Statues, Monuments, and When to Take Down or Leave Up Ones Dedicated To Flawed Historical Figures

[Conflicting Thought]

But i thin we share similar views

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Another changing view of history! The mission houses in California have long been part of the fabric of California’s history. Looks like that history is going to get vanished.

I thought you where saying that history is going to get vanished because people are removing missionary statues or monuments, and i  just dont think that is true. Specially cuz that "history" is allready so whitewashed, and the monuments, i imagine, are part of that erasing or whitewashing of that history. 

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

That was to Conflicting Thoughts, not to you.

That said, no one should be posting stuff like that. Be civil, folks.

 

Well if that crossed a line, I apologize. 

[Conflicting Thought]

49 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

For that matter, do you know how many Americans are out there in the world today, trying to convert the ignorant pagans of the third world? And the first world too. Baptists flooded Poland after the Berlin wall came down, using money and bribes to convert the RC population, because an RC is as pagan as any savage, dontchaknow.

I would say that both me and zorral know this, and are against it, so i dont know why you say it like we are somehow in favor of that or something.  I really dont understand why are you so mad at me? A think we share very similar views on this topic at least. 

[A wilding]

27 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It’s simply untrue that Britain has been living in some sort of ‘harking for the days of empire’ way of thinking.. well for at least a good half a century. It’s something that keeps getting repeated over and over again, without any sort of evidence. From my perspective, as a Brit, growing up and living in the country for over 40 years all I’ve known and experienced is very much a sense of embarrassment and shame over our previous empire, and nobody is calling out to try and re establish it. Despite rumours , we aren’t taught in schools of the glory days, the media doesn’t celebrate the empire and there is no longing for the past.

I think the "hankering after empire" thing is by an older generation who are now dying off. I certainly have a couple of elderly relatives with something of that mindset.

 

27 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Britain is generally a country steeped in its own sense of mediocrity and shame over our  ineptitude. That is what we are normally taught. The big topic i got in history in school wasn’t how Britain conquered the world, it was how so many british people died in wars led by out of touch leaders. We watched Blackadder goes forth when we were taught about WW1, which is pretty scathing of empire.

Personally, I don't recognise that "mediocrity and shame"  at all. I would say that the "plucky underdog" idea is far more common. With a touch of "amateurs who can beat professionals when they get going". Certainly these attitudes don't seem to be a million miles away from how Johnson talks of the UK.

As for World War I, I think the prevalent meme is the "lions led by donkeys" one, which makes British people the "lions". (And I think it a reasonable summary, for all it is unfair to several of the generals concerned. Haig's lies and later self justifications make it difficult to be sure of his thinking, but it seems to have been not far off "keep up the bloodbath, the Germans will crack first.")

 

27 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Also, it is ridiculous to try and attack Churchill, a man who did so much stop Europe being taken over by actual Nazis, and pretend like it means nothing, no matter his other flaws.

You wonder why there is such a backlash to people pulling down statues when you have people defacing statues of people like Churchill, not really understanding what that means.

While I would agree with you about Churchill, the whole point of the Tories focusing on his statue, rather than ones that have actually been taken down, was because they knew that the UK is still very much in favour of him, as you point out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Easy. I'm not an American, why should I know those details?

Technically you are too, grouchy BIRD! 

[DireWolfSpirit]

This is such a good thread, anytime posters get worked to the point of emotions you just know there's an important underlying topic that really needs to go around the table.

I know I gave a lot of thought over how I viewed this situation . It's not really just a reflexive or knee jerk topic to me, there's wider issues at work that this encompasses and I genuinely find several viewpoints on this interesting.

Theres some black, white and greys and I thank everyone for making me think about this because honestly I didn't feel like any of it was very relevant personally before. I'm more aware of more sides to this than I was just a few days previous.

[Heartofice]

46 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I think the "hankering after empire" thing is by an older generation who are now dying off. I certainly have a couple of elderly relatives with something of that mindset.

As I said, it's been a good half a century at least since this mindset was the prevailing one in the UK. It is of course not unusual for the older generations to think things were 'better in their day'

46 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Personally, I don't recognise that "mediocrity and shame"  at all. I would say that the "plucky underdog" idea is far more common. With a touch of "amateurs who can beat professionals when they get going". Certainly these attitudes don't seem to be a million miles away from how Johnson talks of the UK.

Wouldn't disagree with that. 'Plucky underdog' has become part of the national mythos I think. That however feeds into my point. Your average Brit doesn't see themselves as part of some master race or part of some world changing empire. I've found most Brits have a rather self deprecating view of their own nationality. The plucky underdog view ties into how we see ourselves in most sports for instance: try hard but generally crap.

46 minutes ago, A wilding said:

While I would agree with you about Churchill, the whole point of the Tories focusing on his statue, rather than ones that have actually been taken down, was because they knew that the UK is still very much in favour of him, as you point out.

The thing about Churchill is that he is so often the target of a sort of 'all knowing leftie' who thinks they are saying something revelatory when they highlight his history, but really all they are doing is staking their own flag in the ground politically.
 While there probably was little danger of statues of Churchill being pulled down due to public support, it's not a coincidence that he gets defaced so often. As someone said in the UK thread, these things are generally a way for one side to poke the other in the eye. 

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Technically you are too, grouchy BIRD! 

You are technically correct.

