Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Christy42

BloodyBill wrote: »

Rommels reputation is intact because he was an outstandingly successful and brave commander. That's his military reputation. Outside of that I dont know much about him. He wasnt a Nazi .

Certainly he was a brilliant commander. However that is well known because the allies honoured him as such. I doubt they would have been so kind if he hadn't been killed for a plot to kill Hitler and would have focused on other aspects. He was a man more than willing to fight for the nazis and people could have focused on that instead. You know he was a good commander because that is what you have been told as the tagline for the man. Another tsgline could have been widely used instead. It is not as he could be seen as a great and moral man.

Junkyard Tom

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Boris should have faced them down

How? Using harsh Latin?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Actually I think the Tories are taking far too much notice of the protests, not too little. Boris should have faced them down, instead of being so pussywhipped. The UK protests are about narratives, a US narrative that has no meaning in the UK, not injustice or genuine hardships. There is no case for systemic brutality or racism in the UK

What do you mean "faced them down"? Just ignored them or actively broken them up?

He can't really ignore them when the government is givign daily press conferences and the threat of forceibly breaking them up is what is losing Trump credibility in an election year (granted, this is not the US and not an election year in the UK, but he still has ro be careful).

ancapailldorcha

The council stared them down. Look how that turned out.

Yellow_Fern

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What do you mean "faced them down"? Just ignored them or actively broken them up?

He can't really ignore them when the government is givign daily press conferences and the threat of forceibly breaking them up is what is losing Trump credibility in an election year (granted, this is not the US and not an election year in the UK, but he still has ro be careful).

He should used the ample statistical evidence to show the UK is not a country that tolerates racism and that the likes of Churchill cannot be be associated with racism. He should not have implied as he did that people who defended statues are far right. He is a total pussycat. Macron took a strong stance and will be rewarded for it.

I don't believe for a second that you ever thought Trump was credible and I don't think UK has anything to do the US, and UK politicians who try to learns lessons from the US media are muppets.

Junkyard Tom

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Churchill cannot be be associated with racism.

Lol.

Yellow_Fern

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Lol.

I doubt very much yourself said less racist rhetoric in your life time to be honest. There is a huge amount of Churchill's comments and writings available but yet nearly all the only racist material he supposedly said was a 22 year old journalist in the 1890s.

Cupatae

Its great to see conversations like this that completely get rid of the mythical "white privilege" super power and the narrative that the "white Man is oppressing us!" and focus on the root cause of issues for alot of black communities problems.

Junkyard Tom

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I doubt very much yourself said less racist rhetoric in your life time to be honest.

You're a smorgasbord of ridiculous logical fallacies. False Equivalence. Even if I was a raging racist there are no statues to me and I'm not held up as a paragon of virtue, unlike Churchill.

There is a huge amount of Churchill's comments and writings available but yet nearly all the only racist material he supposedly said was a 22 year old journalist in the 1890s.

Leaving aside the inaccuracy you're now revising your statement 'Churchill cannot be be associated with racism'.

Do you do parties?

Cupatae

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I doubt very much yourself said less racist rhetoric in your life time to be honest. There is a huge amount of Churchill's comments and writings available but yet nearly all the only racist material he supposedly said was a 22 year old journalist in the 1890s.

He was racist, but the statue is to commend the saving of Britain in its darkest hour, not to celebrate him being racist.

But tearing down statues is for the knuckle draggers, like doing damage to any property its just a stupid waste of time.

Yellow_Fern

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're a smorgasbord of ridiculous logical fallacies. False Equivalence. Even if I was a raging racist there are no statues to me and I'm not held up as a paragon of virtue, unlike Churchill.



Leaving aside the inaccuracy you're now revising your statement 'Churchill cannot be be associated with racism'.

Do you do parties?

Lay the ground to show that he had consistently racist views to be classed as racist? Who said Churchill is a paragon of virtue? Biopics always include his flaws.

satguy

All statues of people that rounded men and women up, and sent them off to forced labour should be removed.

Their familes / descendants should be rounded and made pay recompense.

Junkyard Tom

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Lay the ground to show that he had consistently racist views to be classed as racist?

No. You claimed that 'Churchill cannot be associated with racism'. That has been dismissed by yourself. Don't try to move the goalposts.

Two things I've taught myself to do in these sorts of debates. 1. Don't play defence. 2. Try not to focus on individuals.

Number one is what you're trying to do above: make me play defence when you're the one having to deal with a return. No.

