More Airbrushing And Rewriting Of History

[webbo3]

Once everything that people disapprove of is removed what will they move onto next.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/29/parliaments-statue-cromwell-becomes-latest-memorial-hit-rewriting/

[fiction-factory]

I have no views on this case but sometimes our view of people does change as more information comes to light and as out attitudes change.
eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19822296

[The_Rim_Greaper]

Jeremy Crick, a social historian = absolute *** and probably a leftie to boot

[The_Rim_Greaper]

^ *** rhymes with dosser

[ToraToraTora]

perlease!

[jim360]

Statues aren't about history; they're about politics (and, to a lesser extent, art). No-one will lose out on learning about history for want of a statue, and no-one has the automatic right to have a statue permanently erected and maintained in their honour.

Whether or not Cromwell has a statue of him is, therefore, a matter for modern political views to determine. I personally can't say I mind, although as he was a nasty piece of work I shan't miss the statue if it does end up disappearing.

[cassa333]

Perhaps there should be a new law enacted. No public statue can be in 0lace for more than say, 50 years or something.

Then we can updat history and our public art on a regular basis?

[woofgang]

Well but we don’t update our history but we may update our view of the past as other facts come to light

[Jackdaw33]

Too complicated to discuss on AB. Like Corbyn, Cromwell has his fervent admirers and also his fervent detractors. This debate has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries to come.

[Togo]

When do you think that they will tear down the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square?

[ichkeria]

Strange: one thing I’ve never associate this individual with was ‘anti-religious zeal’ . He just hated the established church. Tho I’m not one for retrospective culling or statues I’d be more relaxed about that in the case of Cromwell

[ichkeria]

‘To complicated to discuss on AB’

That’s defeatist talk : and if it applies nowhere else I can’t see it should apply here :-)

[1ozzy]

The indigenous Australians love seeing statues of Cap'n Cook followed by plaques commemorating the first fleet.
History can't be changed but some don't need reminding of the past.
Just saying,,,

[Old_Geezer]

No one is perfect, but Cromwell led the Parliamentary forces, and almost got rid of the irrelevant part of the system for us. Reluctantly took over when necessary, when parliament was failing. No one has more right than he to be represented there. Crick is clearly trying to remove that part of history from the public consciousness/psyche IMO.

[jim360]

No-one has any right at all to be a statue. Besides, he's dead and doesn't care. This is about who we choose to admire, and there is no objective test to say that one person deserves to be admired and another does not.

Cromwell will certainly remain in the history books, so he won't be "airbrushed" out of it. It's nonsensical to assume that preserving his statue is vital to ensure that he is remembered in history.

[Old_Geezer]

By historians maybe.

So, may as well not have any statues then. Nothing to commemorate those who shaped our past. Apparently it's all irrelevant anyway. Let's remove the paintings next. Then on to the book burnings maybe.

Meanwhile let's remove that one of Thatcher that was prematurely put up anyway.

[Spicerack]

ISIS and the Taliban aren't keen on statues either.

[jim360]

I believe that's a pretty good example of the "so" rule... I am absolutely not saying that we should do away with all statues, but what *is* true is that there's no cause for being precious about protecting them. The choice of whom to commemorate with a statue is inherently political in the first place, so it's a fallacy to act as if only those clamouring for the removal are politically motivated.

Cromwell is a pretty good example, as a matter of fact, of someone who is very clearly a massively divisive figure. I can certainly understand the logic of having a statue of him outside Parliament, but, by contrast, try defending the idea of putting one of him up outside the NI Assembly.

[kvalidir]

I'm ambivalent about it tbh, I would hate the thought of anyone's statue being destroyed but it would be a tourist attraction in its own right if there was a museum housing all of the ones of people deemed too controversial to be wherever they originally were, and it would also kickstart and interest in history and political debate.
History won't vanish or be airbrushed if we remove it, he's still as important as he ever was, it'll just reflect that someone who orchestrated a genocide against the Irish people and dismantled and destroyed the establishment of the time isn't flavour of the month at the moment.

[Spicerack]

Look out Stonehenge when Jim's shower take over.

[rowanwitch]

I like the idea, a history's problem people gallery. Put Churchill in t too. After all he betrayed our Polish Allies. Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole so the politically correct can see both at the same time. And the golden fathers of the industrial revolution from Birmingham because it's just a pigging awful statue
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton,_Watt_and_Murdoch
See what I mean it's hideous.