Statues and our tolerance of history

[chrispmartha]

i4got said:

chrispmartha said:

So The Jimmy Saville statue in Scotland, should have stayed, yes or no?

Is that a similar situation? Was the whole country involved in child rape as an acceptable activity, and we've since decided it was unacceptable?

It’s the current society deeming who they see is acceptable to have a statue of erected.

[Lynchie999]

... just remembered the Michael Jackson statue at Fulham FC... that got taken down... eventually...

[i4got]

chrispmartha said:

i4got said:

chrispmartha said:

So The Jimmy Saville statue in Scotland, should have stayed, yes or no?

Is that a similar situation? Was the whole country involved in child rape as an acceptable activity, and we've since decided it was unacceptable?

It’s the current society deeming who they see is acceptable to have a statue of erected.

Agreed but we're talking here about where current thinking differs from the thinking when the status was erected. It's pretty much the same generation/society taking the status down as put it up in the first place. It's a valid point but not the same as changing values being responsible for its removal.

[cossy400]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/g...

They removed that head last night due to a petition saying its racist.


The council had said they were going to remove it but the local councillor got involved and got it removed last night.


The head is happy to see from one side and sad to see you go from the other.

Theres a few stories/tale as to why its up there.

But it was brought down to stop the chance of it being vandalised.

[jtremlett]

i4got said:

chrispmartha said:

So The Jimmy Saville statue in Scotland, should have stayed, yes or no?

Is that a similar situation? Was the whole country involved in child rape as an acceptable activity, and we've since decided it was unacceptable?

There's a clear difference. He has been judged on the morals of the time (i.e. now). It is just that the true nature of the man did not become public until after his death.

[nikaiyo2]

Whilst we are at it lets get rid of the old s mausoleum in Highgate Cemetry. Ditch his body at sea.

[saaby93]

i4got said:

chrispmartha said:

So The Jimmy Saville statue in Scotland, should have stayed, yes or no?

Is that a similar situation? Was the whole country involved in child rape as an acceptable activity, and we've since decided it was unacceptable?

surely that's not the basis - having a stautue doesnt say something is acceptable
(Is there a list of statues somewhere we can check through)
As we were heading earlier - you can have a statue and have a plaque with all the good things and bad things they've done, so everyone knows the history

[2xChevrons]

saaby93 said:

urely that's not the basis - having a stautue doesnt say something is acceptable

To the contrary, it does and that's why so many are now surrounded in controversy. There isn't a single statue (that isn't a deliberately provocative piece of art specifically subverting the norm) of someone who was detested, disliked or disapproved of by the people erecting it. Our society sees them as inherently positive objects - someone is honoured with a statue, and the fact that they have a statue gives the message that they were a good person worth remembering and/or imitating in some way.

That's why they should be changed or removed when the message they portray is no longer desirable or acceptable.

When was the last time you saw a statue and had the tiniest flicker of doubt, even before you saw exactly who was depicted or read the inscription or plaque, that this was someone being depicted for a positive reason? It's ingrained in us.

[saaby93]

cossy400 said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/g...

They removed that head last night due to a petition saying its racist.


The council had said they were going to remove it but the local councillor got involved and got it removed last night.


The head is happy to see from one side and sad to see you go from the other.

Theres a few stories/tale as to why its up there.

But it was brought down to stop the chance of it being vandalised.

-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man,_Ashbourne

wiki said:

local people said they had taken it in order to protect it from vandalism, and added it would be restored and returned at a later date

[J4CKO]

Can almost hear the Google searches "List of statues in the UK" and hasty reading of the subjects Wikipedia entry.

"Who is this George Formby bloke then"

Apparently he was a window cleaner with voyeuristic tendencies who would spy on women.

[randlemarcus]

saaby93 said:

cossy400 said:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/g...

They removed that head last night due to a petition saying its racist.


The council had said they were going to remove it but the local councillor got involved and got it removed last night.


The head is happy to see from one side and sad to see you go from the other.

Theres a few stories/tale as to why its up there.

But it was brought down to stop the chance of it being vandalised.

-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man,_Ashbourne

wiki said:

local people said they had taken it in order to protect it from vandalism, and added it would be restored and returned at a later date

Sensible enough. Maybe they could change the wording on the banner it was sitting on, so it doesn't say Black's Head

[Dont Panic]

Itll be books on fires is next, erase history and rewrite it as you see fit. well in case someone gets offended.
Its become fashionable for one set of people or another to screech about what they see as offensive and then to demand changes or they take the law into their own hands and they do it without any sanctions.

