Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

[titbumwillypoo]

I understand a lot of the anger out there right now, it's 2020 FGS and the colour of a persons skin shouldn't matter, what gender they are shouldn't matter, whether they believe in a God or not shouldn't matter. But obviously they still do and there are still massive inequalities in our society that shouldn't be prevelant in this day and age.
So when I see statues being pushed into rivers and people complaining about Do they know it's Christmas and calling it to be banned or JK Rowling being racist because she wasn't inclusive enough it bothers me that instead of trying to improve the present we are more concered about deleting the past.
How can we grow as a society if the past has been censored. Books, music and art are a snapshot of how things were at that time in history, so surely it's better to have these things to discuss and learn from than to try and write them out of our collective consciousness. Imagine the uproar if Poland decided to level Auschwitz and build something nice on it. It's there and will remain there to remind us and future generations of mans inhumanity to man.
Finally there was a 38 degree's petition set up 3 years ago about Edward Colstons statue being removed, it got 10 signatures. If people find something offensive then there are systems in place to change things if they can be bothered to engage.

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/remove-the-edward-colston-statue-from-bristol-city-centre?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1591119305&utm_campaign&share=d20ed235-f13a-4959-a06a-fd99dd9d7e94&fbclid=IwAR20VPeTfcewycIMCIkFNPc_W2Sy9VVNbHncGA352K1KpEmppi-y7FUV7iA

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45825768
YANBU: We can and should learn from history and censorship is bad.
YABU: Burn it all and start again.

Possibly because mayors have fuck all power? (unless in certain cities)

Of course he wouldn't have been able to just have the statue removed without any consultation.
But in 4 years he could have publicly expressed his views and raised people's awareness of the issues instead of keeping quiet and then saying he found it abhorrent after the statue was removed.
IMO most people would have thought it reasonable for it to be in a museum.
Everyone in Bristol should have had the chance to be involved in the decision instead of a few people taking matters into their own hands.

@titbumwillypoo would you be ok with a city erecting a statue of Jimmy Saville in a town square in celebration of his philanthropic works, and just not mentioning his pedophilia?

Iconoclasm has a long history with plenty of examples.

Marvin Rees doesn't care whether the statute is there or not. He absolutely has power to make decisions - look at the bristol arena fiasco. I'm glad the statute is down. I don't think it happened in the right way though.

@zscaler there were some. One in Glasgow. It was torn down I believe (as was his house in Scotland) and plaques commemorating his life were defaced but no one seemed to think that was an act of vandalism.

I think many people would be surprised about some of the stuff they don't know about Churchill.

We learn about him in school as the great Leader who saved us in WW2 from the Nazi hordes. He won the title as Greatest Britain.

Yet he is more complicated and there is lots to his character people wouldn't like.

The past is complicated. Not everything we learn or are told is everything that there is to be told.

Victors can always change history. That is why there has to be an accuate record of what happened.

Churchill was a racist. This is hardly news. Everyone was a racist back then. His opposition to Indian independence was because he beleived that Indians were incapable of ever governing themselves, for all eternity.

And while we're on the subject, Gandhi was also a racist, who spoke of black South Africans as 'blanket kaffirs.'

Exactly this sort of wide eyed, disingenuous bullshit is why people lost patience and tore the statue down.

This is why.

Why don't you actually listen to black people, then you might hear more than "silence".

Most people are not bothered about things that happened hundreds of years and will not go searching for them so surely it is better to have things in view so they can be used as examples of injustice.

Exactly, most people will not go searching for information, which is why lies and attempts at censoring and re-writing history should not be blazoned on a statue people walk past every day. How many people were inspired to google just because they walked past a statue?

Removing the statue has been the single greatest ‘teacher’ in terms of visibility, awareness, and spreading of correct factual history information.

How many people outside of Bristol had even heard of this guy? Now zillions around the world know all about his life and work, he’s on the news in foreign countries, he is inspiring mass debate. This huge increase in knowledge and people educating themselves has only come about because the statue was removed.

I do agree that the past should never be deleted. But we can also improve the present without deleting the past.
The recent contention over the HP books is fuelled by issues people have with Rowling herself. But as far as books in general (including HP) go, I believe they should never be banned or destroyed, and if the writing was a product of its time the author shouldn't be vilified, but a discussion of problematic aspects, parts that haven't aged well and prejudices within the writing is entirely appropriate.

Do they know its Christmas- I'm not sure that people are calling for this to be banned entirely, just asking it not to continue receiving airplay. The charity money raised at the time was amazing, and no one will forget that- the song will still be available via CD, spotify, and I'm sure it will be on every "best of xx" compilation for years to come. But people aren't wrong not to want to listen to a song which perpetuates offensive and problematic stereotypes every Christmas - this is something which affects the present, not the past.

The statue again is something which affects the present. It should have been removed years ago- not destroyed, but kept in a museum. But you're saying that people should have to continue walking past a statue which glorifies slavery, today and in the future, in the name of preserving the past?

And I notice you keep making false equivalence comparisons with MLK, whilst ignoring requests on your opinion of the much more like-for-like Jimmy Saville?

