Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Weeping angels. On moving statues

SystemSystem Posts: 11,007
edited June 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Weeping angels. On moving statues

“I met a traveller from an antique landWho said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stoneStand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,Tell that its sculptor well those passions readWhich yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:And on the pedestal these words appear:‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’Nothing beside remains. Round the decayOf that colossal wreck, boundless and bareThe lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,965
    edited June 2020
    First.

    There's absolutely no doubt that the nation is much more aware of Colston's life, times and crimes, and like most of the outraged on here I imagine, I hadn't heard of Robert Milligan until yesterday. It certainly seems more a spasm of remembering than obliteration.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    An interesting thread header, thanks Alastair.

    Any thoughts on Marx and Engels?
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250
    I couldn't care less if every statue in the country is taken down, I'd be interested to see what the full time offendees move onto next.

    Expect an awful lot of music to be censored on the radio. I'll start with "My dingaling" by Chuck Berry, that ticks most boxes
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    Scott_xP said:
    Removing memorials is different from removing works.
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250
    And bang on time HBO pulls Gone with the Wind.

    I wonder where this ends.....?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,242
    At some point, we need to stop worrying about statues and names of student halls and start to take actions that will improve the lives and life chances of BAME (and working class!) people.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,863
    Foxy said:

    Removing memorials is different from removing works.

    The quote says symbols
  • Options
    jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    coach said:

    And bang on time HBO pulls Gone with the Wind.

    I wonder where this ends.....?

    Many years ago, I flew PIA into Karachi, the inflight movie was "Gone with the wind", already a censored version, all the kissing scenes gone, and low cut dresses had a black square over them.
    It was also a dry flight, so not a lot of fun.
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250

    At some point, we need to stop worrying about statues and names of student halls and start to take actions that will improve the lives and life chances of BAME (and working class!) people.

    Ain't that true, the % of the working class doing the protesting is minimal. Its the middle class liberals and layabouts that are stirring the pot, the working class is too busy working.
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250
    jayfdee said:

    coach said:

    And bang on time HBO pulls Gone with the Wind.

    I wonder where this ends.....?

    Many years ago, I flew PIA into Karachi, the inflight movie was "Gone with the wind", already a censored version, all the kissing scenes gone, and low cut dresses had a black square over them.
    It was also a dry flight, so not a lot of fun.
    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    tlg86 said:

    An interesting thread header, thanks Alastair.

    Any thoughts on Marx and Engels?

    While people may not like their ideas, did either Marx or Engels ever kill anyone?

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,863
    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    Just need some chlorinated chicken nibbles...
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    An interesting thread header, thanks Alastair.

    Any thoughts on Marx and Engels?

    While people may not like their ideas, did either Marx or Engels ever kill anyone?

    Did Colston or Milligan?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    If you wonder why the statue of Leopold II came down in Antwerp, just stare at this picture awhile.

    https://twitter.com/parents4future/status/1270343365331222532?s=19

    (Technically the tweet is wrong, it wasn't the Belgian Congo until 1910, until then being a personal possession of Leopold II)
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    The Taleban rounded up locals at gunpoint to plant bombs to destroy the famous Bamiyan Buddhas at Gandahar. Those people have to live with it for the rest of their lives. For that reason alone, I am on the side of the statues against the iconoclasts.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-bamiyan-statues-destroyed/26896782.html
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    An interesting thread header, thanks Alastair.

    Any thoughts on Marx and Engels?

    While people may not like their ideas, did either Marx or Engels ever kill anyone?

    Did Colston or Milligan?
    They were both slave traders, so yes.

    Marx and Engels were political philosophers.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,065
    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347
    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    Of course, and the pyramids.

