Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
Growing up in Glasgow, William of Orange is far more controversial than Cromwell.
It is all a question of perspective.
William of Orange is another controversial figure, however again there are only a few statuies of him, a couple in London, one in Hull, one in Bristol a few in some obscure locations such as Brixham and of course you have Glasgow and Belfast, where the statues have a much more controversial meaning than they do elsewhere.
I am not really in favour of just tearing down statues and trying to erase history, indeed what the Americans should be doing is putting up statues to the slaves next to the statues of General Lee and other slave owners in order that both sides of history are presented, rather than trying to erradicate history.
I think it is wonderful that so many statues in places such as London rub shoulders with each other and present very different historical persectives.
Gandhi for instance now stands near Churchill, with Lincoln in the background.
William of Orange is another controversial figure, however again there are only a few statuies of him, a couple in London, one in Hull, one in Bristol a few in some obscure locations such as Brixham and of course you have Glasgow and Belfast, where the statues have a much more controversial meaning than they do elsewhere.
I am not really in favour of just tearing down statues and trying to erase history, indeed what the Americans should be doing is putting up statues to the slaves next to the statues of General Lee and other slave owners in order that both sides of history are presented, rather than trying to erradicate history.
I think it is wonderful that so many statues in places such as London rub shoulders with each other and present very different historical persectives.
Gandhi for instance now stands near Churchill, with Lincoln in the background.
In this spirit, a group of Londoners wants to erect a statue of Jimmy Saville outside Pembridge Hall. Refreshing to see the accommodation of different perspectives.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE
In this spirit, a group of Londoners wants to erect a statue of Jimmy Saville outside Pembridge Hall. Refreshing to see the accommodation of different perspectives.
Are you suggesting that Churchill, Gandhi or Lincoln were paedophiles and what great influence on history did Saville have other than molesting children, he certainly didn't help defeat fascism, liberate India or win a Civil War.
However BBC actually does want to put up a statue or tribute but not to Saville but to entertainer Bruce Forsyth who recently sadly passed away aged 89 years old and spent over 75 years in show business.
William of Orange is another controversial figure, however again there are only a few statuies of him, a couple in London, one in Hull, one in Bristol a few in some obscure locations such as Brixham and of course you have Glasgow and Belfast, where the statues have a much more controversial meaning than they do elsewhere.
I am not really in favour of just tearing down statues and trying to erase history, indeed what the Americans should be doing is putting up statues to the slaves next to the statues of General Lee and other slave owners in order that both sides of history are presented, rather than trying to erradicate history.
I think it is wonderful that so many statues in places such as London rub shoulders with each other and present very different historical persectives.
Gandhi for instance now stands near Churchill, with Lincoln in the background.
Part of the issue is actually their later place in history, and yes, also the
We can look at the juxtaposition of Cromwell's statue facing that of Charles I, for instance.
A lot of that was a matter of later generations taking a conciliatory view of history, weighing the ultimate significance of the historical figures on the course of national history and honoring them to the extent that their actions did, indeed, "make us what we are today."
This is kind of like cases in the US in which an earlier Supreme Court dissenting opinion becomes the basis of a later court's prevailing opinion: An acknowledgement that they were right back then, even though they lost at the time.
And that is a large part of the anger over the Confederate statues--which is not at all new, not at all merely recent. In the early 20th century, there was a resurgence of "The South will rise again!" that included harsh, harsh new segregation laws, codification of harsh new anti-miscegenation laws, harsh new laws and actions against black political and economic salients, peaking lynchings and KKK activity, and the beginning of a period in which "crying n@@@@" became no less than the second plank of every southern politician's platform. It wasn't just local people honoring old local heroes, it was part of a greater regressive social action against black people.
What I can't understand is the desire to erase our history, great, terrible or in between. I would rather leave the statues and educate people on what good and bad traits these people showed. On a drive to my son's summer camp in New Hampshire I stopped at Franklin Pierce's old house, looked around, and even bought a CD of period music. Trust me, in modern terms there is nothing to emulate about Mr. Pierce. He was a drunk and a terrible President. But that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about him.
An actual monument to something is intended to CELEBRATE or glorify - not teach.
Removing such monuments from public places does not "erase" history in any way, shape or form. It just removes the glorification of that person and what they stood for. And what the Confederates stood for was slavery. There is no redeeming feature here.
We do not need monuments to the Nazis to teach about the horrors of the Nazi regime. We do not need monuments to Pol Pot or Idi Amin to enable people to learn about them.