Re MLK - if those who are victims of his crimes, or ancestors who still suffer negative effects of his actions today, wanted not to walk past a statue glorifying him every day then that would also be valid.

This is absolutely pathetic.

He gave money to some people that he had made from the systematic abuse of other people. That is not to be celebrated. If someone today makes a shitload of money from the abduction and abuse of modern slaves and then uses that money to improve other people's lives, that is not to be celebrated.

The arguments I have seen on here against the removal of a statue are contemptible, especially when they come from this pseudo intellectual concern about censorship. Conflating the preservation of Auschwitz with the keeping of a statue of a man who made his wealth through slavery? What the actual fuck? Trying to make the argument that you must think statues of Mandela should be destroyed if you are glad the statue of a slaver was destroyed- what the fuck? Did Mandela become a very wealthy man through the buying, selling and abuse of thousands of men, women and children? Get to fuck.

People think racism is just the BNP and KKK and police officers murdering black people, but these ridiculous tantrums over the destruction of a statue that commemorates a slaver using the wealth he had made through the abuse of black humans to improve the lives of white humans is also racism. It's the racism that is hardest to eradicate because people refuse to recognise it.

It is not, as somebody wanted to tell me yesterday, akin to the Chinese cultural revolution to think poorly of people who don't think it is a positive thing that a memorial to a slaver has been pulled down.
It is not a form of terrifying censorship to pull down a statue to a slaver. By all means, learn about the slaver. Learn everything about him. But don't expect the descendants of the people he tortured and abused to accept a statue lauding him. Don't make people who a few generations ago would have been bought, enslaved, used, worked to death by that man to walk past it without complaint because you think it's fucking censorship to stop commemorating slavers.

It is not eradicating history to refuse to continue to applaud the actions of people who were active participants in the sustained abuse and exploitation of millions of human beings, who were wealthy and privileged because they bought, sold, used, abused and killed millions of human beings, who were able to give charity because they had made money through buying, selling, using, abusing and killing other people.

If you think the version of history we are taught as standard in this country, in all the countries of the West that benefitted from our centuries of vile exploitation of other countries, is without bias and without censorship already then you are a fucking idiot anyway.

@Iwalkinmyclothing bloody well said!

I get what you are saying. We only seem to learn one side of history and ignore the parts we don’t like. That statue should be in a museum. A much clearer plaque should have been in place to say how yes he put money into the community but it was through slavery.

Something a feel strongly about is education, I left school in 2005, I didn’t learn about the slave trade ( live near Liverpool so would also come under local history), I didn’t learn about the british empire, I didn’t learn about the suffragettes, overall my history lessons were poor. FYI- huge geek in school, so it wasn’t a case of it being taught and I didn’t listen. We need to learn both sides of history, I only learnt the positives. A lot more focus and funding needs to go into education!

If someone today makes a shitload of money from the abduction and abuse of modern slaves and then uses that money to improve other people's lives, that is not to be celebrated

As a slight aside, Alfred Nobel was thought to have died and he read his obituary which discussed his role in the weapons industry. He didn't like what he read and this led him to setting up the Nobel Prize including the Peace one.

Iwalkinmyclothing Perfectly worded

If you think the version of history we are taught as standard in this country, in all the countries of the West that benefitted from our centuries of vile exploitation of other countries, is without bias and without censorship already then you are a fucking idiot anyway

So true

When you go to museums and historical places abroad, you can see a very different perspective on events.

India is one example I clearly remember - I went to Lucknow - the site of the Lucknow massacre or the site of the Indian Rebellion or the Indian Mutiny, depending on your view.

I’m amazed that people think censorship is tearing a statue down and not ‘ignoring all the abhorrent things a man did and only celebrating the good’ - did you know that the only thing the council offered to placate the public was a tiny plaque mentioning his role in slavery, but refused it because it talked about the millions of children he murdered?

Do you want to talk about censorship? I’d say many, many more people have a better idea of slavery in Britain since that statue was fucked into the sea. I hope more go the same way.

Can you imagine, for example, WWII being taught in schools without censoring Churchill?

I’d say many, many more people have a better idea of slavery in Britain since that statue was fucked into the sea

I wonder how many people knew that slaves were thrown into the sea deliberately?

@Iwalkinmyclothing Thank you!

the installation of the station was a deliberate attempt to censor history and push a false version of history.

Yes, this stood out for me.

I know people can find change alarming, and what looks like a mob is often alarming. I much prefer the calm, controlled route myself, too.

But arguments that "removing this statue is rewriting history" are for the birds.

Like so many other monuments, its very erection was an attempt to rewrite history.

What's more, despite my inherent preference for an orderly removal, I have to admit the dramatic story of its dunking will be retold far more often than "city council removes statue" – beautifully achieving the objective of educating people about Bristol's history.

x-posted with a zillion posters saying it better.

I totally agree that we need to remember the past so we can move on from it. Who are these thugs who think that they can block out history just because it doesn’t suit their narrative? Edward Colston has gone and that should be celebrated but unfortunately it still happened. Unfortunately the slave trade is still happening though, think about all those girls being trafficked for sex as well.

I totally agree that we need to remember the past so we can move on from it

Which past are we remembering?
The one we are told about or the more complex past that we have to research ourselves.