to think removing certain statues and renaming certain street names is not erasing our history?

[chomalungma]

It's just not celebrating people who are seen as controversial.
People can still learn about these people in books.
In films
At school.

It's just that they aren't being celebrated by having public recognition and the honour of a statue or a street name.

I would link to a story - but there would be so many of them as the Government (and certain media organisations) seem to think that it's a war on our history.

I guess a lot of it is down to the person being celebrated. And whether that celebration is still deemed 'worthy' 100s of years later.

Statues have been removed in the past for a range of reasons. I wonder how many of the Victorian statues will still be up in 200 years time?

As I have already said, secondary schools teach three years of compulsory history for two lessons a week. DS didn’t study the Second World War at all, never mind Churchill.

History is an academic subject. What is taught is taught using different perspectives. That’s the point of history, not to only teach one view,

But it is impossible to teach more than a tiny fraction of history in the small amount of time allotted to it.

There wouldn't be many statues left if you did this- no monarchs, no military figures, no religious figures (including Greek or Roman gods & goddesses- they behaved pretty appallingly).

Hmmm...I think the risk of someone whose family had been murdered by a Greek goddess having to walk past their statue every day on their way to work is minimal.

That is the point. If you keep statues of Hitler up, then the families of murdered Jews will be walking past those statues every day and have to wonder how much their sufferings matter to the society around them.

If you keep statues of Confederate generals up in a country where the Ku Klux Klan is still attracting imitators, then you are sending a message to black families who still have reason to be afraid of attracting violence simply by being black.

If you keep statues to slavers up in this country, the black families who are still suffering from poverty and discrimination because of the attitudes propagated by slavery the impression that this country doesn't actually think enslaving them was much of a problem.

This is why that statue to Jimmy Saville came down: society wanted to send a message that when it comes to paedophilia (or ever suspicions of paedophilia) we don't need a balanced debate about good and bad- we are quite happy to say "this is bad" and leave it at that. People who are traumatised by sexual abuse need to see this, they need to see that society cares.

Now, if there is a group of people anywhere around who are still traumatised or suffering discrimination because of persecution from Apollo or Marcus Aurelius, then I'd be quite happy to see their statues come down.

@Corythatwas

That's a simplistic view. You are talking about Hitler, the KKK, Jimmy Savile. People and organisations that are almost unanimously reviled.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people like Churchill, who most see as a hero but some revile as a bad person. It's about complex human beings.

The royal family for example. They might be celebrated in England, but Welsh and Scottish people probably don't want their statues up everywhere. But considering they are not 'Hitler' then it's something for nuanced debate. A blanket 'bad people statues down, good people statues up' stance does not work in most cases.

History and humanity doesn't work that way.

I assume all those women talking about law breakers who carry out acts of 'vandalism' for their beliefs don't vote?

You’ll have to break that down for me...

If there are people who don't know much about Churchill, then if there was a detailed sign by his statue explaining who he was - what should it say?

Should it only concentrate on the positives of his life - or should it also mention the controversial aspects too?

It's a bit like putting a 'spin' on someone - or good public relations.

Just like the discussions about the Empire - and how there are people who only want to talk up what they see as the positives.

It's a shame that the past that most people are taught at school and that they hear from many politicians is not the whole story and is often the selected positive highlights about individuals and events.

Everything is selected.

If there are people who don't know much about Churchill, then if there was a detailed sign by his statue explaining who he was - what should it say?

That would be a matter for public consultation, not a couple of noisy activists with an agenda.

Most people in this country couldn’t even name every twentieth century prime minister, much less say what they did. All a plaque needs to say was that he was the prime minister and the dates when.

There are certain issues that are popular this year, one of them being Churchill. He’s not uniquely awful. There are plenty of prime ministers who have created tragedies. I don’t see the point of singling out particular statues based on What is trending on Twitter.

It’s not really the basis of an ethical and considered policy.

@AStudyinPink

If there are people who don't know much about Churchill, then if there was a detailed sign by his statue explaining who he was - what should it say?

That would be a matter for public consultation, not a couple of noisy activists with an agenda.

It's ironic that prominent newspapers and commentators have their own agenda when it comes to people like Churchill and dismiss people who try and raise awareness - shutting them down in angry columns or TV interviews.

2 sides of the same coin.

I can count the real life conversations I have had about the British Empire on one hand, and I have never heard anyone say how great it was. Who are people talking to that they experience these great swathes of people who think the empire was brilliant?

It's ironic that prominent newspapers and commentators have their own agenda when it comes to people like Churchill and dismiss people who try and raise awareness - shutting them down in angry columns or TV interviews.

Not really. Everyone has an agenda. But the newspapers/commentators aren’t breaking the law so hey - what can you do about free speech?

Not really. Everyone has an agenda. But the newspapers/commentators aren’t breaking the law so hey - what can you do about free speech

Of course they have an agenda. 2 sides of the same coin.

@AStudyinPink

I assume all those women talking about law breakers who carry out acts of 'vandalism' for their beliefs don't vote?