The best kind of correct. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

You are technically correct.

The best kind of correct. 

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Technically you are too, grouchy BIRD! 

 

4 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

You are technically correct.

The best kind of correct. 

Bah, humbug. Technicaly I'm North American. No Canadian says, excuse me, buddy, I'm an American too. The word American has been taken over exclusively by people from the US. As you know perfectly well!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

Bah, humbug. Technicaly I'm North American. No Canadian says, excuse me, buddy, I'm an American too. The word American has been taken over exclusively by people from the US. As you know perfectly well!

Excuse me buddy, but you're every bit as American as a Chilean or a Guatemalan. 

It's the Eurocommies we obviously need to hate. Especially the French! 

The Australians get a pass, but they're all criminals anyways. 

[TrueMetis]

11 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don’t think it’s a Celtic cross, the angle’s lousy. Just a regular one.

I think we might be talking about different statues there, the statue of Cervantes, with the red cross' spray painted onto the two blokes kneeling in front of him, that's definitely a Celtic cross. The tweet above it of Junipero Serra being pulled down, not a Celtic cross, just a statue of a piece of shit being torn down.

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I think we might be talking about different statues there, the statue of Cervantes, with the red cross' spray painted onto the two blokes kneeling in front of him, that's definitely a Celtic cross. The tweet above it of Junipero Serra being pulled down, not a Celtic cross, just a statue of a piece of shit being torn down.

Ah, yes, I misunderstood.

@TrueMetis I just took a closer look at the picture, I think you're wrong. I think those are gun sights painted on their backs. The two blokes are Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Kinda bizarre, when the book is about someone who deeply believes in good and the right to be themselves and the rest of the world thinks his ideas about chivalry and individuality are crazy.

[Zorral]

Well, people in Mexico, the Caribbean and South AMERICA say utterly different.  And they do include Canadians.  As has been patiently explained to me by people of all these regions for decades now.

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The word American has been taken over exclusively by people from the US. As you know perfectly well!

Nor have you explained why you lashed out at me / my post.  Genuinely curious.

[Fury Resurrected]

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Ah, yes, I misunderstood.

@TrueMetis I just took a closer look at the picture, I think you're wrong. I think those are gun sights painted on their backs. The two blokes are Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Kinda bizarre, when the book is about someone who deeply believes in good and the right to be themselves and the rest of the world thinks his ideas about chivalry and individuality are crazy.

The circle with crosshairs looking celtic cross is a symbol used by white supremacist groups, all four ends are of equal length.

[Kalbear]

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The circle with crosshairs looking celtic cross is a symbol used by white supremacist groups, all four ends are of equal length.

You would have a burning hatred for the Celtics! 

[SeanF]

22 hours ago, Heartofice said:

As I said, it's been a good half a century at least since this mindset was the prevailing one in the UK. It is of course not unusual for the older generations to think things were 'better in their day'

Wouldn't disagree with that. 'Plucky underdog' has become part of the national mythos I think. That however feeds into my point. Your average Brit doesn't see themselves as part of some master race or part of some world changing empire. I've found most Brits have a rather self deprecating view of their own nationality. The plucky underdog view ties into how we see ourselves in most sports for instance: try hard but generally crap.

The thing about Churchill is that he is so often the target of a sort of 'all knowing leftie' who thinks they are saying something revelatory when they highlight his history, but really all they are doing is staking their own flag in the ground politically.
 While there probably was little danger of statues of Churchill being pulled down due to public support, it's not a coincidence that he gets defaced so often. As someone said in the UK thread, these things are generally a way for one side to poke the other in the eye. 

Hate for Churchill was until recently an extreme-right thing.  "A drunken, warmongering slob" is how David Irving described him.  Auberon Waugh thought he ought to have been hanged as a war criminal.  John Charmley took the view that he cost us our Empire, by joining WWII.

A certain section of the left now seem to have caught on to that, and amplified it.

[Conflicting Thought]

23 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The thing about Churchill is that he is so often the target of a sort of 'all knowing leftie' who thinks they are saying something revelatory when they highlight his history, but really all they are doing is staking their own flag in the ground politically.

Or maybe  all "they" are doing, is  talking and discussing the very real problematic politics and views of churchill. Cuz it is clearly still an issue. 

So what is rrqlly the problem? That the people talking about it have a political ideology? Or an "agenda".? 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 6/22/2020 at 3:31 AM, Arakan said:

From my Central European standpoint glorifying Churchill by the British due to his WW2 achievements (the only positive ones in his career) is almost as ridiculous as glorifying Stalin by some Russian / Ex-Soviet citizens. And it can be argued that from an emotional POV the latter is more understandable, given the fact that the Russians fought a fight against extermination which Britan never faced. Churchill a beacon of civilization and democracy? Give me a break. An imperialist, a white supremacist, a fighter for a rigid unjust class system and a inherently unjust society (British Empire). 

My (Welsh) grandfather, who served in the Royal Navy during WWII, hated Churchill with a passion. It was the votes of people like him that led to the 1945 election. And, yes, Churchill the Man was unpleasant, Churchill the Politician was loathsome.

But that's not why he's commemorated. The commemoration is for Churchill the Idea. For the one thing he was actually right about. For Britain's role in defeating the most evil regime in modern history - and god forbid British (or Russian) people take pride that their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents saved the world from Adolf.