Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

Darat said:
Why shouldn't it be up to the people alive today what they do as it was to the people hundreds of years ago? Societies and cultures are always changing.
Click to expand...

Again, this isn't something I disagree with. The question I keep coming back to is who gets to decide? The British public, in the case of our own country? We can't agree on anything here, and neither can the Americans.



Darat said:
Seems pretty much unconnected to this topic but again why shouldn't the people today be able to make such decisions for themselves?
Click to expand...

Can you explain how it's different? The topic we all seem to be discussing is whether or not some history should be remembered, and with it, some historic figures remembered. My question is, if we're now taking a more curious glance of the things we celebrate, shouldn't that extend to other dubious people, places, and things? Are we genuinely trying to change anything, or is this a hashtag moment for the social media crowd?



Darat said:
People have always had this issue; it isn't a new thing. I'd say these days we are in fact much more sensitive and try to be better informed when we are making these types of decisions then ever before. It’s only a few hundred years ago the word would go out from the ruler that X is now out of favour and everyone would be quick to remove anything that even reminded people of X.

We’ve now decided as a society that slave traders are not people we want to commemorate no matter if they did other things that we still respect. It is just a change.

There is a slight wrinkle in this for the USA folk as it is apparent that many of the “confederate” statues were deliberately put up in quite recent times to commemorate the fight to keep slavery so there is no “but he was loved his dog” that needs to be taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not a new thing, yet it's odd that we're content to continue to pick and choose the things which we find okay to celebrate versus the things we want to be rid of. We're uncomfortable with the atrocities of the past, quite rightly, yet most of this country voted Conservative, and it seems to me that we're happy to let atrocities continue. Seeing all of those people protesting made me think, did they all vote? Could've done with those numbers at the polling stations, because sadly, poverty isn't going away any time soon.
 
Darat said:
Removing a statue put up to commemorate someone is no more blotting out history than it being put up in the first place. As you say what "we" (the people today) decide to commemorate will be different from the "we" from 200 years ago.

I doubt that anyone learned anything about history from Colson's statue, after all it was not put up to educate people. From the sounds of it how it is now going to be used will in fact help illuminate history, so the total opposite of blotting out history.

I have to say I've learnt something from this, I did not know Drake had been a slave trader and I know I was not alone in that ignorance, so the current protests are in fact educating people about history.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly speaking generally regarding the blotting out of history. While I'm generally okay with the removal of some monuments to dubious characters, I feel that Liverpool's solution is the better one. To accompany certain monuments or street names with additional information which explains why such places were given the name, or why such monuments were erected in the first place. History is seldom straightforward, you've got a lot of historical figures who were doing amazing things while being really horrible people, that's humanity for ya. Education is key, learning about these things is valuable, IMO. I truly hope people are seeking to educate themselves during all of this. I reminded a friend just last night that Liverpool is full of information, should anyone in this city care to look it up, because I think some people are still of the opinion that we (Liverpool and the rest of the UK) blindly commemorate these people without so much as offering up a balanced view of what they actually did.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm not sure what you think you mean by that. People calling out for fewer statues of imperialists might well be dissatisfied with a proposal to change the situation by putting up more.

Dave
Click to expand...

It was very much a direct response to Joe Morgue.

Again, my point is this: I agree that we can and should be able to review the things we choose to celebrate. I don't agree that we can choose what we decide to remember, though.

When it comes to our issues that we have with continuing to celebrate people from the past who had dubious connections, do we end it there? Do we then look to other staples of our culture, such as art, literature, music, etc?

Can we separate a man/woman's history from their work? If we can, why can we?

Again, Colston's statue was put there to celebrate what he accomplished. If we're now (rightly) questioning it, are we not allowed to then question other people who have contributed to society while also having a questionable connection to some type of immoral deed?

Who gets to decide what's right and what's wrong?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
...snip...

Again, Colston's statue was put there to celebrate what he accomplished. If we're now (rightly) questioning it, are we not allowed to then question other people who have contributed to society while also having a questionable connection to some type of immoral deed?

...snip...
Click to expand...

It's interesting to read the history behind it, from Wikipedia:

...
The statue, designed by John Cassidy, was erected in the area now known as The Centre in 1895, to commemorate Edward Colston's philanthropy.[3][4] It was proposed by James Arrowsmith, the president of the Anchor Society. Several appeals to the public and to Colston-related charitable bodies failed to raise the £1,000 needed for its casting and erection, and Arrowsmith ended up paying the shortfall himself.[5]

...snip...
Click to expand...

