Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

I already did answer. I said perhaps.

Not much of an answer in fairness.

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not much of an answer in fairness.

It was an answer, however, which is more than I've got to my question which I've asked numerous times.

In fact, the only person who hasn't simply avoided it was Joe40.

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

It was an answer, however, which is more than I've got to my question which I've asked numerous times.

In fact, the only person who hasn't simply avoided it was Joe40.

As I said, answer my question and I'll answer yours. Otherwise, you can take "Perhaps" as my answer.

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

Take each one on its merits. It shouldn't be that difficult. Most statues of monuments are not in any way controversial.

Maybe a statue is just to a royal person so you could maybe argue the position is honoured/ remembered not just the individual.

What merits would they be though?

Why does George Washington get away with owning slaves? But Colston gets pulled down for selling them?

How does one balance such things?

Every monarch in England benefited in some way from the money made from slaves and the subjugation of other peoples and nations.

Why do their statues get to stay up?

Tony EH

shaveAbullock wrote: »

You might want to research that.

:pac:

That I do.

Bannasidhe

Tony EH wrote: »

You're making a case for it though. So where does one stop? Do we knock down the Pyramids, which were built on the backs of slaves?

Or are they ok?

Where's the line drawn?

Everyone wants to avoid that particular question.

May I say I find it quite ironic that a person who claims people will see a statue and learn about the subject via google fails to search in a thread they are writing in to see if the particular whataboutery comment they are about to make has been made before.

And addressed.

Several times.

Tony EH

Bannasidhe wrote: »

May I say I find it quite ironic that a person who claims people will see a statue and learn about the subject via google fails to search in a thread they are writing in to see if the particular whataboutery comment they are about to make has been made before.

And addressed.

Several times.

You can.

Alrigghtythen

Tony EH wrote: »

You're making a case for it though. So where does one stop? Do we knock down the Pyramids, which were built on the backs of slaves?

Or are they ok?

Where's the line drawn?

Everyone wants to avoid that particular question.

We're only interested in the 17th century

jmayo

seenitall wrote: »

Isn't low IQ also something someone has through no fault of their own?

Yeah but why do some feel the need to practice their stupidity.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In 1985 the Turkish authorities named the site of the landings at Gallipoli 'Anzac Cove' in memory of the Australian and New Zealand troops. In response the Australian govt erected a memorial to Ataturk with a garden that commemorates both sides directly opposite the Australian War Memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_Memorial,_Canberra

Well weren't they great.
It's a pity though they have continously refused to recognise their own genocide. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And didn't the Irish govt include the names of all who died in the War of Independence on a memorial wall...
https://www.thejournal.ie/1916-wall-aberration-2692975-Apr2016/

Very questionable according to quite a lot of Irish people.
See recent controversy about recognising RIC dead.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is a memorial in Santander in Spain to both sides in the Civil War.

Memorial Day in the US is dedicated to the fallen of both sides in their Civil War.

So it's happened.

Ehh you do know what a civil war is ?
A lot of times after a civil war people try to build bridges to reconcile a country.

jmayo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Absolutely. The Germans have done this ages ago but the Brits just paper mached over it flag waving, jingoism and "Keep calm and carry on". Their sense of their own history seems to be abysmally lacking.

No apologist for the Brits, but the Japanese, the Turks, The French, The Romanians haven't been exactly great at owning up to their sordid recent past.
Maybe next time you are chatting to a Romanian ask them about Odessa.

paw patrol wrote: »

These fools (and some here) are just idiots , judging the past on the morals and standards of today. The first lesson I learned in history was not to judge.

why not ban Islam? your man owned slaves...traded in them too. why not burn a mosque down for the feel good factor?

Oh man I want to see that.
Just imagine all these hip protestors lecturing some muslims coming out of a mosque about what himself did.
Fecking hell I would buy tickets to that.

Alrigghtythen

jmayo wrote: »

No apologist for the Brits, but the Japanese, the Turks, The French, The Romanians haven't been exactly great at owning up to their sordid recent past.
Maybe next time you are chatting to a Romanian ask them about Odessa.



Oh man I want to see that.
Just imagine all these hip protestors lecturing some muslims coming out of a mosque about what himself did.
Fecking hell I would buy tickets to that.

I'll get the popcorn

Bannasidhe

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah but why do some feel the need to practice their stupidity.



Well weren't they great.
It's a pity though they have continously refused to recognise their own genocide. :rolleyes:



Very questionable according to quite a lot of Irish people.
See recent controversy about recognising RIC dead.



Ehh you do know what a civil war is ?
A lot of times after a civil war people try to build bridges to reconcile a country.

I agree the Turks have some serious serious work to do, as do the Australians. That doesn't take from the fact that two combatants in a world war recognises the fallen on both sides.

