Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

mick087

Achebe wrote: »

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

Nice well precented but not a both sides presentation.

CrankyHaus

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Which was overrated, and based in large part on extremely lucky access to Signals Intelligence that at the time surpassed even the value of Ultra (locally but not strategically) to his opponents. When this Signals Intelligence dried up; he started losing.

"The Desert Fox’s change of fortune came with the double loss of Fellers’ cables and Seeböhm’s expertise. The Axis divisions, virtually ignorant of what was transpiring on the other side of the lines, threw themselves against the Allied defenses from July to early September without success. Then on October 23, 1942, to the thunder of a thousand cannons, Montgomery, aided by information from an improved and more efficient Ultra staff, began the offensive that pushed the surprised Afrika Korps back for the last time. As one historian noted, the Fellers intercepts had ‘provided Rommel with undoubtedly the broadest and clearest picture of enemy forces and intentions available to any Axis commander throughout the war.’"

https://www.historynet.com/intercepted-communications-for-field-marshal-erwin-rommel.htm

His performance in France, both 1940 and 1944, was good but never matched the reputation the British built up about him.

Tony EH

Christy42 wrote: »

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

An army has no choice in where it's sent to fight or by whom and that goes for Germans who fought in the Wehrmacht in WWII as well. When you fight, you fight for the country that's called you up and that was especially true in earlier part of the 20th Century.

Christy42 wrote: »

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).

This implies, unfairly in my opinion, that he was in a position to do anything about it. I think we often sit in judgement of the Germans, Army Generals or whomever, using terribly unfair and unrealistic standards. Standards that they were in no real ability to live up to during a war where there were numerous countries that were lined up to destroy them.

A situation like that would allow many people to turn a blind eye or not want to know about the sins their own country are engaged in.

Over my years of studying the war, I've found that many people on all sides, military and civilian, contented themselves on what they believed, rather than what they heard or saw, because the vast, vast, majority of people were carried along by events that were absolutely out of their control.

Tony EH

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Which was overrated

Absolutely.

Rommel was a great corps commander. But showed some serious short comings above that level. He was also very good at his own self promotion, which he engaged in with aplomb.

But, like everyone else, he was a complex individual. Certainly not the simple caricature that's created for him, a lot of which can be traced back to Desmond Young.

Cupatae

They tear down statues and do this sort of stuff in the name of equality I'm sorry if your white and support this stuff there's something seriously wrong..

This is what I imagine the staunch supporters of BLM on boards are like... It's honest to God the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

https://youtu.be/HMSTDsMXoD8

Yellow_Fern

Statues of St. Junípero Serra, Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key torn last night. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/demonstrators-topple-statues-in-san-franciscos-golden-gate-park/2312839/

malinheader

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Statues of St. Junípero Serra, Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key torn last night. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/demonstrators-topple-statues-in-san-franciscos-golden-gate-park/2312839/

This is not protesting or making any kind of statement only that they are a crowd of knuckledraggers. Maybe a bit of shopping done too.

mick087

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Statues of St. Junípero Serra, Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key torn last night. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/demonstrators-topple-statues-in-san-franciscos-golden-gate-park/2312839/

No law enforcement tried to stop this it seems.

Fr Tod Umptious

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Statues of St. Junro Serra, Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key torn last night. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/demonstrators-topple-statues-in-san-franciscos-golden-gate-park/2312839/

Ulysses S. Grant.

I'm trying to figure that one.

Central figure in winning the Civil War for the union.
Went on to be president, although dogged with a corruption scandal later.

I know his wife's family owned slaves but I believe Grant freed them.

I don't see the reason for knocking down his statue.

Sure enough he may have been a man of his time that held views about blacks that today would be seen as racist, just like Lincoln did.

But I don't see the issue with him.

Or maybe this is just the mob on the rampage knowing full well the police have been told by the local Democratic party mayor not to intervene.

Christy42

Tony EH wrote: »

An army has no choice in where it's sent to fight or by whom and that goes for Germans who fought in the Wehrmacht in WWII as well. When you fight, you fight for the country that's called you up and that was especially true in earlier part of the 20th Century.



This implies, unfairly in my opinion, that he was in a position to do anything about it. I think we often sit in judgement of the Germans, Army Generals or whomever, using terribly unfair and unrealistic standards. Standards that they were in no real ability to live up to during a war where there were numerous countries that were lined up to destroy them.

A situation like that would allow many people to turn a blind eye or not want to know about the sins their own country are engaged in.

Over my years of studying the war, I've found that many people on all sides, military and civilian, contented themselves on what they believed, rather than what they heard or saw, because the vast, vast, majority of people were carried along by events that were absolutely out of their control.

Of course they had a choice. As did all those generals who fought for the right to own slaves in the US. Many scientists defected when they saw what was coming. Rommel was pretty senior, he would have had some idea even if he didn't know the worst of it.

I agree many are carried along by history but most people don't get statues. We should celebrate those with the capabilities to step above where history tried to drag them and record what others did for accuracies sake.

joe40

Cupatae wrote: »

They tear down statues and do this sort of stuff in the name of equality I'm sorry if your white and support this stuff there's something seriously wrong..