It appears that one of my usual criticism of these types of statues is spot on in regards to Colson's: there was no public demand for him to be commemorated, there was no widespread movement and so on. A rich powerful person decided he wanted to impose this on everyone else and as ever the rich and the powerful got their way.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
...snip...

Who gets to decide what's right and what's wrong?
Click to expand...

We do, through various mechanisms, some I'm happy about - "due process", some I'm not as happy about - "direct action".

But I don't see why this is at all contentious, it's how society has always worked.
 
Darat said:
It's interesting to read the history behind it, from Wikipedia:



It appears that one of my usual criticism of these types of statues is spot on in regards to Colson's: there was no public demand for him to be commemorated, there was no widespread movement and so on. A rich powerful person decided he wanted to impose this on everyone else and as ever the rich and the powerful got their way.
Click to expand...

That's generally how a lot of things are done, it seldom has anything to do with the people.

I'm strongly against the removal of green space in Liverpool, and am part of a group that seeks to petition against the development of Mayor Joe's "Redrow" housing estates, we even had a strong petition against the building on of Calderstones park, but we the people weren't really given much of an ear by the local council, as you say, it's nothing new.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
You still can't see the difference between government funded and endorsed celebration forced upon people who don't want it and privately funded celebrations chosen only by people who do want it, I see.
Click to expand...

You basically just choose to ignore the point, and again, your total downplaying of the Lovecraft award which was a point of contention in the black community to the point where it was removed is evidence of that inability to grasp the connection between the topics.
 
Darat said:
We do, through various mechanisms, some I'm happy about - "due process", some I'm not as happy about - "direct action".

But I don't see why this is at all contentious, it's how society has always worked.
Click to expand...

Again, though, we the people don't ever seem to be able to come to an agreement on much. Britain can't even figure out whether it wants to remain in Europe or not. If we put all of this to the vote, where would we end up? I don't know, are we willing to find out, though?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
You basically just choose to ignore the point, and again, your total downplaying of the Lovecraft award which was a point of contention in the black community to the point where it was removed is evidence of that inability to grasp the connection between the topics.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not ignoring your point. You simply appear incapable of recognizing why it doesn't apply.
 
wareyin said:
No, I'm not ignoring your point. You simply appear incapable of recognizing why it doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Explain in detail how the two situations do not apply.

As far as I can see, the Colston statue was put up to celebrate his supposedly good (and questionable) deeds. It was torn down by those who don't wish to see him celebrated further.

Lovecraft's award was designed based on the celebration of his contribution to literature and the arts, a contribution rooted literally in his hatred of other races, notably people of black descent.

In both cases people heatedly argued about whether these people should be celebrated, and whether their image should be used to inspire or educate others.

That you fail to grasp the relevance isn't my problem.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That doesn't make it make any sense. What's wrong with people calling for specific changes, and being dissatisfied with different changes?

Dave
Click to expand...

Because he is one of a not just a few people who seems to think that the call to re-evaluate other points of contention (with how we view history and celebrate historical figures) isn't necessary. I find that odd.

You can't be a bastion for change and yet be selective on that change. If we the people can now dictate what we want to see commemorated, then whose opinion matters? The majority?

Is it just racial injustices that we seek to change, or is it a wider range of issues that includes racial atrocities but doesn't end with them?

How much change are we actually willing to make?
 
Darat said:
It appears that one of my usual criticism of these types of statues is spot on in regards to Colson's: there was no public demand for him to be commemorated, there was no widespread movement and so on. A rich powerful person decided he wanted to impose this on everyone else and as ever the rich and the powerful got their way.
Click to expand...

And I want to make this clear for people who may not have thought about it this way - this is one of the factors in to why institutional racism exists and how it means that systems can have racist outcomes, even if nobody within the system is themselves racist.

Even leaving aside appeals to tradition (which we're seeing a lot of in this thread), replacing a statue is not a neutral thing to do. Councils have budgets. Budgets that have been pared down to a bare minimum during Austerity. To replace a statue requires money. It needs manhours to decide that it should be done, how it should be done, and what should replace the original statue. Workers have to be found and contracted. Equipment has to be leased. Time has to be spent justifying these decisions to the public. Access has to be restricted while the physical change over happens. The old statue has to be disposed of in some manner.