We should - must, in fact - be more conscious than that of just what it is we are glorifying, especially when such monuments are in public places.
Grants Tomb on Riverside Drive in Manhattan is highly offensive to any white southerner. How about removing it?
No, it isn't. Grant helped to preserve the Union. All those Confederates were traitors who tried to tear the Union apart.
If someone finds Grant's tomb "offensive" - and I guarantee that is NOT the majority of white southerners - its because they are STILL supportive of the treasonous acts that started the Civil War, just because a handful of southern slave-owning elitists didn't like the results of a national election.
So - why would the government want to kowtow to the unreasonable demands of a traitorous few? That's like asking the US Government to put up monuments to King George III.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Part of the issue is actually their later place in history, and yes, also the
We can look at the juxtaposition of Cromwell's statue facing that of Charles I, for instance.
A lot of that was a matter of later generations taking a conciliatory view of history, weighing the ultimate significance of the historical figures on the course of national history and honoring them to the extent that their actions did, indeed, "make us what we are today."
This is kind of like cases in the US in which an earlier Supreme Court dissenting opinion becomes the basis of a later court's prevailing opinion: An acknowledgement that they were right back then, even though they lost at the time.
And that is a large part of the anger over the Confederate statues--which is not at all new, not at all merely recent. In the early 20th century, there was a resurgence of "The South will rise again!" that included harsh, harsh new segregation laws, codification of harsh new anti-miscegenation laws, harsh new laws and actions against black political and economic salients, peaking lynchings and KKK activity, and the beginning of a period in which "crying n@@@@" became no less than the second plank of every southern politician's platform. It wasn't just local people honoring old local heroes, it was part of a greater regressive social action against black people.
And black people have always been aware of that.
The Civil War in the US was largely based on slavery so I do recognise some of your arguments, however is just removing the statues and pretending it never happened and erase history the right we forward.
As for those that are now stating Jefferson and Washingtons momuments and statues should come down, they need to realise they are an important part of US History and intergral to your identity and that airbrushing them from history will merely airbrush black history as much as white history.
The Germans have not even airbrushed Nazi Germany from their history, and have numerous memorials to the dead, concentration camps, jewish memorials and have used their history as a warning to future generations rather than try to erase it.
I wouldn't want Britain to erase our history in relation to our Empire and Imperialist, the questionable things we did and such issues as slavery. Ports such as London, Bristol and Liverpool being heavily involved in the slave trade, indeed Liverpool has opened a slavery museum.
Are you suggesting that Churchill, Gandhi or Lincoln were paedophiles and what great influence on history did Saville have other than molesting children, he certainly didn't help defeat fascism, liberate India or win a Civil War.
[/url][/b]
To pedophiles, Saville would be legendary, one of the best ever. To haters of black people, Robert E Lee is one of the best ever.
If you want to remove morality from the equation, this is what you get. A monument need only commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
The Civil War in the US was largely based on slavery so I do recognise some of your arguments, however is just removing the statues and pretending it never happened and erase history the right we forward.
As for those that are now stating Jefferson and Washingtons momuments and statues should come down, they need to realise they are an important part of US History and intergral to your identity and that airbrushing them from history will merely airbrush black history as much as white history.
The Germans have not even airbrushed Nazi Germany from their history, and have numerous memorials to the dead, concentration camps, jewish memorials and have used their history as a warning to future generations rather than try to erase it.
I wouldn't want Britain to erase our history in relation to our Empire and Imperialist, the questionable things we did and such issues as slavery. Ports such as London, Bristol and Liverpool being heavily involved in the slave trade, indeed Liverpool has opened a slavery museum.
The Civil War in the US was largely based on slavery so I do recognise some of your arguments, however is just removing the statues and pretending it never happened and erase history the right we forward.
As for those that are now stating Jefferson and Washingtons momuments and statues should come down, they need to realise they are an important part of US History and intergral to your identity and that airbrushing them from history will merely airbrush black history as much as white history.
The Germans have not even airbrushed Nazi Germany from their history, and have numerous memorials to the dead, concentration camps, jewish memorials and have used their history as a warning to future generations rather than try to erase it.
I wouldn't want Britain to erase our history in relation to our Empire and Imperialist, the questionable things we did and such issues as slavery. Ports such as London, Bristol and Liverpool being heavily involved in the slave trade, indeed Liverpool has opened a slavery museum.
So then there should be memorials to slaves, not monuments to those who fought to preserve slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
