Poll: Churchill Statue

[Augustus]

Well slavery is a more obvious affront to human dignity, but it is hardly alone. I have the same distaste for much of the same - the usual hierarchies where so many have power over others not because they deserve such but because of circumstances or where peoples were enslaved by more powerful forces. It obviously went on all around the world and few major nations have not indulged in it and few have not experienced such too. I can't justify the arguments usually made that it was for their benefit - an argument often made as to 'civilising' them.

I wonder how many people it would take to topple this statue?

I think it unlikely that Nelson will be toppled, and as I indicated (if not clear), I don't wish for that to happen. I know there are many monuments to the past that might be controversial but statues of people do tend to validate their personal worth, and often present them as some sort of hero when, as we have seen, all too many had rather more negative things in their actions than we might seem to think. I think we should try to see history as accurately as possible if we are to learn from it, and often letting our monuments remain as when they were erected fails to do this - since the reasons why they were made, and praising some particular person, would not necessarily be valid now.

Statues more honour specific achievements than 'personal worth' though.

Don't you think there is a big difference between a statue of a merchant who is only known because they made lots of money from the slave trade, and a person of historic importance who simply happened to be a man of his time though?

An easy way to judge value is what you would say to a child who asked 'who was he?'

If the answer is 'guy who got rich off the slave trade', then it's unlikely you are erasing something of any great historical importance.

If the answer is 'played a pivotal role in defeating a man intent on conquering all of Europe at great human cost', or 'was the first to circumnavigate the world on a single ship, and played a major role in weakening the Spanish Empire, the global superpower of the time, protecting Britain from invasion while greatly increasing the wealth of the nation' then you can probably judge that they deserve to be remembered even if they were a bit of a ****.

It's fair enough to look at the people represented and decide if they are still relevant to occupy public space, but placing a blanket 'slavery' ban is not likely to help people see history more accurately. Having a discussion about why some people who were involved in the slave trade don't deserve to be cancelled would be a good opportunity to educate people on the actual history of slavery and the evolution of modern concepts of human rights, why these haven't always existed, how they came to be created, etc.

 

[Notanumber]

Another voice has been silenced, for the time being - Nigel Farage quits LBC radio show as contract not renewed | Daily Mail Online

I hope Talk Radio take advantage of Nigel’s availability.

LBC will see their ratings plummet along with the rest of the MSM.

They only have Nick Ferrari left of any calibre but he could be next - Nick Ferrari sparks fury after 'disgusting' comments to Afua Hirsch amid British race row

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder how many people it would take to topple this statue?

What about this one?

 

[Tambourine]

What? Churchill was the main figure who opposed the appeasement of Hitler before WW2.

The Nazis and the Soviets were still allies until 1941 and helping each other to invade Poland.

A brief overview on Churchill's role from a German source if you are interested:

The Man Who Saved Europe: How Winston Churchill Stopped the Nazis - DER SPIEGEL - International

It sounds like a really bad military strategy to have one old man go aalone against the second largest army of Europe, but apparently he did it and won. Imagine what the Allies could have accomplished, if it hadn't been only Churchill, but an entire army fighting against Germany!

 

[Tambourine]

Another voice has been silenced, for the time being - Nigel Farage quits LBC radio show as contract not renewed | Daily Mail Online

I hope Talk Radio take advantage of Nigel’s availability.

LBC will see their ratings plummet along with the rest of the MSM.

They only have Nick Ferrari left of any calibre but he could be next - Nick Ferrari sparks fury after 'disgusting' comments to Afua Hirsch amid British race row

Can you explain what this has to do with Churchill?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I wonder how many people it would take to topple this statue?

Well I guessed correctly - it was either Genghis Khan or Alexander. They know how to build things in Mongolia.

Statues more honour specific achievements than 'personal worth' though.

Don't you think there is a big difference between a statue of a merchant who is only known because they made lots of money from the slave trade, and a person of historic importance who simply happened to be a man of his time though?

An easy way to judge value is what you would say to a child who asked 'who was he?'

If the answer is 'guy who got rich off the slave trade', then it's unlikely you are erasing something of any great historical importance.

If the answer is 'played a pivotal role in defeating a man intent on conquering all of Europe at great human cost', or 'was the first to circumnavigate the world on a single ship, and played a major role in weakening the Spanish Empire, the global superpower of the time, protecting Britain from invasion while greatly increasing the wealth of the nation' then you can probably judge that they deserve to be remembered even if they were a bit of a ****.

It's fair enough to look at the people represented and decide if they are still relevant to occupy public space, but placing a blanket 'slavery' ban is not likely to help people see history more accurately. Having a discussion about why some people who were involved in the slave trade don't deserve to be cancelled would be a good opportunity to educate people on the actual history of slavery and the evolution of modern concepts of human rights, why these haven't always existed, how they came to be created, etc.

Well I'll admit my thoughts are more based on feelings than anything else, and with respect to those who might be offended by such things. None of them matter to me personally since I think their deeds are enough to define them, and as remarked, most will have some bad as well as all the good they have done. And since our heroes are often the villains for other countries, I can see a domino effect occurring or a tit-for-tat approach.

 

[Notanumber]

Can you explain what this has to do with Churchill?