  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,331
    BBC is axing series from i player for blacking up.. i guess thsts thecend for Love thy Neighbour then.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    That bloody poem. It's not just the outrageous padding of the first ten words or the triteness of the overall sentiment, it is just so wrong about everything. In the surrounding five miles the "lone and level sands" are interrupted by several hills and by (among a lot of other things) the temples of Madinat Habu, luxor, Karnak, Hatsheput and the Ramesseum, not to mention the valleys of the kings and queens and the river Nile. And you can't move anywhere in Egypt or Northern Sudan without tripping over a sodding great and entirely intact statue of Ozymandias (Ramesses II), sometimes in quadruplicate, and in Cairo you can see the man himself.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FF43 said:

    The Taleban rounded up locals at gunpoint to plant bombs to destroy the famous Bamiyan Buddhas at Gandahar. Those people have to live with it for the rest of their lives. For that reason alone, I am on the side of the statues against the iconoclasts.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-bamiyan-statues-destroyed/26896782.html

    Taking statues off plinths isn't the same as planting bombs either.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    Curious non sequitur. Not sure about the link between the motionless, anachronism we have for a PM and Ancient Rome. I guess Boris makes a good Nero.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,863
    Jonathan said:

    Curious non sequitur. Not sure about the link between the motionless, anachronism we have for a PM and Ancient Rome. I guess Boris makes a good Nero.

    Prepared to nominate donkeys as ministers?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
  • Options
    StereodogStereodog Posts: 400
    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,965
    IshmaelZ said:

    That bloody poem. It's not just the outrageous padding of the first ten words or the triteness of the overall sentiment, it is just so wrong about everything. In the surrounding five miles the "lone and level sands" are interrupted by several hills and by (among a lot of other things) the temples of Madinat Habu, luxor, Karnak, Hatsheput and the Ramesseum, not to mention the valleys of the kings and queens and the river Nile. And you can't move anywhere in Egypt or Northern Sudan without tripping over a sodding great and entirely intact statue of Ozymandias (Ramesses II), sometimes in quadruplicate, and in Cairo you can see the man himself.

    Pull that poem down!
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,379

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    I have to admit I agree with Philip on this.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    Except that the protesters aren't just white faces, nor do I want to stop with just pulling down statues.

    So other than being wrong on everything you said . . . well done at attempting a straw man.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,223
    coach said:

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    Of course, and the pyramids.

    Lol. So we are happy that everyone who dragged those heavy stones from a Wales to Salisbury Plain had contracts of employment freely entered into with full employment rights and competitive remuneration?
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.

    Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    I suspect you are an armchair rioter who has never been within a mile of a proper square go. Your belief that mob damage to property is a kind of safe and innocent thing with never a threat of spilling over into something worse is just wrong (as is your belief that manhandling very heavy statues is less dangerous and destructive than using bulldozers). What do you think if another subset of the people of today which thought the statue should stay where it was, had turned up? You might well have a point that direct democracy should decide the issue, but fifth form wannabe anarchism isn't he way to achieve that.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    "You wish to change society yet in observe you are part of society. How Interesting"

    Is the world's shittest argument.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    At one polling place in Georgia, with 10mins to go until poll close the estimated wait time for the line was 140 minutes
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Scott_xP said:
    I can’t help feeling that his obesity is going to be that man’s downfall. It has got him into deep trouble, both privately and professionally, and seems to be seriously hindering him physically and mentally.

    The private tragedy is his own responsibility. The public one affects us all.

    And that is not even touching on his alleged alcohol habits.

    Voters expect their representatives to be reasonably robust, both mentally and physically. That cartoon only works because the man is widely understood to be a fat, lazy, complacent oaf.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    Except that the protesters aren't just white faces, nor do I want to stop with just pulling down statues.

    So other than being wrong on everything you said . . . well done at attempting a straw man.
    Yeah whatever, like all campaigns this one will peter out and the problems will still be the same.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    I suspect you are an armchair rioter who has never been within a mile of a proper square go. Your belief that mob damage to property is a kind of safe and innocent thing with never a threat of spilling over into something worse is just wrong (as is your belief that manhandling very heavy statues is less dangerous and destructive than using bulldozers). What do you think if another subset of the people of today which thought the statue should stay where it was, had turned up? You might well have a point that direct democracy should decide the issue, but fifth form wannabe anarchism isn't he way to achieve that.
    I don't want to see rioting, I want to see the right thing done legally - like was done in the Mayor removing statues from London yet people here are moaning about that.