Who said Churchill is a paragon of virtue?

Building statues of people in highly visible public places tends to do that.

mick087

Cupatae wrote: »

Its great to see conversations like this that completely get rid of the mythical "white privilege" super power and the narrative that the "white Man is oppressing us!" and focus on the root cause of issues for alot of black communities problems.

No such thing as white privilege.

Its wealth privilege.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

He should used the ample statistical evidence to show the UK is not a country that tolerates racism and that the likes of Churchill cannot be be associated with racism. He should not have implied as he did that people who defended statues are far right. He is a total pussycat. Macron took a strong stance and will be rewarded for it.

ONce again: Johnson IS racist. SO was Churchill.

Sounds a bit like an aclcoholic in denial.

I don't believe for a second that you ever thought Trump was credible and I don't think UK has anything to do the US, and UK politicians who try to learns lessons from the US media are muppets.

I'm just going on the opinon pollls that have his numbers dropping as soon as a result of him threatening peaceful protests.

They have to pay attention. They have to listen - or at least be seen to be listening.

NIMAN

Cupatae wrote: »

Its great to see conversations like this that completely get rid of the mythical "white privilege" super power and the narrative that the "white Man is oppressing us!" and focus on the root cause of issues for alot of black communities problems.

Seen that a few years ago.
The black fella in that clip is spot on. He came from a poor background, single parent family. Said he made some bad choices but joined the military and now he is in college.

He's basically saying if you want to make something of your life, the options are there.

I think the ones who are angry, rioting, always moaning are the ones who couldn't be bothered to try to improve their lives and find it easier to blame someone else for their failings.

It was good to hear the Asian chat too, as they are such high achievers. You'd rarely hear Asians complain about white privilege.

Cupatae

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No. You claimed that 'Churchill cannot be associated with racism'. That has been dismissed by yourself. Don't try to move the goalposts.

Two things I've taught myself to do in these sorts of debates. 1. Don't play defence. 2. Try not to focus on individuals.

Number one is what you're trying to do above: make me play defence when you're the one having to deal with a return. No.



Building statues of people in highly visible public places tends to do that.

Its a statue of a man that stood up to hitler, and help his nation in its worst hour...

Nobody is denying that he was racist, but nobody is using that statue to celebrate racism either.

Where do you draw the line with this nonsense.

Junkyard Tom

Cupatae wrote: »

Its a statue of a man that stood up to hitler, and help his nation in its worst hour...

2. Don't focus on individuals.

One of the things that perplexes me about British people (people in general I suppose) is how much credit they give Churchill and how little they give themselves.

As someone once said [paraphrasing], Churchill knew a thug when he saw one and understood that Hitler was a bigger, more dangerous, one than himself.

Yellow_Fern

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No. You claimed that 'Churchill cannot be associated with racism'. That has been dismissed by yourself. Don't try to move the goalposts.

Two things I've taught myself to do in these sorts of debates. 1. Don't play defence. 2. Try not to focus on individuals.

Number one is what you're trying to do above: make me play defence when you're the one having to deal with a return. No.



Building statues of people in highly visible public places tends to do that.

People are complex figures. When I say associate with racism, I refer to the public narrative of the person's role. I think everyone has said racist things a few times in their lives, especially in the 1890s. So I abhor the idea that it is used to define him. Ironically one of the offensive comments Churchill said was uttered in defence of indigenous peoples rights. We have statues of Terry Wogan, Phil Lynott, Luke Kelly and Joe Dolan. Is the Molly Malone statue an endorsement of whorism? Who thinks these people were paragons of virtue?

Junkyard Tom

NIMAN wrote: »

The black fella in that clip is spot on.

Don't focus on individuals.

You don't chose one tree out of a forest to judge the forest's overall health.

Yellow_Fern

Given Gandhi's comments on blacks, should we remove his bust in Dublin? I apply the same standard on Gandhi as Churchill and I don't consider him a racist. It just seems that the attack on Churchill is less about the man and more about a postmodernist effort of destructing the British identity and patriotism. I think its bad history and a recipe for civic disharmony. I might be an proud Irish republican but I want my neighbours to be happy proud people too.

Cupatae

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

2. Don't focus on individuals.

One of the things that perplexes me about British people (people in general I suppose) is how much credit they give Churchill and how little they give themselves.

As someone once said [paraphrasing], Churchill knew a thug when he saw one and understood that Hitler was a bigger, more dangerous, one than himself.

