Poll: Churchill Statue

[Nimos]

which statue are you talking about.?

I thought you were talking about the one in the OP?

But in general any statue that people don't like should be thrown in a museum rather than destroyed, I think

 

[lewisnotmiller]

some memories are better off gone forever

Which?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I thought you were talking about the one in the OP?

But in general any statue that people don't like should be thrown in a museum rather than destroyed, I think

Which people?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I honestly feel that it is not the person who is important in anything that has been accomplished... it is what was accomplished. Granted, some people seem disposed to leadership, and getting these things done - but at the end of the day, it is just a person. The accomplishment is what is key to note, and is exactly what one should look to emulate. Don't emulate "people." People are idiots at the best of times. Emulate the actions you feel are triumphant, and excellent. Forget the person. They are no "better" than you are. They are no "better" than any of us.

How many times should we have to ultimately realize that our idols were horrid in some grand way before we realize that it isn't, at all, the person that should be the object of idolization?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As @February-Saturday says, I think there may be grounds for moving the occasional statue that seems particularly insensitively displayed, to a museum or to a less public spot, just to show that people are not expected, or assumed, to revere them today. This might apply to Colston in Bristol for instance. But on the whole I think being reminded of the bad figures in history helps us avoid repeating their errors.

I'm not so sure we need statues to remind us of 'bad figures', but I also think most historical figures have elements to their past which are morally questionable by modern standards. Or by the standards of their own day. Or both.

For me, the purpose behind the statue is important. If we are remembering history, let's remember it accurately.

I'd take Lee and Colston down, but leave up Churchill, if anyone needs a simple scorecard.

 

[Nimos]

Which people?

Well if its a statue in England then the english

 

[Mock Turtle]

How much are we to take into consideration the effects such monuments have on those living now? I feel no loss for the Colston statue, given what he did with his life and his charitable works not necessarily ameliorating this, but so may others are much more mixed as to the impacts they made for good or bad - with Churchill being one such.

I doubt many would erect a statue to Jimmy Savile (his grave headstone was removed), but for Michael Jackson (who wasn't convicted of any sexual crimes - like Savile - but most probably did them) it is probably different - in that his music stood by itself and deserves to be seen as such. How does one balance such things?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I took my preferred option - "throw it in the Thames" - to be a subset of "remove it," so that's how I voted.

As I said in the other thread, I've instituted a new rule: even one genocide and you lose the right to a monument.

I should probably add to this that you also lose the right to a monument if you ever use chemical or biological weapons against civilians.

This would make Churchill probably 3- or 4- times disqualified at least.

The only reason he has any sort of positive reputation today:

- he's mostly compared to Hitler.
- even today, there are a lot of people who support his racist, imperialist ideas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Churchill one is in exactly the right place.
I and many others would have a lot of issues with it being moved.

How about a compromise: leave the statue there, but add a big plaque that says how many civilian deaths he was responsible for.

We could do this for all of the statues around Parliament.

 

[Tambourine]

Do not forget that his generation in both The UK and the USA, would have agreed with his attitude. it was largely the norm for his time. he had both British and American nationality though his parents and later citizenship.

Dropping poison gas on civilian population centers was certainly typical of the early 20th century, but Mussolini at least was internationally condemned for it by the League of Nations.

I honestly feel that it is not the person who is important in anything that has been accomplished... it is what was accomplished.

I think people should definitely remember Churchill for his accomplishents as First Lord of the Admiralty during WW1, when he was responsible for the Gallipoli campaign.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I suppose it would be consistent with the general trend of removing statues of racists in the U.S. This is a consequence of an impulsive, zealous desire to remove an offensive statue without really being clear on the reasons why, other than "it's a statue of a racist." If that's the principle and the precedent being set, then it stands to reason that there will be calls for the removal of a lot of statues of anyone and everyone in history who can be considered racist. That they're being judged by today's standards is beside the point.

If the people of the UK want to keep the statue of Churchill, that's up to them. I notice that a lot of Brits (and some Canadians too) tend to be supercilious, sanctimonious, and judgmental when they talk about America, but when we point out their peccadilloes, they don't like it very much. America is a convenient scapegoat for them.

But Churchill knew that he needed America's help to win the war. I recall a funny quote from Churchill, just after the US entry into the war, when it was suggested that Britain had taken a more careful and cautious approach when dealing with America: “Oh! That is the way we talked to her while we were wooing her; now that she is in the harem, we talk to her quite differently!”

So, if the British don't like America being in their harem, then they have Churchill to blame for that.

 

[Notanumber]

We should be better than ISIS and the Nazis.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not so sure we need statues to remind us of 'bad figures', but I also think most historical figures have elements to their past which are morally questionable by modern standards. Or by the standards of their own day. Or both.

For me, the purpose behind the statue is important. If we are remembering history, let's remember it accurately.

I'd take Lee and Colston down, but leave up Churchill, if anyone needs a simple scorecard.

Yes I think that's about where I would come out, too.

I'd leave Cromwell be, as he's at Westminster. If he were in Dublin, then I'd be for him to go to a museum, I think. The Russians have kept Lenin's mausoleum in Red Square, I notice. But not too many statues of Stalin.

 

[exchemist]

I suppose it would be consistent with the general trend of removing statues of racists in the U.S. This is a consequence of an impulsive, zealous desire to remove an offensive statue without really being clear on the reasons why, other than "it's a statue of a racist." If that's the principle and the precedent being set, then it stands to reason that there will be calls for the removal of a lot of statues of anyone and everyone in history who can be considered racist. That they're being judged by today's standards is beside the point.

If the people of the UK want to keep the statue of Churchill, that's up to them. I notice that a lot of Brits (and some Canadians too) tend to be supercilious, sanctimonious, and judgmental when they talk about America, but when we point out their peccadilloes, they don't like it very much. America is a convenient scapegoat for them.

But Churchill knew that he needed America's help to win the war. I recall a funny quote from Churchill, just after the US entry into the war, when it was suggested that Britain had taken a more careful and cautious approach when dealing with America: “Oh! That is the way we talked to her while we were wooing her; now that she is in the harem, we talk to her quite differently!”

So, if the British don't like America being in their harem, then they have Churchill to blame for that.

Yes, Churchill (who had an American wife and was well-connected), tried from the start to get the USA into the war in Europe. Oddly enough though he never succeeded. The USA never took the decision to fight Nazi Germany: Hitler took the decision out of their hands, by declaring war on the US.

There is no doubt that the "Original Sin" of American slavery was committed by the English (Britain did not exist as a state until 1707). Britain abolished slavery only in 1833. The USA followed a mere 30 odd years later.

 

[stvdv]

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.

I agree. I see it as "a thorn is needed to remove a thorn".

If you want to make D.Trump stop lying, you really need more than tell him "stop lying"

I think there is only 1 way to make him stop lying

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well if its a statue in England then the english

Are you suggesting a referendum?

 

[Nimos]

Are you suggesting a referendum?

Personally I would let it stay. But that is a way to do it, or simply let the current government decide.

 

[Augustus]

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

Should we keep a statue of one of the most important figures in 20th C history and a key component in stopping the spread of Nazism throughout Europe?

Hmm, that's a tough one...

If we went through every single national hero in the world, how many of them would pass the 'woke' test of moral purity as defined by whatever is most fashionable at the time of asking? Modern 'progressive' puritanism is a very silly fad at that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Personally I would let it stay. But that is a way to do it, or simply let the current government decide.

Hmm...
I was just trying to work out what you meant by letting 'the people' decide.

Referendums are horribly expensive things.

 

[Augustus]

However, his attitude to the Bengal famine of 1943-44 is the most well-known source of contention, with Mr Churchill accused of murdering over 3 million Indians.

I know it's not you saying it, but "murdering 3 million" is a very stupid claim by anyone who does actually make it. As if Churchill deliberately chose to kill every single one of them and had a totally free hand to do whatever he wanted in the middle of the biggest war in history

How many deaths are blamed on the famine itself? How many on the cyclones that damaged transportation infrastructure? How many on local officials who have much of the responsibility? How many on the leaders of other Indian provinces who were reluctant to share their harvests? How many on Hitler for starting the biggest war in history which made normal governance a little inconvenient at times? How many on the Japanese for conquering much of Asia and their food supplies? How many for the Axis navies for sinking so many ships that supply became much harder? How many on Axis navies for not letting the allies do exactly what they wanted at sea with their remaining ships (including the Bay of Bengal)? How many on the fact that food was in short supply pretty much everywhere and some people were always going to miss out?