Statues

[Dave2002]

If we look to history maybe we should also remember the children enslaved in factories during the Industrial Revolution, the children dragging coal trucks deep underground in the mines and the small boys sent up chimneys. And then, of course, those poor boys conscripted into the army during the First World War, forced to become murderers and then themselves inevitably murdered. Perhaps most of our statues are of villains, and many of our most noble buildings are built on the profits of slave labour, but it's silly to take them all down. Much better to attach signs giving the historical background.

Seems sensible. We can't change the past but we can modify the narrative. For events in the distant past there is little which could be done to remedy any consequences, though some mitigations might be possible for recent events. We shouldn't necessarily erase things we don't like - as in for example removing people from photos (that has been done ...), pretending that things never happened or that something else happend instead - forms of denial, but we can change the story and modify the perspectives without completely distorting the truth.

[MrGongGong]

Seems sensible. We can't change the past but we can modify the narrative. For events in the distant past there is little which could be done to remedy any consequences, though some mitigations might be possible for recent events. We shouldn't necessarily erase things we don't like - as in for example removing people from photos (that has been done ...), pretending that things never happened or that something else happend instead - forms of denial, but we can change the story and modify the perspectives without completely distorting the truth.

I think one of the problems we have in Britain is that there is never any real acknowledgement, meaningful apology or even justice for the victims of the actions.
There are many things that DID happen which people are still suffering as a result but those responsible are allowed to simply walk away
which is NOT to say that this doesn't happen elsewhere but "a big boy did it and ran away" is no excuse

Off the top of my head

Bloody Sunday
Diego Garcia
Jean Charles de Menezes
Hillsborough

We shouldn't necessarily erase things we don't like

indeed

so do we pretend that these aren't true ? (from the BBC) and the "everyone was racist" argument doesn't really wash IMV

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace,"

[Count Boso]

so do we pretend that these aren't true ? (from the BBC) and the "everyone was racist" argument doesn't really wash IMV

No, but one might (devil's advocate) claim that before a certain date, or at least an historical period, no one was racist because the concept of racism didn't exist. It was only with a dawning general discovery of the brutal reality of the events and appreciation of the enormity of their consequences that the word 'racism' was coined by a new thinking to denote - and therefore condemn - a long existing phenomenon among human beings.

[MrGongGong]

No, but one might (devil's advocate) claim that before a certain date, or at least an historical period, no one was racist because the concept of racism didn't exist. It was only with a dawning general discovery of the brutal reality of the events and appreciation of the enormity of their consequences that the word 'racism' was coined by a new thinking to denote - and therefore condemn - a long existing phenomenon among human beings.

Interesting
I'm assuming you mean (and i'm not a historian or even "AN istorian" ) around 0 BCE or thereabouts?

[LHC]

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

As a very minor corrective, the full quote makes it clear that the 'poisoned gas' Churchill was referring to in this instance was tear gas (what he referred to as 'lachrymatory gas'), rather than any other more serious chemical weapons, and he was in favour of the use of tear gas in order to prevent loss of life through the use of conventional weapons. He was not advocating the wholesale slaughter of tribesmen in Northwest India :

"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

and

"Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to."

Of course, that doesn't make his views on race any more palatable or acceptable.

[Count Boso]

Interesting
I'm assuming you mean (and i'm not a historian or even "AN istorian" ) around 0 BCE or thereabouts?

Not really. I mean before a strong abolitionist movement took root, which in Britain was in the latter half of the 18th century. There are always those few whose ideas are ahead of their time, true. Particularly, non-conformist religious groups were voicing their opposition perhaps as early as the end of the 17th century, but it wasn't until the slave trade really took off during the course of the 18th century that the idea began to spread more generally.

If I have my facts corrrect (a vague memory of something read) the mediaeval (?) Church was behind a movement to purchase slaves from their masters in order to procure their freedom. But this surely had nothing to do with racism, since slaves were not predominantly of other races, except (possibly) when prisoners of war. Even abolitionism was about the evils of slavery, not the evils of racism

[MrGongGong]

[Joseph K]

See #69.