This is what I imagine the staunch supporters of BLM on boards are like... It's honest to God the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

https://youtu.be/HMSTDsMXoD8

What difference does been white have to do with it. I'm white and I fully support the removal of certain statues.

Removal of Nelson column for example. Was that wrong in your opinion?

na1

The title is amazing.
I suppose Edward Colston's statue was erected not for him being a slave trader?

Its the same as starting a thread: Serial convict George Floyd who assaulted a pregnant woman during armed robbery dies after police knelt on his neck

mick087

joe40 wrote: »

What difference does been white have to do with it. I'm white and I fully support the removal of certain statues.

Removal of Nelson column for example. Was that wrong in your opinion?

Nelson Colum was not removed.
It is claimed it was blown up by a guy who had been removed from the then IRA for recklessness.

joe40

mick087 wrote: »

Nelson Colum was not removed.
It is claimed it was blown up by a guy who had been removed from the then IRA for recklessness.

It was still taken down.
I'm just interested in how people here feel about that.

Especially the ones who seem idealogically opposed to removing any statues

mick087

joe40 wrote: »

It was still taken down.
I'm just interested in how people here feel about that.

Especially the ones who seem idealogically opposed to removing any statues

Some statues IMO should could be taken down yes.

Statues should not be blown up pulled down, but could be taken down if the locals and elected have decided this.

Locals and the elected must decide such matters, as bad as the elected can be they are there because people have used there most powerful tool the vote.

jackboy

joe40 wrote: »

It was still taken down.
I'm just interested in how people here feel about that.

Especially the ones who seem idealogically opposed to removing any statues

If it still existed I would be against removing it. A plaque or something could be placed near it communicating the controversy and issues with it. Better that people discuss these issues rather than destroying stuff.

It takes a mature society, secure in itself, to openly highlight dark events in its past.

Yellow_Fern

joe40 wrote: »

It was still taken down.
I'm just interested in how people here feel about that.

Especially the ones who seem idealogically opposed to removing any statues

As someone in favour of statues, I can say Nelson Column was much nicer than the Spire. It is on a kip of a street anyway. But anyway some statue moving is perfectly justifiable for decolonisation, so moving Nelson (respectfully after notifying the UK embassy) would have been ok but the lunatics in the US are at the stage where they are taking down statues of anti confederate generals and canonised saints.

Tony EH

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ulysses S. Grant.

I'm trying to figure that one.

Central figure in winning the Civil War for the union.
Went on to be president, although dogged with a corruption scandal later.

I know his wife's family owned slaves but I believe Grant freed them.

I don't see the reason for knocking down his statue.

Sure enough he may have been a man of his time that held views about blacks that today would be seen as racist, just like Lincoln did.

But I don't see the issue with him.

Or maybe this is just the mob on the rampage knowing full well the police have been told by the local Democratic party mayor not to intervene.

Slave owner.

Tony EH

Christy42 wrote: »

Of course they had a choice.

No they didn't. You sign up or are drafted into an army in those days, you had no choice on where you were sent. Choice didn't exist. So, you contented yourself with what you fight for and most cases that was to either just to stay alive or for your family.

In the case of many in the Wehrmacht, what were they to do? Write a strongly worded letter to their representative about abuses they saw or heard of? That wouldn't have gotten them very far. And in fact, there were lead officers who did write letters of complaint to their superiors in Berlin. all of which fell on deaf ears.

No, there was no luxury of choice involved here, especially when the war got going in earnest.

Added to that, their country (no matter who it was led by) was embroiled in a world war, in which their were numerous other nations ranged against them. You can't just choose take yourself out something like of that, doubly so when the leadership in your country can trump up charges of desertion against you pretty easily. And nobody in those days viewed conscientious objectors with anything but scorn, in any country.

It's all too easy for us to look back and say people had a "choice", but when you are in the actual situation, it's a very different story indeed. People today like to think that they'd do things differently. But they should ask themselves what they would really do, after they dispense with all the faux notions of honourable heroics.

The real answer is that you'd probably keep your head down, shut up and keep going, hoping that you and your loved ones will make it through to the end.

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

It was still taken down.
I'm just interested in how people here feel about that.

Especially the ones who seem idealogically opposed to removing any statues

Personally, if it was still there. I wouldn't have any problem with it. The same way I don't have an issue with Wellington's monument in the Phoenix Park.

Christy42

Tony EH wrote: »

No they didn't. You sign up or are drafted into an army in those days, you had no choice on where you were sent. Choice didn't exist. So, you contented yourself with what you fight for and most cases that was to either just to stay alive or for your family.

In the case of many in the Wehrmacht, what were they to do? Write a strongly worded letter to their representative about abuses they saw or heard of? That wouldn't have gotten them very far. And in fact, there were lead officers who did write letters of complaint to their superiors in Berlin. all of which fell on deaf ears.

No, there was no luxury of choice involved here, especially when the war got going in earnest.