Honestly i dont follow ur nonsense rules, i prefer to go with common sense, and if the individual is making a compelling argument about the bigger picture with proof then i go with that.

But your whole "rule" thing has a very deflective vibe to it... you dont want to get into specifics just keep vague arguments going.

kowloon

I'm all for sticking plaques under a statue to explain what it's all about or moving them to a park that could have displays putting it all into historical context, but just pulling them all down is vandalism and councils shouldn't have to fish them out of a pond every time someone finds them offensive. Buuut, the idea that the statue represents only the good things the person did and not the person in total could be easily tested by sticking up a statue of Gary Glitter and saying it represents only his music, or Jimmy Saville for his philanthropy.

Cupatae

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Given Gandhi's comments on blacks, should we remove his bust in Dublin? I apply the same standard on Gandhi as Churchill and I don't consider him a racist. It just seems that the attack on Churchill is less about the man and more about a postmodernist effort of destructing the British identity and patriotism. I think its bad history and a recipe for civic disharmony. I might be an proud Irish republican but I want my neighbours to be happy proud people too.

What people are trying to do is apply 2020 society standards onto people of the past, and it simply wont work those were vastly different times.

Junkyard Tom

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

a postmodernist effort of destructing the British identity and patriotism.

Jordan Peterson? PoMoNeoMarxo? Oh no!

Cupatae

kowloon wrote: »

I'm all for sticking plaques under a statue to explain what it's all about or moving them to a park that could have displays putting it all into historical context, but just pulling them all down is vandalism and councils shouldn't have to fish them out of a pond every time someone finds them offensive. Buuut, the idea that the statue represents only the good things the person did and not the person in total could be easily tested by sticking up a statue of Gary Glitter and saying it represents only his music, or Jimmy Saville for his philanthropy.

Do you think thats comparable? What Churchill did for his nation in ww2 and what Jimmy saville?

Do you honestly thing Churchill statue was put up to celebrate and commemorate racism?

Achebe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8okZOYOQw&t=2s

Cupatae

Can we tear down any Malcolm X statue we come across, because he was involved in drug dealing and prostitution rackets ? Or how does this outrage work is there a set criteria the SJW have came up with it? Can you see now how ridiculous it is tearing down statues?

Tony EH

Christy42 wrote: »

Certainly he was a brilliant commander. However that is well known because the allies honoured him as such. I doubt they would have been so kind if he hadn't been killed for a plot to kill Hitler and would have focused on other aspects. He was a man more than willing to fight for the nazis and people could have focused on that instead. You know he was a good commander because that is what you have been told as the tagline for the man. Another tsgline could have been widely used instead. It is not as he could be seen as a great and moral man.

There's a vast difference to fighting for one's country and fighting for the government of the day, who you may or may not agree with in part of in whole.

As for Rommel's reputation, that was sealed by the British and their admiration for his use of the limited forces he had in North Africa. Long before his connection to any of the July plotters, Rommel had had a very good name, mainly to do with the fact that he was giving the British a bloody nose, despite being vastly outnumbered in men and material. In fact the Afrika Korps reputation, as a whole, comes from a British point of view.

So, while his tenuous links to Staufenberg's group might have given him a little extra kudos among post war allies, his "good" repute was already there.

I have no doubt, however, that efforts would have been made to sully his name at Nuremberg, had he survived the war.

Christy42

Tony EH wrote: »

There's a vast difference to fighting for one's country and fighting for the government of the day, who you may or may not agree with in part of in whole.

As for Rommel's reputation, that was sealed by the British and their admiration for his use of the limited forces he had in North Africa. Long before his connection to any of the July plotters, Rommel had had a very good name, mainly to do with the fact that he was giving the British a bloody nose, despite being vastly outnumbered in men and material. In fact the Afrika Korps reputation, as a whole, comes from a British point of view.

So, while his tenuous links to Staufenberg's group might have given him a little extra kudos among post war allies, his "good" repute was already there.

I have no doubt, however, that efforts would have been made to sully his name at Nuremberg, had he survived the war.

I think the nazis are a little different than just preferring Sinn Féin to Fine Gael...

I mean there is a difference between ignoring human rights abuses on a massive scale and simply disagreeing with someone's tax policy.

I reckon had he survived his reputation of a great general would have remained but more would have been made of his indifference to abuse. And that is something that should get brought up more. I can't exactly call him a man of strong moral character so I don't think it is sullying his name. He was simply never judged as he was seen as an enemy of Hitler at the end (incorrectly).