Crosswords15 mins ago
Jimmy Saville
Think of it this way...Jimmy Saville.
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
> Ellipsis, the present is the sum total of the past.
And the future is the sum total of the present and the past. Colston died in 1721. The statue was erected in 1895, 174 years later. There is no reason why, in 2020, 125 years later, the statue can't be taken down or moved if we so choose. We are not the people of 1721 or 1895. We can choose our own way. That doesn't mean we're rewriting history, it means we're writing our future. It means we're no longer glorifying something that we no longer believe should be glorified.
> Because it was ,no doubt erected, by the grateful people of Bristol for the good Colston did for them at the time.
No, it wasn't. Even if it was, who's to say they were right and we're wrong? Anyway, retro, fear not, I have no wish to "win" this debate or get you to change your opinion. Most of your posts demonstrate the systemic racism it is claimed exists in this country. It's exactly why I believe the statue should have been left standing, as a testament to the fact that we as a nation are still racist. Your posts are the gift that keeps on giving, proving my point over and over again, and I feel almost cruel continuing to draw them out of you.
As for "slavery was legal at the time", these things weren't legal:
* murder
* rape
* kidnap
* forced expatriation
These are some of the things that were done under the slave trade. These are the things that allowed Colston to make a mint. And he did some good with that money, setting up charities, although it should be noted that Colston constituted those charities to deny their benefits to those who did not share his religious and political views. So not only were black people excluded from benefiting - some white people were too.
Do the ends justify the means? If a person makes a ton of money doing something absolutely abhorrent, presiding over murder, rape and kidnap, but they happen to set up charities with that money, should that person be glorified in 2020? I'd like to think we're better than that, but the evidence is otherwise.
And the future is the sum total of the present and the past. Colston died in 1721. The statue was erected in 1895, 174 years later. There is no reason why, in 2020, 125 years later, the statue can't be taken down or moved if we so choose. We are not the people of 1721 or 1895. We can choose our own way. That doesn't mean we're rewriting history, it means we're writing our future. It means we're no longer glorifying something that we no longer believe should be glorified.
> Because it was ,no doubt erected, by the grateful people of Bristol for the good Colston did for them at the time.
No, it wasn't. Even if it was, who's to say they were right and we're wrong? Anyway, retro, fear not, I have no wish to "win" this debate or get you to change your opinion. Most of your posts demonstrate the systemic racism it is claimed exists in this country. It's exactly why I believe the statue should have been left standing, as a testament to the fact that we as a nation are still racist. Your posts are the gift that keeps on giving, proving my point over and over again, and I feel almost cruel continuing to draw them out of you.
As for "slavery was legal at the time", these things weren't legal:
* murder
* rape
* kidnap
* forced expatriation
These are some of the things that were done under the slave trade. These are the things that allowed Colston to make a mint. And he did some good with that money, setting up charities, although it should be noted that Colston constituted those charities to deny their benefits to those who did not share his religious and political views. So not only were black people excluded from benefiting - some white people were too.
Do the ends justify the means? If a person makes a ton of money doing something absolutely abhorrent, presiding over murder, rape and kidnap, but they happen to set up charities with that money, should that person be glorified in 2020? I'd like to think we're better than that, but the evidence is otherwise.
//There is no reason why, in 2020, 125 years later, the statue can't be taken down or moved if we so choose. //
the important phrase being "if we so choose". if a grown-up discussion decides the statues should go, then so be it and there can be no argument. delegating your decision making to a street mob really isn't what we should be doing, even if you think they hold the moral high ground.
the important phrase being "if we so choose". if a grown-up discussion decides the statues should go, then so be it and there can be no argument. delegating your decision making to a street mob really isn't what we should be doing, even if you think they hold the moral high ground.
Ellipsis - I am more than happy to agree that slavery was a bad thing, and that commemorating slavers, even if their philanthropy rather than their slave trading is what is being commemorated, is becoming increasingly unacceptable in the modern world.
But the civilised response is to relocate a statue in a museum as part of a historical exhibition, putting its creation and the reasons for it into correct context.
The uncivilised response is for a mob to tear it down and dump it in the harbour - and that is what any civilised person would object to.
But the civilised response is to relocate a statue in a museum as part of a historical exhibition, putting its creation and the reasons for it into correct context.
The uncivilised response is for a mob to tear it down and dump it in the harbour - and that is what any civilised person would object to.
OG, history is written as we "do" like it. I doubt every part of it recorded, is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... we live and learn, change priorities, all fine. The one and only question about the Colston statue, is... would we today, decide to raise one to him? Just because others did before, it doesn't mean we have to celebrate the same people. And that is what a statue is- to commemorate an individual.
Where have I said anywhere that Colston's statue should have been torn down?
My argument is that the statue standing was testament to the fact that we as a nation are comfortable glorifying someone who made a lot of money presiding over murder, rape, kidnap and a lot more.
My preferred process is that there is systemic change in this country, and that as a result of that systemic change we stop glorifying crimes against black humanity. And then we'll take the statues down naturally. Tearing the statues down without addressing the systemic issues is tantamount to sweeping those issues under the carpet ... or into the harbour.
My argument is that the statue standing was testament to the fact that we as a nation are comfortable glorifying someone who made a lot of money presiding over murder, rape, kidnap and a lot more.
My preferred process is that there is systemic change in this country, and that as a result of that systemic change we stop glorifying crimes against black humanity. And then we'll take the statues down naturally. Tearing the statues down without addressing the systemic issues is tantamount to sweeping those issues under the carpet ... or into the harbour.
// would we today, decide to raise one to him? Just because others did before, it doesn't mean we have to celebrate the same people. And that is what a statue is- to commemorate an individual. //
who is it that should decide who is commemorated, and who is not?
last week it was reported that ground had been broken for a memorial to police officers; that was the first that I (and probably many others) had heard of it. on the grounds that the police are described as institutionally racist and there are calls for the service to be defunded, should the matter of a police memorial have been put to a public ballot?
who is it that should decide who is commemorated, and who is not?
last week it was reported that ground had been broken for a memorial to police officers; that was the first that I (and probably many others) had heard of it. on the grounds that the police are described as institutionally racist and there are calls for the service to be defunded, should the matter of a police memorial have been put to a public ballot?
"It's exactly why I believe the statue should have been left standing, as a testament to the fact that we as a nation are still racist."
You're wrong.
Without question there's racists in the country (there are in every country on the face of the planet), but to tar a whole nation as racist is incorrect and unfair.
You're wrong.
Without question there's racists in the country (there are in every country on the face of the planet), but to tar a whole nation as racist is incorrect and unfair.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank17 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
News38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