    Civil disorder has been a noble method of protest for hundreds of years, there shouldn't need to be civil disorder to get the right thing done though.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,223
    I see that the US is today overtaking Spain in confirmed population-adjusted virus infection totals, whilst Peru yesterday overtook the US. Of countries of any size, the top three are now Chile - Peru - USA
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    Except that the protesters aren't just white faces, nor do I want to stop with just pulling down statues.

    So other than being wrong on everything you said . . . well done at attempting a straw man.
    Yeah whatever, like all campaigns this one will peter out and the problems will still be the same.
    Maybe you should look in more detail at history rather than viewing things as immovable like statues.

    Campaigns frequently bring change. There has been dramatic in our lifetimes and long may that continue.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    I suspect you are an armchair rioter who has never been within a mile of a proper square go. Your belief that mob damage to property is a kind of safe and innocent thing with never a threat of spilling over into something worse is just wrong (as is your belief that manhandling very heavy statues is less dangerous and destructive than using bulldozers). What do you think if another subset of the people of today which thought the statue should stay where it was, had turned up? You might well have a point that direct democracy should decide the issue, but fifth form wannabe anarchism isn't he way to achieve that.
    I don't want to see rioting, I want to see the right thing done legally - like was done in the Mayor removing statues from London yet people here are moaning about that.

    Civil disorder has been a noble method of protest for hundreds of years, there shouldn't need to be civil disorder to get the right thing done though.
    I thought you were fine with Colston being chucked in the river.
  • Options
    StereodogStereodog Posts: 400

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Everything is a source. A Roman mosaic is as much of an insight into the past as an inscribed tablet. Trajan's column is an invaluable source for understanding Roman society. I don't imagine he was a terribly virtuous person by modern standards either.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    You won't. Your views are far too jaundiced for that.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099
    Alistair said:
    That's an interesting twist. Potential for Trump to claim victory regardless and try and use courts to have the counting stopped, claiming the later counting is illegitimate.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    Except that the protesters aren't just white faces, nor do I want to stop with just pulling down statues.

    So other than being wrong on everything you said . . . well done at attempting a straw man.
    Yeah whatever, like all campaigns this one will peter out and the problems will still be the same.
    Maybe you should look in more detail at history rather than viewing things as immovable like statues.

    Campaigns frequently bring change. There has been dramatic in our lifetimes and long may that continue.
    Ive probably looked at history more than you and since Im older lived more of it.

    Social attitudes to race are not driven by campaigns, but by age as more people grow up with people of different backgrounds and treat them as one of us.

  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    I suspect you are an armchair rioter who has never been within a mile of a proper square go. Your belief that mob damage to property is a kind of safe and innocent thing with never a threat of spilling over into something worse is just wrong (as is your belief that manhandling very heavy statues is less dangerous and destructive than using bulldozers). What do you think if another subset of the people of today which thought the statue should stay where it was, had turned up? You might well have a point that direct democracy should decide the issue, but fifth form wannabe anarchism isn't he way to achieve that.
    I don't want to see rioting, I want to see the right thing done legally - like was done in the Mayor removing statues from London yet people here are moaning about that.

    Civil disorder has been a noble method of protest for hundreds of years, there shouldn't need to be civil disorder to get the right thing done though.
    I thought you were fine with Colston being chucked in the river.
    I am. Its not what I want though.

    I am fine with civil disorder in a method that isn't violent against people or businesses. If the public want Colston back on his plinth then he can be pulled out of the river and put back on it. It shouldn't take people taking action into their own hands to get things done though and hopefully in future this can be done through legal channels.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    There were some questions on the last thread about whether the Robert Milligan statue was part of the Grade I listing of the adjacent buildingS.

