Re: Edward Colston statue pulled down
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:19 pm
Or the citizens of Eastern Europe be forced to re-erect the statues of Stalin and other communist leaders they pulled down in 1989. Unfortunately I missed the Daily Mail's outrage at those particular acts of vandalism.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
Definitly. Preferably designed and constructed by Afro-Carribean artists.He should be replaced with a slavery memorial IMHO.
Perhaps the US/Iraqi government should be required to put back that statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as well.JQH wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:21 pmOr the citizens of Eastern Europe be forced to re-erect the statues of Stalin and other communist leaders they pulled down in 1989. Unfortunately I missed the Daily Mail's outrage at those particular acts of vandalism.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
I wonder how many of the people who say it's erasing history could actually have named who the statue was of if shown it?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
He should be replaced with a slavery memorial IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi ... _ChurchillHe had a hierarchical perspective of race, believing white people were most superior and black people the least. He was an adherent to the view that British domination was a result of social Darwinism... Churchill advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Americas and the Caribbean. During World War II he prioritised stockpiling of food for Europeans over feeding Indian subjects suffering during the Bengal famine of 1943. ... At one point he explicitly told his Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery that he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion" ... He also described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation of humanity" than the Jews who he treated a "higher grade race"
Yes, going after Churchill is going to upset a lot of people.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:58 amI wonder how many of the people who say it's erasing history could actually have named who the statue was of if shown it?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
He should be replaced with a slavery memorial IMHO.
Now the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square has been sprayed with 'was a racist' - which he certainly was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi ... _ChurchillHe had a hierarchical perspective of race, believing white people were most superior and black people the least. He was an adherent to the view that British domination was a result of social Darwinism... Churchill advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Americas and the Caribbean. During World War II he prioritised stockpiling of food for Europeans over feeding Indian subjects suffering during the Bengal famine of 1943. ... At one point he explicitly told his Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery that he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion" ... He also described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation of humanity" than the Jews who he treated a "higher grade race"
I suspect this will be a more complex and heated discussion than the one about Colston as many people still alive remember the war and Churchill's role in the victory so they're more emotionally invested in him as part of their own past, which makes it harder to evaluate him objectively.
The statue of Leopold II in front of the church of Ekeren has just been removed.
The statue has been targeted several times by vandals in recent weeks. For example, it was smeared with red paint and also set on fire. The damage was virtually irreparable. The image of Leopold II is very controversial because of the horrific things that happened in Congo under his rule. A sign had already been placed near the statue, explaining the history. In 2023, when the church environment in Ekeren is scheduled to be redesigned, the statue would have been removed anyway.
Yes, he was a racist among racists but as you say, his views were considered extreme even by his peers. But when someone is in a position of power then their actions should all be weighed, not just the heroic ones. Its the 'warts and all' approach. Too many people want everything in black and white, someone is either a hero or a villain. Complex opinions or actions cause too much cognitive dissonance. What makes a good wartime leader doesn't necessarily make a good leader of empire or even a decent human being. And of course Churchill was hardly standing alone against Germany, he had a whole Parliament and Civil Service working with/for him. (And of course we didn't win the war, without Russia and the US we'd have been buggered)Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:10 pmYes, going after Churchill is going to upset a lot of people.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:58 amI wonder how many of the people who say it's erasing history could actually have named who the statue was of if shown it?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
He should be replaced with a slavery memorial IMHO.
Now the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square has been sprayed with 'was a racist' - which he certainly was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi ... _ChurchillHe had a hierarchical perspective of race, believing white people were most superior and black people the least. He was an adherent to the view that British domination was a result of social Darwinism... Churchill advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Americas and the Caribbean. During World War II he prioritised stockpiling of food for Europeans over feeding Indian subjects suffering during the Bengal famine of 1943. ... At one point he explicitly told his Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery that he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion" ... He also described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation of humanity" than the Jews who he treated a "higher grade race"
I suspect this will be a more complex and heated discussion than the one about Colston as many people still alive remember the war and Churchill's role in the victory so they're more emotionally invested in him as part of their own past, which makes it harder to evaluate him objectively.
I think pointing out that Churchill was a racist is insufficient. Pretty much everybody born a century ago will have held views that are totally unacceptably racist by today's standards - even many abolitionists wrote patronising things about black people. And I dare say that many views and attitudes that are normal today will be considered racist 100 years from now.
The larger issue with Churchill is the disparity between his actions as a leader of Britain and an overseer of the empire, especially his material contributions to millions of deaths in India at the same time as fighting fascism in Europe. This disparity makes his racism plain (and AIUI he was considered unusually racist even by other British imperialists at the time).
racistDonaldTrump wrote:The statue fell harder than was pushed. Could be a set up?
Perhaps there's some value in leaving up incredibly ugly statues of people who were c.nts.MonkeyWrench wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:18 pmGet rid of all statues. They're rubbish and rarely look like the person they're meant to depict.
Was that made by the same guy who did the Cristiano Ronaldo one?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:24 pmPerhaps there's some value in leaving up incredibly ugly statues of people who were c.nts.MonkeyWrench wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:18 pmGet rid of all statues. They're rubbish and rarely look like the person they're meant to depict.
