Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Hahaha.
Whole bunch of houses in my town that were finished in about 1930 that have the motif in the brick work - must have been "interesting" in the WW2 period. There was a tongue in cheek article a few months back pointing it out after one of the other self-righteous indignant outcries.
I just want to write "LOL", but I guess I should add a bit more.who else but the guardian said:
1. Who really becomes offended and actually "traumatised" over a statue of Nelson? I mean, really? If there is such a person, why would we take any notice of them?
2. The statues are meant to energise white supremacists? That's probably news to the people who commissioned and built them.
I fear some sort of collective insanity is engulfing the western world. I really, genuinely do.
That was actually the point of many of the US statues it's referring to. Commissioned by white supremacist groups, or by those supporting segregation, and as a means of white-glorification.
Applying that to Nelson is a bit more abstract - it's about glorification of a nation, not a tool to promote an ideal of 'white power' domestically.
You have to look at them from the perspective of those native Americans to understand it as best you can I guess. Now I don't know if Native Americans are actually offended by these statues or if there is some form of offense by proxy going on. Without wanting to evoke Godwins law, I suppose you could liken it to having a statue of a certain Austrian in Israel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,191
some nutter on Sky News yesterday saying that statue of Nelson should be taken down because of "bad things" in his past, might as well add the one of Mandela to that list too then
Except that Mandela is the darling of the left regarded as some kind of secular saint so some excuse will be found to excuse his actions. No sir, that ain't gonna happen.
Don't worry someone will find a reason. And we'll all be made to feel ashamed about it.
Given the history of our species as a whole, how many historical figures can you think of who are universally loved?
If we apply this logic then pretty much every statue would have to be taken down. Esp military ones. They may have fought for the UK (as it was), but they fought against someone, so someone (eg someone of Spanish/French descent) could find them offensive.
So let's tear down all of them.
e: Just to be clear, the base motivation was that "they cause offense". Some people may find displays of nationalism offensive.
The offence doesn't have to be from teh same source. The justification is that "they cause offence".
This sort of thing has been argued about in Bristol for ages now. Slowly the offended are winning and things are being moved or renamed.
Last big one was that they wanted to rename Colston Hall which was named after the street but obviously linked to Edward Colston.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ve-trade-past-from-colston-hall-to-penny-lane
Guess it won't be long until all traces of Colston are removed which would be a shame. It may be linked a horrible part of history but to wipe it out and forget it seems worse to me than keeping it as a reminder of our past (good and bad) so we continue to learn from it.
Last big one was that they wanted to rename Colston Hall which was named after the street but obviously linked to Edward Colston.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ve-trade-past-from-colston-hall-to-penny-lane
Guess it won't be long until all traces of Colston are removed which would be a shame. It may be linked a horrible part of history but to wipe it out and forget it seems worse to me than keeping it as a reminder of our past (good and bad) so we continue to learn from it.
Did you read the opinion piece that spawned this thread? It's not Nelson's military career than the columnist has major issue with.
Yeah I edited my post to make the point that the root cause is "causing offense". That is the root justification.
"Statues... caused offense and trauma" for a specific group of people.
Doesn't have to be about slavery or apartheid. Some people find other things offensive.
You know that many people find Empire and nationalism offensive?
You're missing the point.
I'm not saying the subject of the statue is what is particularly problematic, but rather the purpose of the statue.
Many of the US ones were commissioned by groups who were raging against the increasing rights of non-whites, and the statues were tools to rally the white cause (and to put the non-white cause in its place).
That's why I would consider most UK statues to be different to the ones being protested in USA. Nelson isn't there because of [insert some unpleasant race-based element of his life], but because of his glory in war. Similarly, Edward Colston in bristol is remembered in many places for his contribution in building the City - though a large part of his trade was in the form of slavery, we aren't celebrating that aspect directly (it's still problematic for many, though).
Edit
Swapped Edward Colston for John Cabot
Last edited:
Yes but the root problem is "causing offence" to a section of society.
Perhaps Spanish/French/Indian immigrants/holiday makers find some of our statues to generals offensive. We all know how the British behaved in India, for example. Not exemplary. So we should tear down any statues related to conquest, empire, etc... They might (and probably do) cause offence to some.
e: Just to address the point of division in society... we have many, many Pakistani and other immigrants now. 2nd and 3rd generation, even. Maybe they feel "oppressed" and "angered" by statues dedicated to historical figures from the days of Empire. Maybe they feel it empowers white Brits and keeps immigrants "in their place", etc.
Maybe these statues causes hatred in this country, simply by existing??
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
I think we should take down Nelson's statue and replace it with one of Russell Brand, the true liberal hero of today.
Well, no. The problem, as we've seen in plenty of recent news coverage, is social division focusing around these rallying points (USA). They're like a justification of the cause.
and, like I said in my previous post, the difference with the US vs UK statues is that they weren't installed here as a means of division. I don't believe there should be a problem with a country marking its major historical figures in statue form - but I can see the problem in USA where those statues (the ones that are currently causing controversy) are not commemorations, but rather propaganda.
Well that entirely depends on who you ask. America is a deeply divided society, that much is plain.
Do you think removing the statues will help remove those divisions? I think that's entirely naive.
Thus the root cause is the offence the generate. Removing them won't bring people together. It will upset one side and placate the other. Surely that's obvious.
Nelson was a pirate so we should just put Johnny Depp up there in full PotC costume..........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I think the statues, often based outside civic institutions, legitimise the beliefs of those who gravitate to them. How could they not? Someone who supports white supremacy can see the town hall or district court wearing its own badge of white supremacy.
So if tearing down a statue is a blow to a white supremacist, it's worth the price? No other consideration needed?