Poll: Churchill Statue

[Ponder This]

There is a big statue of Churchill, outside the UK parliament

It has recently been defaced by Black Lives Matter protesters, who claim he was racist

There have been calls to have it removed

Question: Should the statue of Churchill outside the UK parliament be removed, or should we keep it?

For me: We should keep it, because on balance he did more good than bad. Also, he was of his time and cannot be judged by today's standards. And it's not just colonialism which is bad about him, he was also very tyrannical towards the Welsh miners (and the working class in general) before he became PM. Yet as war-time PM he was very successful at leading a war-effort that was in the best interest of all sections of society. And in the best interests of the entire world too.

If the people don't want the statue, then there is a proper way to petition for its removal.

Vandalism betrays malevolence.

 

[Notanumber]

If the people don't want the statue, then there is a proper way to petition for its removal.

Vandalism betrays malevolence.

The Metropolitan Police say they are seeking to identify those responsible for the damage to the memorial.

Indentifying and punishing are two different things. I doubt that they would be even named and shamed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the people don't want the statue, then there is a proper way to petition for its removal.

Vandalism betrays malevolence.

Out of curiosity: how many times in British history has political change been effected by executing a monarch?

(Just to put some context on how bad it would be to remove a statue without filling out the proper form)

 

[Wandering Monk]

How perfect to you have to be to get a statue?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Out of curiosity: how many times in British history has political change been effected by executing a monarch?

(Just to put some context on how bad it would be to remove a statue without filling out the proper form)

Charles I followed by Cromwell. There are certainly others.

 

[Ponder This]

Out of curiosity: how many times in British history has political change been effected by executing a monarch?

(Just to put some context on how bad it would be to remove a statue without filling out the proper form)

I don't see the point you are trying to make. Are you comparing executions of monarchs to vandalizing statues? How is that relevant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see the point you are trying to make. Are you comparing executions of monarchs to vandalizing statues?

Yes. History shows that the spectrum of legitimated political dissent in the UK runs across a spectrum from "polite request" to regicide. Where does removal of a statue fit into that spectrum?

How is that relevant?

It's relevant in that Churchill's supporters should be relieved that the options under discussion don't even come close to what historical precedent says should happen. If things were consistent, Churchill would suffer the same fate as Cromwell: be disinterred, have his bones put on public display, and then be reburied in an unmarked grave.

I'd say that having one of his many statues removed is minor in comparison to that.

Edit: TLDR: merely having his statue removed is a compromise that's far better than Churchill deserves.

 

[Ponder This]

Yes. History shows that the spectrum of legitimated political dissent in the UK runs across a spectrum from "polite request" to regicide. Where does removal of a statue fit into that spectrum?


It's relevant in that Churchill's supporters should be relieved that the options under discussion don't even come close to what historical precedent says should happen. If things were consistent, Churchill would suffer the same fate as Cromwell: be disinterred, have his bones put on public display, and then be reburied in an unmarked grave.

I'd say that having one of his many statues removed is minor in comparison to that.

Edit: TLDR: merely having his statue removed is a compromise that's far better than Churchill deserves.

Statues aren't comparable to living people in their capacity to take action. In fact, statues are incapable of ruling, which is something monarchs at least pretend to do.
So to perform an act of vandalism on a public statue is an act against the public and the current means of governance. It's not an act against Churchill, who is dead and in the grave - the closest you can get is for it to be an act against those of the family of Churchill who are still alive.

With a public statue you don't like, you can petition with the public (presumably responsible for erecting the statue or at least maintaining it) to have it removed.
A monarch, on the other hand, can actually fail in his duty to the people, or even worse. A monarch can be held accountable for his rule as a monarch. A statue... how do you even think it's comparable?

Then again, if precedent says vandalism is mandated in the UK... who am I to argue with precedent? Clearly it's time to go tear down Westminster Abbey!
(maybe raid a few of the tombs there as well)

 

[gnomon]

Tearing down a statue is not going to save a life.

 

[Augustus]

It's relevant in that Churchill's supporters should be relieved that the options under discussion don't even come close to what historical precedent says should happen. If things were consistent, Churchill would suffer the same fate as Cromwell: be disinterred, have his bones put on public display, and then be reburied in an unmarked grave.

Ignoring the obvious fact that most people tend not to consider 17th C justice as being the benchmark for the 21st C, "what historical precedent says should happen"?

Is Churchill in the Queen's bad books for chopping daddy's head off in public?