Added to that, their country (no matter who it was led by) was embroiled in a world war, in which their were numerous other nations ranged against them. You can't just choose take yourself out something like of that, doubly so when the leadership in your country can trump up charges of desertion against you pretty easily. And nobody in those days viewed conscientious objectors with anything but scorn, in any country.

It's all too easy for us to look back and say people had a "choice", but when you are in the actual situation, it's a very different story indeed. People today like to think that they'd do things differently. But they should ask themselves what they would really do, after they dispense with all the faux notions of honourable heroics.

The real answer is that you'd probably keep your head down, shut up and keep going, hoping that you and your loved ones will make it through to the end.

I am not saying what I would do. I am unlikely to have a statue dedicated to myself at any point.

Of course it is a choice. Many people saw which way things were going and got out of there. I am not saying it was an easy choice nor that the majority would do so.

Yellow_Fern

Tony EH wrote: »

Slave owner.

He inherited one slave, whom it set free. Educate yourself.

Rodin

Mob rule is never right.

Tony EH

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

He inherited one slave, whom it set free. Educate yourself.

Are your sensitive feathers ruffled? :pac:

A poster asked what was the reason his statue was pulled down. Whether you like it or not, "slave owner" would be the reason that the people pulling down the statue will have given.

Tony EH

Christy42 wrote: »

I am not saying what I would do. I am unlikely to have a statue dedicated to myself at any point.

Of course it is a choice. Many people saw which way things were going and got out of there. I am not saying it was an easy choice nor that the majority would do so.

I'm not talking about statues being erected to anyone.

I am talking about realistic choices people have in an army, in the middle of nowhere, during a world war. In a situation like that, the ability to get "out of there" is practically nil, when your own army occupies a vast amount of territory and the rest is held by the enemy.

Choices become extremely limited extremely quickly when you are in certain circumstances.

Anyway, all this probably off topic at this stage.

2u2me

I heard this point on a video recently; but what do people think.

The very reason we give people statues and medals is because we venerate their accomplishments it's rarely because of their views or beliefs.

So in a way we use them to entice people to be heroic. No matter what bad you've done; if you do something heroic we'll give you a statue.

Imagine you had a convicted criminal just out of prison pass your burning house.
If he saved your house would you say "Look at this disgusting criminal, he deserves no praise?!"
Wouldn't this discourage future convicts from helping out whenever they pass a burning house?

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

I heard this point on a video recently; but what do people think.

The very reason we give people statues and medals is because we venerate their accomplishments it's rarely because of their views or beliefs.

So in a way we use them to entice people to be heroic. No matter what bad you've done; if you do something heroic we'll give you a statue.

Imagine you had a convicted criminal just out of prison pass your burning house.
If he saved your house would you say "Look at this disgusting criminal, he deserves no praise?!"
Wouldn't this discourage future convicts from helping out whenever they pass a burning house?

Interesting point of view,and worth considering before going headlong with the crowd think

But if their accomplishments are built on back of misery of others (like slave trading),are these then worth venerating??

Bit like lauding kinihans for being movers and shakers in boxing/MMA**,while.their wealth is built on backs of misery


**fwiw i believe most critism surronding them,to be entirely hypocritical,given the known coke habits/blind eye turned to coke takin by some of their loudest critics

is_that_so

Speaking of statues, the US education system leaves a lot to be desired. This is Cervantes!

https://twitter.com/dtdelalcazar/status/1274360807481126913

They also took out a statue of the lyricist of The Star Spangled Banner in SF.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/503685-protesters-tear-down-statues-of-union-general-ulysses-s-grant-national

Cupatae

joe40 wrote: »

What difference does been white have to do with it. I'm white and I fully support the removal of certain statues.

Removal of Nelson column for example. Was that wrong in your opinion?

Because it was all white people kneeling and chanting in a cult like manner to appease black people and to apologies for basically being white..in an ironic attempt to end racism... its absolutely pathetic.

Thats where we are as a society tho were tryna ban the likes of the coco pops monkey, tearing down statues to end racism, We literally seek out prejudice at this stage literally looking to find racism in anything... moral virtue junkies looking for a fix.

Its gone beyond pathetic at this stage..

joe40

Cupatae wrote: »

Because it was all white people kneeling and chanting in a cult like manner to appease black people and to apologies for basically being white..in an ironic attempt to end racism... its absolutely pathetic.

Thats where we are as a society tho were tryna ban the likes of the coco pops monkey, tearing down statues to end racism, We literally seek out prejudice at this stage literally looking to find racism in anything... moral virtue junkies looking for a fix.

Its gone beyond pathetic at this stage..

That just your opinion. Nobody is apologising for been white.

Take this analogy.
If a British person said to you, that they felt Britain's rule in Ireland made the famine worse and caused unneccesary death. A lot of Irish people would agree.

Is that British apologising to you for been British, is he trying to appease you.
No he's not, he is simply acknowledging history.

The kneeling as you well know was started by Colin Kapernick during the Anthem. It is not kneeling in deference to someone it is taking a knee in solidarity.

If Coco pops want to change their logo that will have very little affect on me.

You didn't answer the question about Nelson's column.