Civil wars are often more vicious than wars with external enemies, if both sides can recognise each suffered than surely it can be done under other circumstances?
The sheer fact that 100 years later there is such controversy in Ireland shows how entrenched some views still are .

Point is- there are examples of both sides in a conflict being recognised in the same memorial, an idea you scoffed at as impossible.

jmayo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree the Turks have some serious serious work to do, as do the Australians. That doesn't take from the fact that two combatants in a world war recognises the fallen on both sides.

Civil wars are often more vicious than wars with external enemies, if both sides can recognise each suffered than surely it can be done under other circumstances?
The sheer fact that 100 years later there is such controversy in Ireland shows how entrenched some views still are .

Point is- there are examples of both sides in a conflict being recognised in the same memorial, an idea you scoffed at as impossible.

Brilliant you have found a few instances of joint memorials out of the thousands of conflicts and battles with memorials.

Are there many memorials from WWII jointly remembering both sets of combatants ?
How many memorials of WWI remember both sides ?

And yes civil wars are bitter, but because it is the one country, the one state, the one people they do have to end up living together.

Oh and that Spanish memorial you mentioned, I bet only came into being in the 70s after Franco popped his clogs and there was real move to unite the people in a new democracy.

I despair of this new inclusivity cr** that is pedaled.
We can't have a memorial to our dead unless we include those from the other side.

Bannasidhe

jmayo wrote: »

Brilliant you have found a few instances of joint memorials out of the thousands of conflicts and battles with memorials.

Are there many memorials from WWII jointly remembering both sets of combatants ?
How many memorials of WWI remember both sides ?

And yes civil wars are bitter, but because it is the one country, the one state, the one people they do have to end up living together.

Oh and that Spanish memorial you mentioned, I bet only came into being in the 70s after Franco popped his clogs and there was real move to unite the people in a new democracy.

I despair of this new inclusivity cr** that is pedaled.
We can't have a memorial to our dead unless we include those from the other side.
It is akin to the cr** in schools or sports that all kids are winners.

Jayzuz lad - you scoffed at the idea of it ever happening.

It happened.

What you or I think about it matters not a bit.
Let it go and we can all move on in a thread that is already going in enough circles.

4068ac1elhodqr

jmayo wrote: »

Oh man I want to see that.
Just imagine all these hip protestors lecturing some muslims coming out of a mosque about what himself did.
Fecking hell I would buy tickets to that.

If it was a throng of females presenting this good talking to, I'd talk along a foldable chair, and much upgraded size of popcorn.

shaveAbullock

Maybe this is why you can't have visual depictions of Muhammad?
No statue no problem...

Alrigghtythen

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Maybe this is why you can't have visual depictions of Muhammad?
No statue no problem...

He had slaves. We dont want statues to people who had slaves or idolise them.

shaveAbullock

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

He had slaves. We dont want statues to people who had slaves or idolise them.

That's my point, it is forbidden to make visual depictions of Muhammad.
Islam was well ahead of the game with that one.

robinph

jmayo wrote: »

How many memorials of WWI remember both sides ?

Dunno, but I visited a WW1 site in France last year that covered both sides of the conflict, the French and German graveyards next to each other and the original trench networks from both sides could be walked around.

Certainly didn't get the impression from any of the sites around the area from either WW1 or 2 that anyone was claiming victory over another side.

y0ssar1an22

Tony EH wrote: »

What merits would they be though?

Why does George Washington get away with owning slaves? But Colston gets pulled down for selling them?

How does one balance such things?

Every monarch in England benefited in some way from the money made from slaves and the subjugation of other peoples and nations.

Why do their statues get to stay up?

this is the reason i dont know where i stand on this debate, and am struggling to define it for myself.

what if i was to say to you, lets put a hitler statue up in berlin. would you support that? or, if you want; if there was a statue of Hitler still standing, would you support that being taken down?

i'm not having a dig here, i'm just trying to figure out my own stance, which i'm confused about

4068ac1elhodqr

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

this is the reason i dont know where i stand on this debate, and am struggling to define it for myself.

what if i was to say to you, lets put a hitler statue up in berlin. would you support that? or, if you want; if there was a statue of Hitler still standing, would you support that being taken down?

i'm not having a dig here, i'm just trying to figure out my own stance, which i'm confused about

Be guided by the insta-tweet-book likes and clicks, that seems to be the default. Or if you're a big corprate, by the amount of tea bags or other FMCG/service sales or service takeup, after a recourring pre-defined sales period evaluation.