It is self-explanatory.

 

[Koldo]

There is a big statue of Churchill, outside the UK parliament

It has recently been defaced by Black Lives Matter protesters, who claim he was racist

There have been calls to have it removed

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

For me: We should keep it, because on balance he did more good than bad. Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards. And it's not just colonialism which is bad about him, he was also very tyrannical towards the Welsh miners (and the working class in general) before he became PM. Yet as war-time PM he was very successful at leading a war-effort that was in the best interest of all sections of society. And in the best interests of the entire world too.

As I see it, it is a simple matter. UK citizens should decide collectively what statues are worth keeping and where.

And please, I am tired of reading people saying that destroying a statue is the equivalent to erasing history. No, just no.

 

[Augustus]

It sounds like a really bad military strategy to have one old man go aalone against the second largest army of Europe, but apparently he did it and won. Imagine what the Allies could have accomplished, if it hadn't been only Churchill, but an entire army fighting against Germany!

Allowing for a headline writer's dramatic licence, it's not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Given it's Der Spiegel you know it's not likely to be an exercise in tub thumping jingoism at least.

While you can argue about the % chance, there was at least a genuine possibility the Nazis would have won the war in 1940 as many people in the British government wanted a negotiated peace. He played a pivotal role in preventing this from happening.

War cabinet crisis, May 1940 - Wikipedia

Before the Soviets and the Americans joined, many other leaders might not have been so determined to fight on for so long either. Goebbels didn't expect them to last long, "When will that creature Churchill finally capitulate? England cannot hold out forever!"

I'm sure you agree it wouldn't have been all that great for Europe had the war ended in 1940 or 41 with a British surrender and a Nazi victory.

 

[Augustus]

And please, I am tired of reading people saying that destroying a statue is the equivalent to erasing history. No, just no.

Depends on the statue surely

 

[Koldo]

Depends on the statue surely

Not at all. No matter the statue.
History books have been created already.

 

[Notanumber]

Not at all. No matter the statue.
History books have been created already.

History has taught us that not even books are immune from being destroyed.

Other forms of media are already being targeted.

 

[oldbadger]

Churchill was horribly racist and responsible for the famine deaths of millions of Indian citizens

How did Churchill kill millions of Indians?
His errors sure did kill a lot of New Zealanders and Australians. He made many bad mistakes in judgement...

But he kept the UK together in the darkest time in our history, when we were almost sure to be over-run. There was nobody else who could have obstinately determinedly bloody-mindedly kept on.

While we're thinking of Churchill, why don't we burn all Dickens' novels? He was a total monster with women.

Can any statue survive?

 

[Augustus]

Not at all. No matter the statue.
History books have been created already.

When the Taliban destroyed the giant Buddhas and ISIS destroyed pagan religious imagery that was a specific attempt to erase this part of history from people's memory.

 

[England my lionheart]

There is a big statue of Churchill, outside the UK parliament

It has recently been defaced by Black Lives Matter protesters, who claim he was racist

There have been calls to have it removed

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

For me: We should keep it, because on balance he did more good than bad. Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards. And it's not just colonialism which is bad about him, he was also very tyrannical towards the Welsh miners (and the working class in general) before he became PM. Yet as war-time PM he was very successful at leading a war-effort that was in the best interest of all sections of society. And in the best interests of the entire world too.

I think it should stay and so should all the other statues,knocking them down won't change history and for the UK are good for tourism.

The mayor of London siddiq Khan is a great example of how stupid these loony lefties are,he wants to knock down all the statues with links to slavery and imperialism,in 2018 he unveiled a statue of Millicent fawcett a sufferagette,she was also an inspector of the concentration camps in south Africa,of course Mr dimwitt Khan didn't know this but that's standard for him on most things..

 

[Secret Chief]

she was also an inspector of the concentration camps in south Africa,of course Mr dimwitt Khan didn't know this but that's standard for him on most things.

"She was nominated to lead the commission of women sent to South Africa. In July 1901, she sailed there with other women "to investigate Emily Hobhouse's indictment of atrocious conditions in concentration camps where the families of the Boer soldiers were interned." "

Millicent Fawcett - Wikipedia

 

[England my lionheart]

"She was nominated to lead the commission of women sent to South Africa. In July 1901, she sailed there with other women "to investigate Emily Hobhouse's indictment of atrocious conditions in concentration camps where the families of the Boer soldiers were interned." "

Millicent Fawcett - Wikipedia

But did not visit one camp holding black Africans,she was an ardent supporter of empire.

In her report she said that the camps were 'generally favourable' and suggested that many of the deaths were caused by the unsanitary habits' of the boers.

Here's a quote of hers:

'I hope we are too deeply pledged to the principle of equal privileges for all white races to abandon it.’

 

[Secret Chief]

But did not visit one camp holding black Africans,she was an ardent supporter of empire.

In her report she said that the camps were 'generally favourable' and suggested that many of the deaths were caused by the unsanitary habits' of the boers.

Here's a quote of hers:

'I hope we are too deeply pledged to the principle of equal privileges for all white races to abandon it.’

Source?

 

[England my lionheart]

Source?

Women's Suffrage in the British Empire

 

[Tambourine]

It is self-explanatory.

So you can't explain.