Area for all other political discussion
:sunglasses: 51.9 % ❤ 11.1 % :thumbsup: 29.6 % :grinning: 3.7 % :cry: 3.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613219
As the statute of Edward Colston finds it's rightful resting place in Bristol harbour (foundries don't work on a Sunday), that must have us wondering whether such a long overdue toppling will herald many more acts of cleansing which, themselves, are long-overdue, albeit largely symbolic.

Just about every British city centre is wall-to-wall with the legacies of these psychopathic cockroaches, whether as statues or as street names.

The fact might well be that there are so many of them that we don't give them a second thought. However, if this weekend is going to signal any real change, councils up and down the land need to step up and bring about renaming committees to banish these criminals from the urban fabric.

Yes, Covid-19 is putting a strain on resources but these bodies can be drawn from people who know the area and are in positions of influence, yet have little to do with the present crisis.

It would be a start.
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613224
I think for most negative reactions to attacks/removals of these statues et al, it's genuine ignorance first. My mum would immediately go 'oh goodness, what upheaval!'. I think a lot of people just don't get it, they don't get the connections and the way the country's wealth was built. A reaction of a sorta concerned paternalism might follow: 'but this is history' is the usual myopic response, then after some discussion it might be rather more varied and nuanced, no doubt with refusal to engage from some (perhaps even my mum, not sure).

It's all part and parcel of a very limited understanding of what history is, and how it shapes us. The popular British story is one we're all wearily familiar with, but it has power despite (or perhaps, because of) being founded on a fundamental conceit: we don't get to decide which bits of history we are linked to if we don't also accept that means we are linked to bad things in the past - not least cos they continue to have effects today. History doesn't care about us, so stop pretending we're special or infallible. We are not, and we can do better, every single day. This is not the same as attacking you for who you are by virtue of history - my dad gets so defensive, so quickly about this: he's very thoughtful but there's a blindspot, he takes these things very personally. It's the thin end of the complaints about 'white privilege': no, this doesn't mean no white people suffer. They do. That's not what that phrase means.

This should be especially pressing when it continues to affect people today. That some effectively value a story over others' lives, or are unwilling to expand and reshape their story, speaks volumes. People don't want history, they want comforting stories. History ain't that. Deal with it. Actually be strong, actually be just, actually be noble, rather than wearing the cultural clothes that pretend you are.

Edit: think the US is alone in rehabilitation/later veneration of the Southern cunts?

https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/my ... hin-myths/ 170 years after the fact.
Kreuzberger liked this
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613232
In 1986, Glasgow changed the name of St George's Place in the city centre to honour Nelson Mandela while he was still in jail.

As Mandela himself said soon after his release, it was all about delegitimising apartheid. Treasuring a better future, if you will.

This paradigm is different, only it isn't.
Abernathy, WTF? liked this
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613240
I don't know if these statues legitimize slavery, do they? They're just there because they're there. Kenneth Clark in Civilisation says he's heard people who want to sound clever say "civilization can only exist on a base of slavery", but I think those people have probably given up now. It's a different sort of thing to in the US where lots of people actually think that Confederates were fighting for some sort of airy notion of "states' rights", and indeed "states' rights" is an active bad faith trope now.
Timbo liked this
 
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613245
The American statues were erected in the 1960s, very much in a "don't get any ideas, boy" way. The British ones were products of their time. The intention behind them was to honour local worthies (by the standards of the time), rather than to intimidate people.
Timbo liked this
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613257
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:03 pm
I don't know if these statues legitimize slavery, do they? They're just there because they're there.
Indeed, they are there because they are there. A country that has yet to face up to its past deems this to be acceptable. They are there because the money was either raised for or diverted to their erection.

There are no statues to Saddam Hussain in Baghdad, none to Stalin in Moscow, and there certainly aren't any to Adolf on my block.

They're not there because they're not.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613259
Andy McDandy wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:56 pm
The American statues were erected in the 1960s, very much in a "don't get any ideas, boy" way. The British ones were products of their time. The intention behind them was to honour local worthies (by the standards of the time), rather than to intimidate people.
I think most of the Confederate ones are earlier than the 60s but yeah, that was exactly why they were erected. Some of them are enormous too.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#613263
Kreuzberger wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:21 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:03 pm
I don't know if these statues legitimize slavery, do they? They're just there because they're there.
Indeed, they are there because they are there. A country that has yet to face up to its past deems this to be acceptable. They are there because the money was either raised for or diverted to their erection.

There are no statues to Saddam Hussain in Baghdad, none to Stalin in Moscow, and there certainly aren't any to Adolf on my block.

They're not there because they're not.
Were there ever statues to Hitler?

Edit- there must have been. Ignore that.
Last edited by Tubby Isaacs on Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#613269
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:37 pm
Kreuzberger wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:21 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:03 pm
I don't know if these statues legitimize slavery, do they? They're just there because they're there.
Indeed, they are there because they are there. A country that has yet to face up to its past deems this to be acceptable. They are there because the money was either raised for or diverted to their erection.

There are no statues to Saddam Hussain in Baghdad, none to Stalin in Moscow, and there certainly aren't any to Adolf on my block.

They're not there because they're not.
Were there ever statues to Hitler?

Edit- there must have been. Ignore that.
I believe Idi Amin had one commissioned. The African Donald Trump.
Tubby Isaacs, Oblomov liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
US election 2020

"Establish permanent manned presence on th[…]

Daily Telegraph

More comedy gold from Charles Moore at the Telegra[…]

The Tories, Generally

Another one. Gary Sambrook. He needs a proof reade[…]

Boris Johnson

Fucking hell. Some of those were too nuts for the […]