    The answer is yes. Pure and simple. It’s part of a site that is listed, and making changes to such a site without listed buildings consent is an offence. Listing is here.

    https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1242440

    However, two caveats:

    1) As there seems a non-trivial risk that if it hadn’t been removed it would have been illegally torn down, there might be a plea of necessity for removing it and placing it into storage;

    2) Historic England have been clearly been intimidated by the violence of these mobs (see this statement on Colston’s statue) and are in any case in my experience highly ineffective. So I do not believe they will be taken steps to order it be put back up.

    Therefore, conclusions:

    1) Proper channels have not been followed in this case (we can be sure of that as there won’t have been time) and a council with a JCB have technically acted as illegally as a mob of violent anarchists;

    2) Nothing will be done about it.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    An inevitable result of the hatred that resulted in Brexit. And Brexit was just the start. Hatred is in the ascendancy now.

    God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want
    Don't be told what you need
    There's no future
    No future
    No future for you

    God save the queen
    We mean it man
    We love our queen
    God saves

    God save the queen
    'Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what she seems

    Oh God save history
    God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    Oh when there's no future
    How can there be sin
    We're the flowers
    In the dustbin
    We're the poison
    In your human machine
    We're the future…
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    An interesting thread header, thanks Alastair.

    Any thoughts on Marx and Engels?

    While people may not like their ideas, did either Marx or Engels ever kill anyone?

    Did Colston or Milligan?
    They were both slave traders, so yes.

    Marx and Engels were political philosophers.
    Engels made all his money, which he used to subsidise Marx, from cotton mills.

    The cotton he used was picked by slaves.

    I can make a link there as easy as easy - far less tenuous than the one to Gladstone or Peel.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    Except that the protesters aren't just white faces, nor do I want to stop with just pulling down statues.

    So other than being wrong on everything you said . . . well done at attempting a straw man.
    Yeah whatever, like all campaigns this one will peter out and the problems will still be the same.
    Maybe you should look in more detail at history rather than viewing things as immovable like statues.

    Campaigns frequently bring change. There has been dramatic in our lifetimes and long may that continue.
    Ive probably looked at history more than you and since Im older lived more of it.

    Social attitudes to race are not driven by campaigns, but by age as more people grow up with people of different backgrounds and treat them as one of us.

    Right, right, so Martin Luther King marching, the "I have a dream" speech etc, etc, etc had nothing to drive changes to attitudes. It was just people growing up. Funny coincidence.

    And in my lifetime we've seen remarkable changes to gay rights. I'm sure gay pride marches etc had no role to play in building up support to eventually allow equal marriage.

    Continue sticking your head in the sand if you want. Even if campaigns are fruitless then using a varied form of Pascal's Wager I'd still support them - if they achieve their goals then great, if they don't then no harm done.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    Good to hear that New Zealand is now back to normal after just 22 Covid-19 deaths. Just shows you what a competent government can do.

    https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1270603243501092865
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250

    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    An inevitable result of the hatred that resulted in Brexit. And Brexit was just the start. Hatred is in the ascendancy now.

    God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want
    Don't be told what you need
    There's no future
    No future
    No future for you

    God save the queen
    We mean it man
    We love our queen
    God saves

    God save the queen
    'Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what she seems

    Oh God save history
    God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    Oh when there's no future
    How can there be sin
    We're the flowers
    In the dustbin
    We're the poison
    In your human machine
    We're the future…
    Funny, I thought Lydon was pro Brexit
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    ydoethur said:

    There were some questions on the last thread about whether the Robert Milligan statue was part of the Grade I listing of the adjacent buildingS.

    The answer is yes. Pure and simple. It’s part of a site that is listed, and making changes to such a site without listed buildings consent is an offence. Listing is here.

    https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1242440

    However, two caveats:

    1) As there seems a non-trivial risk that if it hadn’t been removed it would have been illegally torn down, there might be a plea of necessity for removing it and placing it into storage;

    2) Historic England have been clearly been intimidated by the violence of these mobs (see this statement on Colston’s statue) and are in any case in my experience highly ineffective. So I do not believe they will be taken steps to order it be put back up.