And so on. Even leaving aside all philosophical and moral arguments, the actual physical act of replacing the statue is something that requires considerable time and effort on behalf of a lot of people.

So even absent any other factors, there's a large amount of inertia over such things. It's simply easier to just leave it where it is, just because it's already there.

I'm sure that nobody will argue that the history of the UK (as well as other countries) is one with a considerable amount of racism in it. I don't think anybody could argue that Colston wasn't racist. There are plenty of other statues of racists up. Even people arguing against the removal of the statue are happy to say that the statue was allowed to put up in the first place because times were different - i.e. more racist.

So you have things that became traditions or part of the fabric of society in a time when racism was deemed acceptable which are now difficult to change for a number of reasons simply because they are the established status quo.

That's how you can end up with a situation where a black mayor who considers the statue of a slave trader to be a personal affront unable to even get the plaque on the plinth modified to acknowledge the fact that he was a slave trader. And that is what is meant by institutional or systemic racism.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Because he is one of a not just a few people who seems to think that the call to re-evaluate other points of contention (with how we view history and celebrate historical figures) isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

That's not how I see it. He's saying, and I tend to agree, that it's not necessary to do a complete top-down revision of the whole of society before we can contemplate making specific changes in specific cases. And he's also saying that people who want to stifle change are in the habit of demanding that every possible change be proposed, discussed and finalized before any change is made. It could take years to come up with a national decision on guidelines for whether statues that particular groups find offensive should be removed or not, during which time no change can be made. The real world doesn't work like that; when there's a consensus for change, individual cases can lead the decision rather than having to wait for it, and that doesn't stop the wider discussion being held at the same time.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's not how I see it. He's saying, and I tend to agree, that it's not necessary to do a complete top-down revision of the whole of society before we can contemplate making specific changes in specific cases. And he's also saying that people who want to stifle change are in the habit of demanding that every possible change be proposed, discussed and finalized before any change is made. It could take years to come up with a national decision on guidelines for whether statues that particular groups find offensive should be removed or not, during which time no change can be made. The real world doesn't work like that; when there's a consensus for change, individual cases can lead the decision rather than having to wait for it, and that doesn't stop the wider discussion being held at the same time.

Dave
Click to expand...

But I'm in no way saying we should do any of that before we do what has been going on of late. Not in any way at all.

Let me be clear on this: I am all for change, as I've said countless times, I do not think we all need to have a sit down and a cup of tea to discuss what stays and what goes before we take action, although I would like to explore other avenues such as providing better information alongside such monuments and street names before just tearing them away.

I do, however, wonder whether we can now begin to assess other parts of our culture and our society that we no longer agree with. That's what I'm getting at. I don't claim we should be doing this before we do anything else, though, that's not what I'm demanding of anyone.
 
Darat said:
I have to say I've learnt something from this, I did not know Drake had been a slave trader and I know I was not alone in that ignorance, so the current protests are in fact educating people about history.
Click to expand...

After I learned that Vespucci had been a slaver, I wondered about Drake. It was big business. There was a whole lot of new farmland to be worked, and not enough people to work it, and there were folks in Africa willing to sell you some people really cheap. I figured a guy like Drake, ever eager to jump at an opportunity, would find a way to get in on that.

So....pull down his statue! A slave trader! An oppressor of native people! Just like.....everyone else at the time.

Well, he did save England from invasion, but surely someone else would have done that if he hadn't been there to do it himself.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
A complete lie.

Blacks are not abused for their race by police. Every single thing you hear about traces back to their actual behavior. With a very, very few rare exceptions.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that you've made it true by definition: blacks are genetically more criminal, therefore the police get to treat them differently, ergo it's not about their skin colour.

I don't think anyone here buys it.
 
Okay, to try to avoid this appearing like a waily, waily moment, I need to assure you all that this is a genuine question.

Given that, by modern moral standards, virtually everyone born prior to aroun 1900 is going to have been a bit of a git, and that of those that made enough noise to have statues put up in their honour, a very large portion are going to be found morally wanting by today's code, when do we stop?

I'm very happy to have the statues of slave traders ripped down, but are you going to close Disney world? Or, at least, re-name it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom