in agreement that the Coulson statue came down as he was primarily known for his slaving past but Nelson Mandela could stay based on the good he had done.
 
statues are erected normally to celebrate the life of the person. if that person is responsable for some of the worst atrocities in history then we should remove it.
"hey dad whos that man in the statue? oh he bought and sold people as a commodity and thousands of them were just thrown overboard when they became sick in transit, oh and we think thats a good thing to do dad? "
 
FatCat said:
This is a great debate and for me always comes down to this question “where do you draw the line?”

Interesting debate on ITV just now and the question of Nelson Mandela came up. There is no debate in his early days he was linked to and a members of terrorist groups - question was should we then be pulling down statues of him?

they seemed to conclude that it’s the overall contribution of the person - so they were in agreement that the Coulson statue came down as he was primarily known for his slaving past but Nelson Mandela could stay based on the good he had done.
Click to expand...
I thought Mandela lived in one of the most racist countries in modern times where Black people were considered sub-human and not fit to stand next to a white person? So who were the terrorists?
 
Removing statues to people who profited from slavery is clearly the right thing to do. Allowing mobs to tear down the statues is clearly not the right thing to do.

And debates about the merits of celebrated people should reflect that they lived in different times, and judgment on somebody who died 300 years ago should not be based on the way we see the world in 2020.
 
BoroMart said:
3. Auschwitz IS history, a statue of a historical figure ISN't history in itself.

4. A representation of a person isn't the same as building. A better, more relevant comparison would be Germany retaining statues of Rudolf Höss....I don't believe there are any.
Click to expand...

Rudolf Höss is a very interesting example to quote. Of course there wouldn't be a statue to his memory anywhere, and neither should there be. But of all the prominent Nazis in the Hitler regime, he was one of only a small handful to openly acknowledge the magnitude of his crime, to accept the cause was entirely wrong, and to apologise to the victims of Nazism. The overwhelming majority of the WWII Nazis went to their graves believing the cause was right and not accepting their guilt.
 
bear66 said:
I thought Mandela lived in one of the most racist countries in modern times where Black people were considered sub-human and not fit to stand next to a white person? So who were the terrorists?
Click to expand...
It’s like anything Bear - both points are true - doesn’t make the terrorist group anc the military arm of which I believe Mandella headed up as right to use bombs. But I can also agree that the country and its leaders at the time were an absolute disgrace and racist to the core. I’m just using the Mandela point to trigger the debate and I personally keep coming back to where do you draw the line - I don’t have the answers :)
 
Statues & monuments glorifying people without even mentioning their slave trader past are - long - overdue a correction, at least. TBH I'd like them removed from prominent positions & glorified plinths to museums where a balanced history can inform.. not the one eyed hype & glory that is presented currently..
 
I had no idea there were statues commemorating slave traders. They should have been pulled down decades ago if not longer, and probably never erected.
In some dark corner of a museum all the facts stated. You can't erase history. But you definitely don't glorify what is basicly evil.
 
FatCat said:
It’s like anything Bear - both points are true - doesn’t make the terrorist group anc the military arm of which I believe Mandella headed up as right to use bombs. But I can also agree that the country and its leaders at the time were an absolute disgrace and racist to the core. I’m just using the Mandela point to trigger the debate and I personally keep coming back to where do you draw the line - I don’t have the answers :)
Click to expand...
I personally don't agree with non peaceful activism but I can understand why people in the middle of oppression see no other way out of their misery.

There will always be a line, but either side of that line there will be those for and against the proposals. It's said that democracy is the way to solve these issues, but we have a poor means of democratically deciding anything. Democratic institutions listening to citizens' assemblies have solved tricky issues in the past.
 
FatCat said:
This is a great debate and for me always comes down to this question “where do you draw the line?”

Interesting debate on ITV just now and the question of Nelson Mandela came up. There is no debate in his early days he was linked to and a members of terrorist groups
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line, well I draw it at a minimum at racism

Nelson Mandela, terrorist?! Yup, I've heard that a lot recently, that's a lazy and ad hominem argument. When the Germans invaded France we didn't call the French resistance terrorists. Africa was oppressed by white colonialists, and worse still the laws made them second class citizens. Mandela may have been linked to direct physical action, but the reality is they didn't have a means for democratically voting out the government and its oppressive, degrading and illegal policies. They were denied the vote. They were enslaved, in an oppressive undemocratic country, much like the French Resistance couldn't vote out the German Nazi's. The Britain First types that repeat this Mandela was a terrorist crap, are also the ones that talk about how Britain would have been subjugated by a foreign invader in Germany had Churchill not been our leader. They lack the intellect to see the correlation between what they feared (a foreign occupancy) and what the black south africans actually endured (foreign occupancy).
 
BoroMart said:
Where do you draw the line, well I draw it at a minimum at racism

Nelson Mandela, terrorist?! Yup, I've heard that a lot recently, that's a lazy and ad hominem argument. When the Germans invaded France we didn't call the French resistance terrorists. Africa was oppressed by white colonialists, and worse still the laws made them second class citizens. Mandela may have been linked to direct physical action, but the reality is they didn't have a means for democratically voting out of the government and its policies. They were denied the vote. They were enslaved, in an oppressive undemocratic country, much like the French Resistance couldn't vote out the German Nazi's. The Britain First types that repeat this Mandela was a terrorist crap, are also the ones that talk about how Britain would have been subjugated by a foreign invader in Germany had Churchill not been our leader. They lack the intellect to see the correlation between what they feared (a foreign occupancy) and what the black south africans actually endured (foreign occupancy.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly put!
 
talking of statues of 'great' people.... led me to find: Fight The Power, Public Enemy.. & his Elvis was a racist "simple & plain" line.. which led me to seek out why he'd been assigned that label: falsely (snopes), it would seem.

Other iconic musicians views highlight the view of their time.. & get little coverage, Eric Claptons reported rant, live on stage.. wow..

Elvis, Beatles, Costello, Stones & Clapton, https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-truth-about-elvis-and-the-history-of-racism-in-rock

Elvis, Snopes - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shine-my-shoes/

Fight The Power - (song from 1:13)
 
EI_Owen said:
Brilliantly put!
Click to expand...
And I guess that’s the debate if someone was racist let’s use Churchill as the example - but he also did many good things - are you saying that you personally think his statue should come down?
I’m not Britain First but I like the Mandella argument as it highlights the point - does someone who has done bad things in their life deserve the accolades because they have also done great things.
 
Another question that may need answering soon is when do people move on from removing statues to removing books and artwork? Even worst case scenario removing people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top