    Therefore, conclusions:

    1) Proper channels have not been followed in this case (we can be sure of that as there won’t have been time) and a council with a JCB have technically acted as illegally as a mob of violent anarchists;

    2) Nothing will be done about it.

    It's good to know that councils can act quickly when needed. ;)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
    Almost all of them slaves...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
    I still don't get why BCC didn't just stick a pile of rotting veg beside the satue and let people throw them.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
    This whatabouterism is just silly.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    Foxy said:

    If you wonder why the statue of Leopold II came down in Antwerp, just stare at this picture awhile.

    https://twitter.com/parents4future/status/1270343365331222532?s=19

    (Technically the tweet is wrong, it wasn't the Belgian Congo until 1910, until then being a personal possession of Leopold II)

    Belgium is a very good example of the perverse nature of this current debate. I was talking yesterday to a Belgian friend of mine who left school something like 8 or 10 years ago. He said that even then, well into the 21st century, his school taught almost nothing about Leopold and the Congo genocide. If it was mentioned at all it was in the context of how colonialism is bad generally rather than anything specific about what Belgium did.

    So whilst I fully understand the move to get rid of statues of Leopold and am surprised they even exist, I do get the impression that it is something akin to displacement activity designed to avoid a proper programme of confronting what happened in Belgium's name in the past.

    At least in Britain we do teach our secondary school kids quite extensively on Empire and look at both the good and bad aspects of it as well as the drivers behind it.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,461

    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    An inevitable result of the hatred that resulted in Brexit. And Brexit was just the start. Hatred is in the ascendancy now.

    God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want
    Don't be told what you need
    There's no future
    No future
    No future for you

    God save the queen
    We mean it man
    We love our queen
    God saves

    God save the queen
    'Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what she seems

    Oh God save history
    God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    Oh when there's no future
    How can there be sin
    We're the flowers
    In the dustbin
    We're the poison
    In your human machine
    We're the future…
    I reckon most of this is about people getting revenge for Brexit. They're not happy, so they want to make sure no-one else is.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Everything is a source. A Roman mosaic is as much of an insight into the past as an inscribed tablet. Trajan's column is an invaluable source for understanding Roman society. I don't imagine he was a terribly virtuous person by modern standards either.
    Given he was not only a slaveholder and a murderer but a violent paedophilic racist, should all statues of the Emperor Augustus be instantly smashed?
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
    It can be, so it can be fished out of the river and put in a museum where that can be explained in detail if anyone wants to do that.

    No need for it to be on a plinth to do that.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Andy_JS said:

    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    An inevitable result of the hatred that resulted in Brexit. And Brexit was just the start. Hatred is in the ascendancy now.

    God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want
    Don't be told what you need
    There's no future
    No future
    No future for you

    God save the queen
    We mean it man
    We love our queen
    God saves

    God save the queen
    'Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what she seems

    Oh God save history
    God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    Oh when there's no future
    How can there be sin
    We're the flowers
    In the dustbin
    We're the poison
    In your human machine
    We're the future…
    I reckon most of this is about people getting revenge for Brexit. They're not happy, so they want to make sure no-one else is.
    I think its safe to say that's not the consideration in my thinking.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,159

    Alistair said:
    That's an interesting twist. Potential for Trump to claim victory regardless and try and use courts to have the counting stopped, claiming the later counting is illegitimate.
    Only a landslide for Biden can stop utter chaos, and even that might not be enough.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,863
    Andy_JS said:

    I reckon most of this is about people getting revenge for Brexit. They're not happy, so they want to make sure no-one else is.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1270373938347081730
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922
    A couple of things:

    1. Taking down statues and putting them into storage is very different from bulldozing the Colosseum. In one case, the artefact is preserved, in the other, it is not.

