Statues should be left alone

[Rubyroost]

Ffs why target statues of Oliver Cromwell, Peel etc. They are history and should be left. Sorry, I know this is probably controversial. When will the book burning start?

In my view Statues are more than just “history”. A statue of someone is a commemoration. It’s saying that this person was so important their likeness is going to be preserved and put somewhere prominent because everyone deserves to see this person and know what they look like and what they’ve done.

Tearing down statues isn’t ‘erasing history’ on par with book burning. It’s saying “this person has done bad things and doesn’t deserve this place of honour in our city”

Did you say that about the Jimmy Saville statue?

You can find a place for them in museums, which hold a lot of exhibits concerning stories and people of which we are not proud. Remembered as part of our history but not up on an actual literal pedestal.

@Rubyroost that’s... quite a take.

We’ve all done bad things and are complicit in some way shape or form.

Most importantly:

1. Can we at least agree that there is a difference in “bad things” between “buys stuff from Amazon” and “Actively participated in genocide and slavery”.

2. Personally I would agree that I have done bad things, I’m not a perfect person and would be extremely uncomfortable if someone wanted to erect a statue of me.

I'm aware that Cromwell was evil and was responsible for the slaughter of. Any catholics. But he stands outside of Parliament because of what he represents in terms of democracy. I see no need to take him down. He was a significant figure in history.

Ask the Irish what they think of Oliver Cromwell.

That statue in Bristol was a stain on the city and should have been put in a museum years ago.

@Dyrne but they are there a d have been there for years. Why change the landscape?

History is recorded in books. Statues commemorate and celebrate individuals. We should have a clear historic record of every notable individual's actions but that does not mean we should have a statue to them if there actions were, by modern ethical standards, reprehensible.

If there were statues of someone you find abhorrent (e.g. Jimmy Saville) would you be voicing your disapproval if that statue were to be removed? Would you be saying "just leave the bloody statues and concentrate on something important"? I very much doubt it. Ask yourself why that is. I have my suspicions personally.

I don't think Jimmy Saville is a good comparison to the likes of Peel and Cromwell.
You off to Russia to take down staturs of Lenin

[quote Rubyroost]@Dyrne but they are there a d have been there for years. Why change the landscape?[/quote]
We change the landscape all the time. Tastes change; fashions change; ideas change. We’ll pull down concrete buildings because they’re ugly looking and build something with lots of lovely glass. We’ll add solar panels and recycled water because morals have changed and we want to promote the environment.

Why not change statues because our morals have changed there and we want to give others their chance at recognition?

why target statues of Oliver Cromwell
To quote Elvis Costello
"Don't start me talking
I could talk all night"

It's exciting to be part of a crowd too big to be stopped by the police. After all the tedium and anxiety of the virus people want to get out there and do some damage and maybe pick up a good TV/laptop.

Mob rule is better than obeying laws until the mob comes for you of course. People enjoying the sense of freedom should read about countries where it's more common.

Have are our American friends going with removing Washington? I mentioned the other day that of course George was a slave owner. I figure by now they should have renamed the state at least.

I personally think its disgusting when beautiful victorian buildings are knocked down

What TooGoodToBeTrue said. I'm mixed race. I used to live in Bristol. Hated the damn thing. Good riddance but we need to teach people all about the slave trade and just how horrific it was so I think they should haul it out, leave it covered in paint and put it in a musem.

Can anyone go and tear down something that they don't agree with?

We've reverted to mob rule have we? So these protesters year down what they don't like and then what - can far right groups pull down what they don't like, and so on?

I agree with you. I think once you start, at least half the statues in London would have to be torn down. Most of them come from the age of Empire and represent people who took part in actions that people today would not find admirable.
Then, when you've torn down half the statues, you can go in St Paul's Cathedral and smash up the tombs and monuments to the great figures of Empire.
When do you stop? When will it be enough?

If you were living in Germany or Russia would be accept statues of Hitler or Stalin?

I've seen some great suggestions on social media of alternatives to Colston- for example to commemorate the Bristol Bus Boycott

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23795655

Or even a statue to commemorate Aardman Productions- creators of Wallace and Gromit

Can anyone go and tear down something that they don't agree with?

Anything that commemorates slavery or slave traders should be destroyed.

I don't think Jimmy Saville is a good comparison to the likes of Peel and Cromwell

And there you go, proving my suspicions.

Just leave the bloody statues and concentrate on something important.

I dunno, all this BLM stuff seems kinda important.

Ffs why target statues of Oliver Cromwell, Peel etc. They are history and should be left. Sorry, I know this is probably controversial. When will the book burning start?

See, I don't think the two are comparable (books and statues, that is.)
Books are learning tools, knowledge.
Statues are monuments to people who are admired/revered.
As has been pointed out, Jimmy Saville also did amazing things for charity and was well respected in his lifetime.
He shouldn't have a statue - why should someone who kidnapped and sent thousands of people to their deaths have one though?
Why should

If everybody who demonstrated sent £10 to the ACLU they might actually do some good.

But we've all done bad things. Most of us benefit from modern slavery, purchasing stuff from poor countries.* but I won't ever get a statue of me erected so my morals aren't up for public debate.

Just leave the bloody statues and concentrate on something important."so should whomever removed the statue of Jimmy have got on with something else important instead?

Statues represent a person's contribution to society. If the net value of that contribution is negative or offensive it shouldn't be up.

That doesn't mean mob rule rules and people should be enabled to tear down whatever they disagree with. But it does mean councils and governments should have thought before now what this and other add to a place.

If it had been removed lawfully it could have gone in a museum where it could be a piece for discussion and thought

Status are a celebration of a person or legacy. If I was systematically oppressed and was forced to see my oppressors being celebrated daily I would be very unhappy.
They need to go. And please don’t compare it to burning books. It’s not the same.