[Count Boso]

It might be quite an interesting project to attempt an essay on the difference between a monument built in 1961 and demolished in 1991, and a statue set up in 1850 being toppled in 2020? Like, for instance, the reason why the monument was set up in the first place, and therefore what it commemorates? It might not change your opinion on the necessity for demolition, but it might show a more sophisticated understanding of history.

[MrGongGong]

See #69.

I have no idea what they are doing or what this was about
History has been erased

(I see Neil Oliver getting rather confused about this and hanging out with some rather dodgy folks indeed.... and being criticised by those who seem to know more history than he does hummmmmmm)

[MrGongGong]

It might be quite an interesting project to attempt an essay on the difference between a monument built in 1961 and demolished in 1991, and a statue set up in 1850 being toppled in 2020? Like, for instance, the reason why the monument was set up in the first place, and therefore what it commemorates? It might not change your opinion on the necessity for demolition, but it might show a more sophisticated understanding of history.

I think the people in Bristol who toppled the statue are very aware of what the statue (which was put up many years after the man's death) was there for.

I don't think one needs a huge degree of "sophistication" to understand

When I have been to places that have colonial past it's very clear to me what the huge white dominating buildings are there for... Singapore, Belfast etc etc when I went to Delhi for the first time earlier this year I was struck by the sheer scale of the buildings in New Delhi, the message is very clear indeed.

[Count Boso]

I think the people in Bristol who toppled the statue are very aware of what the statue (which was put up many years after the man's death) was there for.

I don't think one needs a huge degree of "sophistication" to understand

i think I must disagree wth you there. The statue was put up in Bristol, as I understand it, to commemorate a man's charitable donations to the city, not to commemorate his association with the slave trade. Wasn't it?

Rightly or wrongly, blindly and ignorantly, if you like, they were not, at the time they put up the statue, commemorating his services to the RAC (a London-based company), racial injustice, racist brutality, man's inhumanity to man. 0/20, I'm afraid.

[MrGongGong]

i think I must disagree wth you there. The statue was put up in Bristol, as I understand it, to commemorate a man's charitable donations to the city, not to commemorate his association with the slave trade. Wasn't it?

Rightly or wrongly, blindly and ignorantly, if you like, they were not, at the time they put up the statue, commemorating his services to the RAC (a London-based company), racial injustice, racist brutality, man's inhumanity to man. 0/20, I'm afraid.

I think the Bristol statue was put up many years after his death as a symbol in the same way the North Korean ones were.

So how about a statue of Jimmy Savile ?
To commemorate his charitable deeds rather than the other things ?

Or how about one to celebrate the many people who were successfully treated by Harold Shipman ?

What is a suitable interval of time to wait ?

The idea that some folks have put forward is that it is somehow "erasing history" really is nonsense.
How many people are there who have spent hours and hours researching history as a result ?

[gurnemanz]

i think I must disagree wth you there. The statue was put up in Bristol, as I understand it, to commemorate a man's charitable donations to the city, not to commemorate his association with the slave trade. Wasn't it?

On that basis the Germans could put up a statue of Adolf Hitler in recognition of his creation of a fine motorway system.

[Count Boso]

I think the Bristol statue was put up many years after his death as a symbol in the same way the North Korean ones were.

Well, well, I feel there is little point in pursuing this, but

So how about a statue of Jimmy Savile ?
To commemorate his charitable deeds rather than the other things ?

A statue to that man, raised now would have to be 'en pleine connaissance de cause'. We know now what we know and the world has moved on, a sadder and a wiser place (one hopes). You are apparently stating that beyond a peradventure, the Victorian age was ignoring the full horrors of the slave trade before the full horrors of the slave trade had been uncovered. I think that an unreasonable assumption of certainty. But, for my part, I shall let the matter rest there.