You’ll have to break that down for me...

The reason women have the vote in the UK today is predominantly because of the strong beliefs of a relatively small group of women.

The Suffragettes waged a very literal battle to overcome bigotry and win the vote for women. They resorted to violent tactics, from smashing windows and arson attacks to setting off bombs and even attacking works of art. Their activism was essential to the struggle for suffrage.

There is a view that t women were given the vote because of their war work but that is clearly is nonsense. The limited franchise granted in 1918 excluded young women and the working class.

The political powers were still hostile to universal female suffrage, and withheld it from the very women who'd been essential to the war effort. It was only because of the revolutionary actions of the Suffragettes that the first partial step was made in 1918.

Was Emily WIlding Davison a criminal or a heroine? I know where I sit with that.

Was the Cat and Mouse Act (1913 Temporary Discharge for the Ill Health Act, fo the pedants) an act to discourage criminal activity amongst women or oppression? I know where I sit with that too.

Are those defacing statues of slavers really criminals or are they fighters of oppression and inequality?

The question remains, why would you want to honour slave trading murderers?

The suffragettes aren’t remembered because they defaced art or threw themselves in front of horses. They are remembered because they fought for a cause and won.

If some actual major change happens in the lives of black people in the U.K. then BLM will be remembered in a similar way. They are not going to be remembered for chucking a statue in some water.

Just as we don’t remember the fall of the Nazis because statues were taken down or the fall of Communism because of statues. We remember the falls because they actually fell.

I’m no happier to have statues of slavers than statues of all the people who sent children to their deaths in mills and mines. But to remove all the buildings, statues, squares etc that commemorate those who made their money from misery and death is going to be a major undertaking that would transform Britain’s cities and would require public consultation and planning.

Or, you know, just get a bunch of revolution LARPers to knock down whichever villain of the week is trending on Twitter.

CherryRoulade

That doesn’t negate all law. Yes, over time, those women were vindicated in what they were saying. Society decided they were right. That may happen in this case. I don’t know. People are still accountable under the law, or none of us have democratic anything; it’s just everyone doing what they fancy.

If some actual major change happens in the lives of black people in the U.K. then BLM will be remembered in a similar way. They are not going to be remembered for chucking a statue in some water

ust as we don’t remember the fall of the Nazis because statues were taken down or the fall of Communism because of statues. We remember the falls because they actually fell

I would disagree there. The toppling of statues are iconic moments in history of change.

The iconic moment is freedom. If you still feel oppressed by symbols then we would have to what they did in Germany where they chipped off the Swastikas off the buildings but kept on using them.

It’s a futile exercise to try and year zero our history. You can balance it - for example, Ghandi was once a terrorist in Britain but now has his own statute. But that’s about how we changed as a society. You need to know where you have come from to move on.

Then we are making the same point. They are iconic if a change happens. They are not iconic without that change.

The word "history" does not mean "full factual account of events". The word itself is from the same root as "story": truth and fact and story are not the same.

Also, who decides "truth" or "fact"? At the moment, there are probably about 70 million people in America who believe (or will state as fact) that Biden did not win the presidential election, even though it has clearly happened.

We do not know the truth of the English Civil War; we know a few facts, such as who was in command of which troops, and which battles were fought (roughly) where and who won them, but the truth is a lot more slippery.

We also do not know the truth about what is happening now, this year or last; we may know a few facts, but "the truth"? What will that turn out to have been, by 2121?

@Stripesnomore - yes, by itself, changing or removing iconography does nothing. The same way really as claiming adherence to flags or symbols are often convenient for ones own self interest at the time. Retaining this evidence, understanding and contextualising icons or symbols is more intellectually honest.

I fear that if one group gets to tear down one thing, you will find an equal opposition who may come for your symbols next.

Let's get real, the statues are here to stay. And that's a good thing.

But there should be some kind of physical record/reminder of this ultra weird chapter in history where the left disintegrated into the far right in their attempts to cover up history and shame people into accepting their agenda in the name of progress. It's not progress when you move backwards. See also men pretending women doent exist as a biological reality.

I think in areas whre those who benefitted from the slave trade for example have statues, buildings named after them etc, museums could be set up to educate pople about them, warts and all, rather than having them glorified. With regards to renaming treets, i'm sure the number could be reduced over tie, and where this may not be possible, a plaque with some background added. Education and knowledge is key, and we can educate without celebrating.

Renaming streets is a great nuisance to a lot of people at the time, as a rule. And it irritates the post office because of delivering letters and parcels that have been addressed to a street which suddenly doesn't exist.

Lex, yes, like the people who ran into the Capitol building. Once in there they didn’t know what to actually do other than damage stuff, attack people and take selfies.

We are in a strange time where people are more interested in creating a spectacle than actually make demands for material change in people’s lives.

Renaming streets is a great nuisance to a lot of people at the time, as a rule. And it irritates the post office because of delivering letters and parcels that have been addressed to a street which suddenly doesn't exist

Renaming streets is a PITA for historians (amateur ancestry types and professionals) too.