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/

[kvalidir]

I used to look at that when I was little and thought it was fabulous Rowan, now with more taste just get rid of it, hideous thing :)

[Spicerack]

I like it.

[rowanwitch]

It's nasty, blingy and if the sun hits it the glare would give you a migraine.

[ichkeria]

Following Jim’s point, you wouldn’t put a statue of Churchill in Dresden either. If Cromwell has to be anywhere, outside Parliament seems as good a place as any. Statues are either political or territorial: Stalin’s home town only tore his down a few years ago. A statue still stands in one Western European city.

[ludwig]

Statues aren't about recording history, and just because one's been erected doesn't mean it should never be taken down again.

They're things to commemorate celebrated people. If it's decided that someone's no longer worthy of the honour of having a statue, there's no reason it should stay.

There aren't many statues of Hitler or Jimmy Savile still around but we all know the history.

I don't really have a specific opinion on the Cromwell one, I'm just talking about the general principle.

[Spicerack]

Lol, I just knew Hitler would put in an appearance.

[Old_Geezer]

There's a world of difference between removing a commemoration of someone who is infamous and eventually defeated or died, and someone who moved us on from the idiocy of divine right to do what they want to others, to bring us nearer (or as near as the times would allow) to the people having their say. This is a major player in the development of our parliament, none has a greater justification for having a statue at the parliament building, nor has anyone any valid justification for calling for it's removal.

[-Talbot-]

Like him or loath him he was one of the greatest Britons to ever live.

Leave the statue alone.

[jackthehat]

I don't believe that removing 'any' statue would in itself re-write history. Those people and their achievements (however dubious) will still remain.
Removing Cromwell's statue from its' position outside the HoP (where I can't see it in any case) doesn't mean that I'll forget he existed.

[retrocop]

Why is it that the modern academics and bright young things at Uni S.U. debating societys have the arrogance to dictate the new world order and eradicate the old. Smacks of Fascism to me unless they wish to have these plinths vacated to accommodate their future ambitions.
The Italians and Greeks are grumbling about overcrowding so why not knock down the Acropolis and Colosseum and build a few Tower blocks.
That would be on my holiday bucket list. :-(

[kvalidir]

Dunno Retro you might want to ask the people of your generation the same question who opposed the Vietnam War with massive rallies, or of your mother's generation who fought in the Spanish Civil War. It's ever been thus.

[jim360]

Re Stonehenge: Stop being so stupid, spicerack.

[emmie]

personally i know that some people will object to Cromwell now, but one can't say he wasn't a pivotal character in our long and complex history, so i say leave well alone. There are plenty of statues that could do with removing, but again they were of their time, so what would the point be. Most people don't notice them at any rate, and if you asked a classroom of 10 year olds who was Cromwell, Churchill, i am sure you would get blank looks.

[emmie]

similarly many adults would respond in the same way.

[jackthehat]

There certainly seems to be a supersize serving of hysteria and 'getting things out of proportion' over issues like this...

Dragging Stonehenge, the Acropololis and Colosseum into a discussion about a relatively new statue of Cromwell is, frankly, ridiculous.

[jackthehat]

*Acropololis...|??

Acropolis. Lol.....Now that looks like an anagram. :o)

[Prudie]

It is ridiculous but is just the fat end of the wedge. The Art value must be taken into consideration surely. No-one would consider destroying paintings on the same basis would they?

[ichkeria]

Wiesbaden had a gold statue of Erdogan: it was defaced with the words ‘Turkish hitler’ and removed.
I’d worry about what such a statue was doing there in the first place, but the point is : by their nature these things can be divisive. There are probably very few that someone somewhere wouldn’t like to see removed.

[jackthehat]

///The statue has been the source of controversy from even before it was erected in 1899.

The proposal to erect the statue put forward by the government of the day was only narrowly backed by Parliament in 1856, after he majority of the Conservatives and the Irish Nationalists voted against the measure because of the Cromwell's history in Ireland and the behaviour of his troops during the invasion of the country in 1649 .
In 2004, a group of MPs put forward a motion that the statue should be melted down. Although the move was not supported several other MPs suggested that the statue should be moved somewhere else.///

So rather than being destroyed, it is to be (possibly) moved elsewhere...

[jim360]

I'm not sure that it's about destroying the statues (or, equivalently, the artwork). Depends somewhat on how radical you are about this. But one can preserve a piece of art without necessarily displaying it so prominently.