    2. Within the bounds of the relevant laws (which it would appear have not been followed), it is clearly elected politicians who should choose which statues are on display. The mob doesn't get to overrule Bristol Council. Likewise, if (following proper procedures) the Mayor of London or Tower Hamlets (or whoever is responsible for the statue in Docklands) chooses to remove a statue of Mrs Thatcher or Mao or whoever, then that is there perogative. It's not like (see 1) that the statue is being destroyed. The elected politicians of the past got to choose which statues were on display, it seems odd that we should strip that right from the elected politicians of today.

    3. Statues don't exist forever in a vacuum. Imagine if there was a statue of Jimmy Saville outside a children's hospital. Now, it may well have been that Jimmy was instrumental in getting the hospital built. Would any of us object to removing his statue? I was pretty shocked to discover there were Leopold II statues in existence, and I'm pretty sure that Leopold II was worse than Jimmy Saville.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
    It can be, so it can be fished out of the river and put in a museum where that can be explained in detail if anyone wants to do that.

    No need for it to be on a plinth to do that.
    Sighs.

    The fact it was on that plinth, in that location, is part of the context. As most people in Bristol understood.

    That’s why I’ve been saying the solution is to leave it there and put a bigger statue of Paul Stephenson and his fellow boycott organisers opposite, with a series of information boards in between.

    But there’s no explaining it to some people.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,159
    School age children more likely to be hit by lightning than die of coronavirus

    "MPs and peers including former education secretaries demanded to know why the Government appeared to be focused on getting non-essential shops open rather than prioritising opening schools for more primary and secondary school children."

    Telegraph.

  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
    This whatabouterism is just silly.
    Its not at all, how many statues exist in the world of incredibly violent nasty people. Lets close the Briitish museum, lets hide all aspects of our past. Once you start with this past removal then everything must be removed.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922
    coach said:

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.

    Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
    How do you know they don't "care about the life chances of black people".

    That's a pretty nasty slur.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
    This whatabouterism is just silly.
    Its not at all, how many statues exist in the world of incredibly violent nasty people. Lets close the Briitish museum, lets hide all aspects of our past. Once you start with this past removal then everything must be removed.
    Its not about buildings, or museums or removing the past. The past is still there and I've not seen one call to remove any building or museum. Its not about hiding the past.

    The debate is about what we put on our plinths.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    FF43 said:

    Good to hear that New Zealand is now back to normal after just 22 Covid-19 deaths. Just shows you what a competent government can do.

    https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1270603243501092865

    Completely ignoring the fact that NZ is thousands of miles from nowhere with a population density of 1/15th of the UK.

    I agree that the Government have got just about every single thing wrong in this crisis. But using NZ as an example is just dumb.
  • Options
    BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    edited June 2020
    Scott_xP said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I reckon most of this is about people getting revenge for Brexit. They're not happy, so they want to make sure no-one else is.

    https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1270373938347081730
    This is genuinely witless, right?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    rcs1000 said:

    coach said:

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.

    Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
    How do you know they don't "care about the life chances of black people".

    That's a pretty nasty slur.
    But accurate.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
    It can be, so it can be fished out of the river and put in a museum where that can be explained in detail if anyone wants to do that.

    No need for it to be on a plinth to do that.
    Sighs.

    The fact it was on that plinth, in that location, is part of the context. As most people in Bristol understood.

    That’s why I’ve been saying the solution is to leave it there and put a bigger statue of Paul Stephenson and his fellow boycott organisers opposite, with a series of information boards in between.

    But there’s no explaining it to some people.
    I've seen what you've said. I disagree with it. Just because you said it doesn't make you right. Just as because I've said something different doesn't make me right.

    What happens next is up to the people of Bristol. If the people of Bristol want to put the statue back and put a statue of Stephenson etc opposite they can do. Their choice.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922

    Jonathan said:

    Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.

    Much like Boris and his government.

    Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
    The Coliseum isn't a statue.