I see no squealing by the blm's at the fact that black people took white slaves, or is it that an inconvenient fact for these lot?
Seems to be the message.

Far better to have let the statue stand as a reminder of what wrong was actually done rather than remove it in a fit of pique and have it lose its impact, surely?

[voyds9]

The kneeling on of a black mans neck is the cause of world riots
But the removal of a black mans head is seen as a good thing.

[Flumpo]

No link, but sky news have just announced the canal and river trust are removing statues from their land.

[rdjohn]

2xChevrons said:

saaby93 said:

urely that's not the basis - having a stautue doesnt say something is acceptable

To the contrary, it does and that's why so many are now surrounded in controversy. There isn't a single statue (that isn't a deliberately provocative piece of art specifically subverting the norm) of someone who was detested, disliked or disapproved of by the people erecting it. Our society sees them as inherently positive objects - someone is honoured with a statue, and the fact that they have a statue gives the message that they were a good person worth remembering and/or imitating in some way.

That's why they should be changed or removed when the message they portray is no longer desirable or acceptable.

When was the last time you saw a statue and had the tiniest flicker of doubt, even before you saw exactly who was depicted or read the inscription or plaque, that this was someone being depicted for a positive reason? It's ingrained in us.

I am sorry, but I think you are wrong. I think statues reflect a point in time - warts and all.

I would have much preferred a change of plaques explaining, that at this particular point in time, humans from Africa were treated as a valuable living commodity. Visiting the slave museum in Liverpool is a powerful experience. The time I visited the Rev Jesse Jackson was there, which kind of brought the implication of the slave trade full circle.

I think that when a current Japanese Emperor apologises for their war atrocities, or Mrs Merkel apologises for Nazi atrocities of WW2, or a UK PM apologises for the appalling bombing of places like a Dresden, it rings very hollow. And means nothing to the lives lost, at that time.

I am old enough to remember the Watts riots in 1965 at a time when the US we’re trying to put a man on the moon. And Martin Luther King’s assassination in ‘68. In the US, nothing seems to have moved-on. Watch Just Mercy, or Hidden Figures to glean an understanding.

I do believe that racism is alive and well in the UK as well, but it will not be changed by tearing down images of someone who died in 1721, that is very wide of the mark.

Current racism needs to be tackled - here and now. But that is in the mind of the current offender and cannot suddenly be changed by government decree.

[Dont Panic]

Wheres the outrage by those shoving statues into waterways?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sou...

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/15/kenya-police-k...

[Helicopter123]

So, this is getting organised now with a central list of 'targets' being drawn up.

https://www.toppletheracists.org/

Whether you think these statues should be removed (legally or pulled down) or not, the #blacklivesmatter campaign has found a cause to organise around.

I think this is going to run and run.

[2xChevrons]

rdjohn said:

I am sorry, but I think you are wrong. I think statues reflect a point in time - warts and all.

I would have much preferred a change of plaques explaining, that at this particular point in time, humans from Africa were treated as a valuable living commodity.

Current racism needs to be tackled - here and now. But that is in the mind of the current offender and cannot suddenly be changed by government decree.

Indeed - they reflect what was positively valued at the time they put up. Again, no-one has ever put up a statue to commemorate someone they didn't respect in some way.

With specific regard to the Colston statue in Bristol, there were proposals and attempts to get a new plaque attached or for a sign to be put next to the statue to explain its historical context for decades. They were all ignored, turned down, blocked or watered down to the extent that those originally proposing them refused to let them be put up.

A government decree won't end racism and other prejudices overnight, but an unequivocal and meaningful decree (or a positive action...such as removing certain public monuments...) would certainly help. If the bar for doing something is "will solve the problem instantly" then nothing will be done and nothing will be changed.

[gregs656]

I don’t buy into this ‘morals of the time’ thing. Slavery is wrong, that some people couldn’t see that for a period of time is evidence of nothing - do you think the victims of slavery thought it was a good thing at the time?

I am also not convinced that removing statues is erasing history, it is just choosing not to celebrate elements of it that should never have been celebrated in the first place.

[saaby93]

Helicopter123 said:

So, this is getting organised now with a central list of 'targets' being drawn up.

https://www.toppletheracists.org/

Whether you think these statues should be removed (legally or pulled down) or not, the #blacklivesmatter campaign has found a cause to organise around.

I think this is going to run and run.

Is this going to fit with

First they came for the....