Too Far (Erasing History ) Removal of Statues

[AL-FFC]

5 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Can I just point out that Jackie Moon does not have the same opinion as most of the people of Fal... oh who am I kidding? He (sadly) probably does.

Mate i just see people getting offended for the sake of being offended they have stood for long enough but whilst it is a reminder of the wrongs a lot of them done especially towards the slave trade its also a reminder of how far mankind has come in the fact yes it was there and it happened but we have moved forward and it will never happen again in history.

 I see it a lot in the way of Dachau etc not glorifying the holocaust but as a reminder of what mankind has done and how much hatred there has been to other races, religions etc and that there will never be a return of that if that makes sense.

[Gaz]

1 minute ago, Jackie Moon said:

Mate i just see people getting offended for the sake of being offended they have stood for long enough but whilst it is a reminder of the wrongs a lot of them done especially towards the slave trade its also a reminder of how far mankind has come in the fact yes it was there and it happened but we have moved forward and it will never happen again in history.

It's PC gone mad, mate.

[welshbairn]

Right wing snowflakes getting triggered by a few statues of dead racists being taken down lol.

[Miguel Sanchez]

!ypmawS, hO

[AL-FFC]

5 minutes ago, Gaz said:

It's PC gone mad, mate.

Your not wrong there even when you look at election time its a case of sod the democracy am going to take a hissy fit till they changes the rules and i get what i want.

[Gaz]

1 minute ago, Jackie Moon said:

Your not wrong there even when you look at election time its a case of sod the democracy am going to take a hissy fit till they changes the rules and i get what i want.

Absolutely. Was saying this to the boys on site this morning when we were reading the Sun. Get us out this EU.

[AL-FFC]

Like i say they are reminders of History every country has a history written in blood, just the fact Germany booted the arse out of it in WW1 and WW2 whilst there are no statues or none that i am aware off of Hitler there are reminders of the Nazi regime, if you look at Vogelsang all the Nazi regime buildings etc are still there just they have had the swastika and iron cross removed.

Another example this morning:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41028895
 

this seems to be a better article of it though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pointe-des-cascades-swastika-1.4257247
 

[dorlomin]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Moon said:

Like i say they are reminders of History every country has a history written in blood, just the fact Germany booted the arse out of it in WW1 and WW2 whilst there are no statues or none that i am aware off of Hitler there are reminders of the Nazi regime,

This is not about the past, but the present and how many of these statues were raised just 40 years ago and are now used as rally points for a politics that most in the Southern cities want no part in. 

[AL-FFC]

Thats the thing though it all depends on your perspective on it and how your looking at them as statues are you seeing it as a part of history or are you seeing it as glorifying someone in the slave trade,  pretty sure there was an issue going about not so long back over the Duke of Cumberland statue as well and they were calling for the removal of that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-15924649
 

 "You will find very few people who want it taken away.

"It is part of history. If you take away history nobody will ask questions.

"If he stays there people will ask what it is and then hear what happened here during the Highland Clearances."

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

There's a difference in that Wallace is famous as a freedom fighter. Just like Nelson is revered as someone who helped Britain defeat France. Lee is famous only for leading a pro-slavery army. That's it. He doesn't have any other achievement that has had a lasting positive impact for the World, his nation, his region, or even the town at the centre of the statue debate. And as for "modern standards", I believe the statue was erected in 1924... long after any civilised country allowed slavery and at the height of the KKK's post-"Birth of a Nation" popularity. That's the context in which the statue was built. It was designed to reassert white dominance, not to celebrate history. They lost, they had nothing to celebrate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know i stopped watching The Dukes of Hazzard and I loved that car.

[sjc]

49 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I'm not an expert on the American Civil War or race relations in the southern states, so I don't feel fully qualified these particular statues.  However, I know enough to know that this is one of a number of strawman arguments I've read on the topic. 

Those buildings were built with the proceeds of such activities, but they weren't built to commemorate the people involved, or to act as historical monuments.  They're just buildings for people to live and work in.  That's an important distinction to draw - I haven't seen anyone arguing that buildings or monuments built by slaves or using the proceeds of the slave trade should be destroyed, but rather that statues which specifically commemorate people involved in enabling the slave trade.