    And pulling statues off plinths so they're no longer celebrated today isn't the same as bulldozing. What we put on our plinths today should be up to the people of today.
    How many people died in an horrendously cruel way in the Coliseum?
    This whatabouterism is just silly.
    Its not at all, how many statues exist in the world of incredibly violent nasty people. Lets close the Briitish museum, lets hide all aspects of our past. Once you start with this past removal then everything must be removed.
    You are arguing against an enemy that doesn't exist. Congratulations, with your wit and style and intelligence and bravado, you successfully beat a non-existent person in an argument.

    Would you like a prize?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,159
    edited June 2020
    Why did someone in government spend two days briefing that pubs would be able to reopen on 22nd June, only for the Business Sec then to say they would not open until 4th July at earliest?
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    coach said:

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.

    Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
    How do you know they don't "care about the life chances of black people".

    That's a pretty nasty slur.
    But accurate.
    You wouldn't like it if I made baseless slurs against you.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    coach said:

    coach said:

    Yep, welcome to our joyless new world.

    Everybody happy now?

    An inevitable result of the hatred that resulted in Brexit. And Brexit was just the start. Hatred is in the ascendancy now.

    God save the queen
    The fascist regime
    They made you a moron
    A potential H bomb

    God save the queen
    She's not a human being
    and There's no future
    And England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want
    Don't be told what you need
    There's no future
    No future
    No future for you

    God save the queen
    We mean it man
    We love our queen
    God saves

    God save the queen
    'Cause tourists are money
    And our figurehead
    Is not what she seems

    Oh God save history
    God save your mad parade
    Oh Lord God have mercy
    All crimes are paid

    Oh when there's no future
    How can there be sin
    We're the flowers
    In the dustbin
    We're the poison
    In your human machine
    We're the future…
    Funny, I thought Lydon was pro Brexit
    Listen carefully to what he actually says. Quite nuanced.

    https://youtu.be/1pEGqF3TIt4

    It is unclear how he himself actually voted, or if he even did.

    He told the Metro in 2016 that to leave the European Union would be "insane and suicidal".

    "We're never going to go back to that romantic delusion of Victorian isolation, it isn't going to happen," he said. "There'll be no industry, there'll be no trade, there'll be nothing - a slow, dismal, collapse. It's ludicrous.

    "It's an act of cowardice really, it's running away from issues instead of solving them."
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,863

    This is genuinely witless, right?

    Leaving the EU?

    yes.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,177
    First day of Furlough, its raining so lets watch Veep from the beginning. Don't have Sky so lets do a Now TV trial. Find that Now TV is incompatible with Firestick, Chromebook, HDMI, casting etc. Just like Apple TV it seems focused on making you buy their hardware.

    Disney aren't out trying to hustle hardware. They have content. They want as many people to buy their content as humanly possible. Which means making it work on *everything*. So my household watches Disney on Firestick, on Xbox, on Android. Now tv? Need Sky, or their stick to watch it on a TV screen. Err no.
  • Options
    nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I really fear for what might happen in the USA with Trump refusing to go quietly if he loses.

    If Biden does win then it needs to be a clear win in the electoral college , that might be the only way things don’t unravel .
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    I was trained as an historian and was taught that to come to any kind of opinion on the past you have to study as many sources as possible and make your judgment accordingly. A source may exist unchanging for a very long time but how people view it and react to it will change down the ages, which is only right and proper. Whether you react to it with approval or horror it's important that the source continue to exist for future generations to interpret. Remove the source and you remove the ability to view the past as people saw it at the time. That's all I'm saying

    Good thing the sources aren't being removed then. Statues aren't sources, if you want to look at source materials to learn more about these slave traders there's plenty of materials available to look at.
    Statues can be sources. Anything can be an historical source, depending on what you use it for.

    For example, the statue of Colston could be used a source to show how the corporation of late nineteenth century Bristol didn’t care about its slaving past.

    And that’s even before I go into art history.
    Cool, but that is absolutely not what people.were saying when complaining about the statue being pulled down erasing history.

    They were making the ludicrous claim that pulling down the statue would deny the average man in the street a source of information about Colston, slavery and his time period.