For example, the USA obviously needs to get rid of all its Confederate statues - but perhaps they should leave up this one of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville, Tennessee:
from https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ugl ... est-statue
According to David Irving, the noted holocaust denier. It's a bit hard to tell.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:52 pmThis is interesting: some of his most famous radio speeches were voiced by an actor, not Churchill himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/ ... heobserver
My mum has an album* of Churchill's famous speeches. I wonder if they're the 1949 EMI re-recordings that link mentions or earlier, and if earlier I wonder which might be Shelley revoicing Churchill.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:28 pmAccording to David Irving, the noted holocaust denier. It's a bit hard to tell.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:52 pmThis is interesting: some of his most famous radio speeches were voiced by an actor, not Churchill himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/ ... heobserver
That really is beautifulFishnut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:24 pmI can't stop listening to this short poem by Vanessa Kisuule about the statue. It's beautiful and perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3DKfaK ... e=emb_logo
As I remember (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Germans had magnetic tape recording as we understand it now some time in the late 1930s but in the UK the only sound recording technology during WW2 was direct to wax disc*, and possibly optical sound on film. We didn’t get actual magnetic tape recording until the end of WW2. So anything recorded during WW2 here is necessarily very noisy and limited in frequency range, so it would be very hard to discern between Churchill’s actual voice and a half reasonable impression anyway.Martin Y wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:39 pmMy mum has an album* of Churchill's famous speeches. I wonder if they're the 1949 EMI re-recordings that link mentions or earlier, and if earlier I wonder which might be Shelley revoicing Churchill.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:28 pmAccording to David Irving, the noted holocaust denier. It's a bit hard to tell.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:52 pmThis is interesting: some of his most famous radio speeches were voiced by an actor, not Churchill himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/ ... heobserver
*From when an "album" had not yet become just one LP record, it's literally an album: in a book format, with a 10" 78rpm disc sleeved in each page.
I think we had steel tape recording from the 1930s.individualmember wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:05 pmAs I remember (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Germans had magnetic tape recording as we understand it now some time in the late 1930s but in the UK the only sound recording technology during WW2 was direct to wax disc*, and possibly optical sound on film. We didn’t get actual magnetic tape recording until the end of WW2. So anything recorded during WW2 here is necessarily very noisy and limited in frequency range, so it would be very hard to discern between Churchill’s actual voice and a half reasonable impression anyway.Martin Y wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:39 pmMy mum has an album* of Churchill's famous speeches. I wonder if they're the 1949 EMI re-recordings that link mentions or earlier, and if earlier I wonder which might be Shelley revoicing Churchill.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:28 pm
According to David Irving, the noted holocaust denier. It's a bit hard to tell.
*From when an "album" had not yet become just one LP record, it's literally an album: in a book format, with a 10" 78rpm disc sleeved in each page.
ETA *probably shellac rather than wax discs (there are some in the British Library from the period IIRC)
Ah yes, I’d forgotten about the steel tape. Still poor quality though by post war standards, plus not at all portable, I believe that anyone wanting to use it would have had to go to either Broadcasting House or Maida Vale Studio, where they were.basementer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:44 pmI think we had steel tape recording from the 1930s.individualmember wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:05 pmAs I remember (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Germans had magnetic tape recording as we understand it now some time in the late 1930s but in the UK the only sound recording technology during WW2 was direct to wax disc*, and possibly optical sound on film. We didn’t get actual magnetic tape recording until the end of WW2. So anything recorded during WW2 here is necessarily very noisy and limited in frequency range, so it would be very hard to discern between Churchill’s actual voice and a half reasonable impression anyway.Martin Y wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:39 pm
My mum has an album* of Churchill's famous speeches. I wonder if they're the 1949 EMI re-recordings that link mentions or earlier, and if earlier I wonder which might be Shelley revoicing Churchill.
*From when an "album" had not yet become just one LP record, it's literally an album: in a book format, with a 10" 78rpm disc sleeved in each page.
ETA *probably shellac rather than wax discs (there are some in the British Library from the period IIRC)
The Colston one is probably the property of Bristol City Council. That may cause problems in a prosecution if the council aren't interested in defending a slave trader:Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:29 pmWho owns the statue and also the one of Churchill? I've been trying to find out about the Churchill one but can't see anything. I don't even know what area of law would cover this. Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London) says it's not his responsibility.
I think the government owns the land it's on as they allowed it to be put up https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hans ... ill-statue
Normally the owner of damaged property will provide a statement to the police saying “I did not consent to the damage to my property.” A prosecution for criminal damage without one would be highly unusual. It might not always be an absolute legal necessity – the prosecution could perhaps prove ownership even without it – but refusing to give a statement would suggest not supporting the prosecution, which would imply that the Council did not care about the statue’s destruction.
There is a certain irony that as a non-Brizzlian I didn’t have a clue who Colston was UNTIL his statue was pulled down. It is only the act of destruction itself which has brought him and his role in the slave trade to my attention.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:58 amI wonder how many of the people who say it's erasing history could actually have named who the statue was of if shown it?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:14 pmThe "erasing history" argument is particularly misguided. We remember history through books, not statues. It's not like Germany should be forced to erect statues of prominent Nazis to help remember that chapter of history.
He should be replaced with a slavery memorial IMHO.
I linked to that article somewhere else... It's a private statue on private land, but is a bit of a self-own. Those of us on Internationalskeptics.com have probably come across a black-latino poster who uses the head as his avatar for that reason.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:24 pmPerhaps there's some value in leaving up incredibly ugly statues of people who were c.nts.MonkeyWrench wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:18 pmGet rid of all statues. They're rubbish and rarely look like the person they're meant to depict.
For example, the USA obviously needs to get rid of all its Confederate statues - but perhaps they should leave up this one of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Nashville, Tennessee:
from https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ugl ... est-statue