Donate SIGN UP

At What Point Must This Stop?

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 11:07 Mon 21st Aug 2017 | News
41 Answers
Find any statue and I'm pretty sure it will be offensive to someone. Does this mean we should pull all statues down, rewrite history and not learn from it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4808254/Protesters-want-removal-statue-controversial-doctor.html
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 41rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A pertinent question is ... why now?
they'll want nelson off his column next, replaced by Saint Mandella no doubt.
Remove Ghandi from Parliament Square as he took India from Britain!
What is the difference between Custer and Lee?

This is tipping into mass hysteria, how you stop it is another question.
I hope they keep their hands off Greyfriar's Bobby's statue.
There is not a huge amount of learning from history going on imho....... seem to be quite a number of neo nazis and racists out there.
One mans hero and all that, history is done, no matter how many statues are removed the people still existed. You cannot rewrite the past .
yes baza but the bigots of the left wing would like too.
It's not easy. I thought the guy doing Thought for the Day this morning on R4 struck a good balance - not "forgive and forget" but "remember and forgive":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s7t1#play - start listening at 1:48:42

But there has to be a limit to how much remembering you do, i.e. to how many statues are preserved. If you live under a dictatorship where statues of the dictator are on every street corner, for example, there is no reason for every single one of those statues to be preserved when the dictatorship is finally overthrown.
Question Author
In the West we dont live under a dictatorship, statues represent all walks of life, hence just about every statue will 'offend' someone.

//seem to be quite a number of neo nazis and racists out there. //

They are very much small minority. Remember there were many more Nazi's in 1935 to 1945 so we must be learning something.

Surely continuing the removal of statues is going to inflame the situation - on BOTH sides?
a man who experimented on slaves, without anaesthetic? Ugh.
If it's a civic statue it's up to the people that live where it's located. If the majority of them don't want a certain statue there any more, it should be removed, through some kind of democratic process.

It's not unprecedented. African countries have been removing statues of their ex-colonialist rulers for a while now. It's up to them , and f .all to do with anyone else.

There are many other examples of dignitaries that have fallen from grace and had monuments to them removed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2015/jul/08/limitations-of-statues-bill-cosby-is-not-the-first-to-have-his-likeness-removed
Question Author
But how do you determine the majority want it?

Noisy protests usually only represent a minority of people.

Without a referendum (not practical) on each statue there is no other way to determine it is really wanted by the majority rather than a noisy minority.

And what is next, the Q&A renamed because Queen Vic created an Empire?
Statues are intended IMO to commemorate great people who did great deeds....I wouldn’t number experimenting on slaves among those whatever the eventual outcome for medical knowledge. I don’t think its about forgetting and rewriting so much as ceasing to honour people who don’t deserve it.
// But how do you determine the majority want it?
Noisy protests usually only represent a minority of people.
Without a referendum (not practical) on each statue there is no other way to determine it is really wanted by the majority rather than a noisy minority. //

The locally elected representatives must decide.
This is one of my more rambling posts, it's a bit more of a train of thought really. Long story short: I don't think that taking statues down is about rewriting history or erasing it.

* * * * * * *

Statues are far more about symbolism than history. If you get rid of the symbol you aren't actually getting rid of the history, you're just saying that you don't especially want to make a public display of it in the same way as before.

As was pointed out elsewhere, most statues at the centre of the current US debate were erected in around the 1920s, and almost certainly to try and hammer home a political message rather than to remember the people in the statues. As was also pointed out, Robert E Lee himself disliked the idea of monuments to the confederacy being erected:

"I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered."

But clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere; one aspect of history that I think some people seem determined to ignore one way or another is that nobody can ever be perfect, which leads to past figures being either idolised or demonised depending on what point you are trying to make. As you say, everyone can find something distasteful in a given figure. Churchill is one of my personal heroes, but was more than a little bit racist at times. Gandhi, too, I admire for his approach to trying to bring about Indian Independence, but was also undoubtedly a little racist himself. Presumably, you can (and do!) find people determined to remove statues of both of them, although I am absolutely not one of them.

In the end, the point is that statues are not about history; they are about politics. Here is someone we admire, and we are going to tell the world so! There is no room for subtlety there. If you want that, then you go to the history books, where you can understand the person, and all their faults, properly.

At any rate, it's something that deserves a proper discussion: how best to remember history? I don't like the idea of looking for an excuse to tearing any given statue down, but I don't think you should dismiss the idea entirely. A statue is too powerful a symbol in many cases to be ignorant of what else it could stand for. And, as I say, you ought to look at the context behind when they were erected in the first place.
Only those that benefitted the country should have memorials or statues. Ghandi was of NO benefit to Britain. Neither was Mandela!
//What is the difference between Custer and Lee? // Custer is the one you get with Bananas
"At What Point Must This Stop?"

When the statue of limitations runs out?

1 to 20 of 41rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

At What Point Must This Stop?

Answer Question >>