Yellow_Fern

Anti-racism campaigners in the UK want to tear down the statue of the man who ended slavery in the UK

A new website, Topple the Racists, which lists statues that they believe should be destroyed is being heavily promoted by left-wing figures in the UK.
It appears that those creating the website have been somewhat overzealous when creating the list and have included a monument to former British Prime Minister Charles Grey, whose government outlawed slavery, as one of those they wish to see destroyed. The website does note that Grey “was Prime Minister was abolished” but seems to take issue to the lack of reparations paid to black slaves by his government. The website also calls for a statue of former British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel to be torn down, saying that he campaigned against the Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill. Former British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel did not campaign against that bill, it was in fact his father, also called Robert Peel, who campaigned against it. Peel is instead known for having created the first modern police force. The website says that “We believe these statues and other memorials to slave-owners and colonialists need to be removed so that Britain can finally face the truth about its past – and how it shapes our present.”

On the Q&A section of their website they said that what they want is “to promote debate” and that “it’s up to local communities to decide what statues they want in their local areas. We hope the map aids these much-needed dialogues.” The website is a project of the Stop Trump Coalition “in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and the topplers of Edward Colston.”

Anti-racism campaigners in the UK want to tear down the statue of the man who ended slavery in the UK

da_miser

Should not remove a single one of them, they should stand as reminder of a time when people did wrong, to remove them is to erase the story behind them. We must remember the bad times so we aspire to create good times.
Imagine 200 years from now, no one has any idea of evil people in the past because all "problematic" people have been erased from history.
What happens when a Bad person rises to prominence , future generations would have no history to fall back on to advise in how to defeat them.
We must learn from our mistakes and try not repeat them, so who/why wants to erase them, and to what ends?

Yellow_Fern

da_miser wrote: »

Should not remove a single one of them, they should stand as reminder of a time when people did wrong, to remove them is to erase the story behind them. We must remember the bad times so we aspire to create good times.
Imagine 200 years from now, no one has any idea of evil people in the past because all "problematic" people have been erased from history.
What happens when a Bad person rises to prominence , future generations would have no history to fall back on to advise in how to defeat them.
We must learn from our mistakes and try not repeat them, so who/why wants to erase them, and to what ends?

Must Columbia rename itself? How does that work?

Junkyard Tom

da_miser wrote: »

Should not remove a single one of them, they should stand as reminder of a time when people did wrong, to remove them is to erase the story behind them. We must remember the bad times so we aspire to create good times.
Imagine 200 years from now, no one has any idea of evil people in the past because all "problematic" people have been erased from history.
What happens when a Bad person rises to prominence , future generations would have no history to fall back on to advise in how to defeat them.
We must learn from our mistakes and try not repeat them, so who/why wants to erase them, and to what ends?

Hitler.

FrancieBrady

da_miser wrote: »

Should not remove a single one of them, they should stand as reminder of a time when people did wrong, to remove them is to erase the story behind them. We must remember the bad times so we aspire to create good times.
Imagine 200 years from now, no one has any idea of evil people in the past because all "problematic" people have been erased from history.
What happens when a Bad person rises to prominence , future generations would have no history to fall back on to advise in how to defeat them.
We must learn from our mistakes and try not repeat them, so who/why wants to erase them, and to what ends?

So we have to put up statues to current people who do the wrong thing...in case we forget them?

This man and men like him and what they did are not being erased...the vulgar celebration of them is being erased.

da_miser

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Must Columbia rename itself? How does that work?

Whats a sports wear clothing brand got to do with it?

da_miser

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Hitler.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So we have to put up statues to current people who do the wrong thing...in case we forget them?

This man and men like him and what they did are not being erased...the vulgar celebration of them is being erased.

Keep them as a constant reminder to what will happen if we let evil grow.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
If we dont know of the evil men, how will we know it is happening in front of us and make moves to stop it?

Yellow_Fern

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

this is the reason i dont know where i stand on this debate, and am struggling to define it for myself.

what if i was to say to you, lets put a hitler statue up in berlin. would you support that? or, if you want; if there was a statue of Hitler still standing, would you support that being taken down?

i'm not having a dig here, i'm just trying to figure out my own stance, which i'm confused about

The reason people would object to erecting a statue of Hitler is that there is a very real group of people who idolise his evil, and because he represents our society's bench mark of what evil is, so your motives would be suspect. People who celebrate Columbus day are not rejoicing that millions died from smallpox. They see him as a human with strengths and weaknesses who changed world history. While Hitler statues might become skinhead shrines, Colston statues are historical oddities. So it is not fair to use the example of Hitler because no real life example is similar.

1800_Ladladlad

A statue of the founder of the Scout movement, Robert Baden-Powell, was supposed to be removed today after police advised Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council after they were made aware of the statue was featured on a website detailing potential targets for anti-racism protesters. When they came to remove it, the locals stopped them. Powell is accused of being a Nazi sympathizer. Its was Hitler that replaced the scouts with the Hitler Youth and basically told Powel to fcuk off