    And that's garbage because
    a) it was put up over 150 years after he died
    b) it is entirely hagiographic with zero mention of slavery

    So sure it tells you a bunch about attitudes in the late 1800s but it tells you fuck all about Colston and doesn't need to be standing now.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,130
    IshmaelZ said:

    That bloody poem. It's not just the outrageous padding of the first ten words or the triteness of the overall sentiment, it is just so wrong about everything. In the surrounding five miles the "lone and level sands" are interrupted by several hills and by (among a lot of other things) the temples of Madinat Habu, luxor, Karnak, Hatsheput and the Ramesseum, not to mention the valleys of the kings and queens and the river Nile. And you can't move anywhere in Egypt or Northern Sudan without tripping over a sodding great and entirely intact statue of Ozymandias (Ramesses II), sometimes in quadruplicate, and in Cairo you can see the man himself.

    Didn't know that. Thanks.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    edited June 2020

    FF43 said:

    Good to hear that New Zealand is now back to normal after just 22 Covid-19 deaths. Just shows you what a competent government can do.

    https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1270603243501092865

    Completely ignoring the fact that NZ is thousands of miles from nowhere with a population density of 1/15th of the UK.

    I agree that the Government have got just about every single thing wrong in this crisis. But using NZ as an example is just dumb.
    Only dumb to people who don't want to learn. But, OK, let's take Australia instead. One of the most urbanised societies on earth and 102 fatalities.

    Edit. And incidentally NZ is also highly urbanised, with a slightly higher % of people living in urban areas than the UK.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932

    First day of Furlough, its raining so lets watch Veep from the beginning. Don't have Sky so lets do a Now TV trial. Find that Now TV is incompatible with Firestick, Chromebook, HDMI, casting etc. Just like Apple TV it seems focused on making you buy their hardware.

    Disney aren't out trying to hustle hardware. They have content. They want as many people to buy their content as humanly possible. Which means making it work on *everything*. So my household watches Disney on Firestick, on Xbox, on Android. Now tv? Need Sky, or their stick to watch it on a TV screen. Err no.

    NowTV is available on a lot of TV boxes (it's on our 2015 Samsung TV for example). Heck the only reason I have it is for F1.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Olof Palme assassination police press conference live: it was the “Skandiamannen” who committed the murder.

    If that is true, it was a political assassination. Stig Enström was an active Moderate (Conservative) who despised social democrat Palme.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918

    rcs1000 said:

    coach said:

    Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail.
    Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.

    How do you have a better understanding of the past ?
    You've just erased it.
    Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.

    Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
    English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.

    I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.

    A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
    All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.

    Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
    How do you know they don't "care about the life chances of black people".

    That's a pretty nasty slur.
    But accurate.
    You wouldn't like it if I made baseless slurs against you.
    I get them on here often enough from the Remainer tossers (as do you). Why should I not throw some back. Besides with my daughter having to put up with these wankers at university at the moment I am seeing first hand exactly what their priorities are (or rather second hand as it is all through remote learning of course). Very few of them care about - or at least talk about - making life better for minorities. It is all about smashing the system, anti capitalism and how awful Thatcher/Boris/Trump or any other leader to the right of Stalin are.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099

    Alistair said:
    That's an interesting twist. Potential for Trump to claim victory regardless and try and use courts to have the counting stopped, claiming the later counting is illegitimate.
    Only a landslide for Biden can stop utter chaos, and even that might not be enough.
    The decline in support for Trump among evangelicals quoted on here recently gives me hope that it's possible the wheels might completely come off his bandwagon.

    If the polls continue to deteriorate, and it begins to look like Trump will drag them all down, then you might see Republicans up for election this cycle abandon Trump in a bid to save themselves. That would make it much harder for him to come back later in the campaign.

    But, at the moment, Trump still polls better than many Republicans (see, for example, Iowa and Kentucky), so that still seems very unlikely.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Incidentally, if anyone does want to learn more about Stephenson, Hackett, Bailey and the Bristol Bus Boycott, this is a very good and interesting article.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23795655
This discussion has been closed.