There are plenty of statues around the world built to commemorate some absolute c***s, but most of them commemorate some particular achievement which is at least somewhat distinct from that aspect of their personality.  The examples of William Wallace and Walt Disney came up in this thread - both were undoubtedly flawed characters, but the statues and monuments to these people celebrate their positive achievements, and do so in locations relevant to those achievements.  As was pointed out earlier in the thread, a William Wallace monument in Stirling is fine, but one in a village in Northern England would be distasteful, much in the same way that you wouldn't have one of Edward I in Edinburgh.

Very good points. That said, where would a Stalin statue be appropriately placed? WWII - good guy..... The rest of the time an utter c**t!

Further, Judging history by today's morals is pointless. Case in point being people expressing shock at the polices attitude towards fans at Hillsborough when to anyone old enough to remember those days it came as no surprise whatsoever.

[invergowrie arab]

47 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Absolutely. Was saying this to the boys on site this morning when we were reading the Sun. Get us out this EU.

My niece was sent home from nursery with a letter for singing baa baa black sheep the other day.

All the parents have to go on sensitivity training now.

[invergowrie arab]

4 minutes ago, sjc said:

Very good points. That said, where would a Stalin statue be appropriately placed? WWII - good guy..... The rest of the time an utter c**t!

Further, Judging history by today's morals is pointless. Case in point being people expressing shock at the polices attitude towards fans at Hillsborough when to anyone old enough to remember those days it came as no surprise whatsoever.

Sorry are you seriously suggesting there is some ambiguity about Stalin's legacy?

[pandarilla]

What gets me is most of those statues have stood for years and no ones bothered there a*se about them it gets 2017 and people are offended by everything these days.  Ok fair enough it can be seen as a part of race etc or that but its also a reminder of struggles etc that people overcome to get to where we are now.  As said where do you draw the line though, Duke of Cumberland, William Wallace, Robert the Bruce dare say you could go as far as Queen Victoria to add to the list of statues that should be torn down.
You could go further by the naming of streets Nelson Mandela square depending on how you look at him he was a terrorist as well all depends what your take is on the past. 

There's so much wrong with this post it's difficult to know where to begin.

[invergowrie arab]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

There's so much wrong with this post it's difficult to know where to begin.

 

The slavery good/bad is a real moral maze isn't it.

[sjc]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

Sorry are you seriously suggesting there is some ambiguity about Stalin's legacy?

Not at all, just throwing him into the mix as the Soviets by and large defeated the Nazi due to sheer numbers....whom were led by Stalin. Churchill & Roosevelt remain celebrated foe this achievement.

[MEADOWXI]

16 hours ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

So which monuments to Scottish war dead get to stay. Certainly every Scottish soldier in the modern era up to WWII fought explicitly for the subjugation of brown races by white races. You could make and argument that this is true of WWII as well, but we've gone back and modified things based on what we later found out about the Nazis. 

There was a poll out recently that around 90% of people in the US oppose pulling down monuments to our Founding Fathers. Most of them were slave owners. Do we pull all those down as well.

Keep this one.

[invergowrie arab]

18 minutes ago, sjc said:

Not at all, just throwing him into the mix as the Soviets by and large defeated the Nazi due to sheer numbers....whom were led by Stalin. Churchill & Roosevelt remain celebrated foe this achievement.

Perhaps semantics but I would argue the Soviet contribution is acknowledged rather than celebrated.

I don't think anyone thinks Stalin was either a good guy or a particularly good military commander.

[Jmothecat2]

Tearing down history and monuments that are still important to lots of people's identities in the current world is a recipe for social conflict. What I've always said is that progressives or minority people should concentrate their energies on building monuments to their heroes.

Who exactly has Nelson as an important part of their identity?

[sjc]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

Perhaps semantics but I would argue the Soviet contribution is acknowledged rather than celebrated.

I don't think anyone thinks Stalin was either a good guy or a particularly good military commander.

I agree wholeheartedly but if Churchill is proclaimed as a great wartime leader and Roosevelt was the "Commander in Chief" then why should Stalin be airbrushed out of history (like he actually was in the USSR in '53!).