Poll: Churchill Statue

[Augustus]

ultimately it was Stalin's early intervention and strikes against Hitler (while those such as Churchill still thought Hitler was a great guy) that enabled the possibility of an Allied victory

What? Churchill was the main figure who opposed the appeasement of Hitler before WW2.

The Nazis and the Soviets were still allies until 1941 and helping each other to invade Poland.

A brief overview on Churchill's role from a German source if you are interested:

The Man Who Saved Europe: How Winston Churchill Stopped the Nazis - DER SPIEGEL - International

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We should hold him to the standards of his contemporaries. Like Hitler. Who was also of his time and of the same time.
Even with WW2, Churchill provided a good voice for the English public, but ultimately it was Stalin's early intervention and strikes against Hitler (while those such as Churchill still thought Hitler was a great guy) that enabled the possibility of an Allied victory, amd thus saving us from the Nazis. But Churchill, Stalin, and Uncle Sam (FD Truman, in this case?) won, so their crimea and wrong doings got to be swept under the rug and ignored.

No, this isn't accurate in terms of timings on Stalin's 'early' intervention or Churchill's late recognition of Hitler's fundamental flaws.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Judging historical figures by modern sensibilities is a slippery slope, that taken to it's logical conclusion means erasing ALL notable people, because everyone is guilty of something.

Was Churchill racist? Probably. He also defeated the NAZIs, and was a war hero in his own right, so, you know, credit where due.

 

[Notanumber]

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.

Another broadcast from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. It’s time to defund the BBC.

 

[Notanumber]

Is the UK going to be the new Iran if the Mayor of London gets his way?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here is a short list of some of the notable ones apparently in the firing line - not sure I would miss any of these - even Nelson or Peel - as their deeds are well known, so perhaps no need for a statue?

Racists or heroes? Black Lives Matter want to topple statues of famous Britons due to slavery links | Daily Mail Online

 

[Augustus]

Churchill? I don't think there is a good reason to. I'd leave it alone...I'm sure we'd agree, all great figures are flawed. And I'd leave the statue...

I just don't think it's purely 'woke' people ignorant of history who need to balance his actions. There are plenty who lionize Churchill to the point of caricature.

I meant it more as a hypothetical rather than your opinion

I'm all in favour of putting people in their historical context, for example few of the articles that criticise Churchill as a eugenicist also point out that this was a commonly held progressive belief for this time. Ironically, the same educated, urban, middle-class progressives who are howling with indignation about the evils of eugenics today were a key part of the demographic who favoured eugenics back in the early 20th C

At Gallipoli he was willing to sacrifice a lot of men to political expediency (in my opinion) and there were plenty of his contemporaries suggesting the same.

The fact that after resigning from his cabinet position after this he actually volunteered to serve on the Western front, and refused both a desk job and a position of high command when he did so, shows he was willing to put his neck on the line for his principles at least.

While there are arguments to be made against him regarding Gallipoli (although there are some mitigations too), he likely believed that what he was doing was for the best. Maybe this was hubristic, but it was this unshakeable confidence that served him well in WW2.

As you note, this is the problem of expecting saintly heroes, often the same characteristic causes positive and negative outcomes throughout their life.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I meant it more as a hypothetical rather than your opinion

I'm all in favour of putting people in their historical context, for example few of the articles that criticise Churchill as a eugenicist also point out that this was a commonly held progressive belief for this time. Ironically, the same educated, urban, middle-class progressives who are howling with indignation about the evils of eugenics today were a key part of the demographic who favoured eugenics back in the early 20th C



The fact that after resigning from his cabinet position after this he actually volunteered to serve on the Western front, and refused both a desk job and a position of high command when he did so, shows he was willing to put his neck on the line for his principles at least.

While there are arguments to be made against him regarding Gallipoli (although there are some mitigations too), he likely believed that what he was doing was for the best. Maybe this was hubristic, but it was this unshakeable confidence that served him well in WW2.

As you note, this is the problem of expecting saintly heroes, often the same characteristic causes positive and negative outcomes throughout their life.

Starting to go on a tangent, but my personal view on Gallipoli (perhaps tainted due to being Australian) is that he absolutely was doing what he thought was best for the overall war effort. I have issues with his pigheaded approach, lack of consultation, and willingness to sacrifice ANZAC soldiers (particularly) to try and reduce pressure on White Russia. But his long term goals made sense.

I also don't doubt his bravery for a moment.

 

[Augustus]

Here is a short list of some of the notable ones apparently in the firing line - not sure I would miss any of these - even Nelson or Peel - as their deeds are well known, so perhaps no need for a statue?

Racists or heroes? Black Lives Matter want to topple statues of famous Britons due to slavery links | Daily Mail Online

Nelson and Drake need to be kept as national heroes who accomplished great things. Drake also worked with escaped slaves and freed many slaves from Spanish ships he had captured.

People who were wealthy merchants who made a lot of their money from the slave trade I have little attachment to though. Most of their statues are vanity pieces put up with their own cash and by their family and friends anyway. They aren't historically important figures, just the Richard Bransons and Alan Sugars of their day.

Unfortunately, their replacements will likely be virtue signalling vanity pieces by whichever politician gets involved in doing so though.

 

[Notanumber]

Churchill was a fighter.

 

[Notanumber]

Is history repeating itself?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nelson and Drake need to be kept as national heroes who accomplished great things. Drake also worked with escaped slaves and freed many slaves from Spanish ships he had captured.

People who were wealthy merchants who made a lot of their money from the slave trade I have little attachment to though. Most of their statues are vanity pieces put up with their own cash and by their family and friends anyway. They aren't historically important figures, just the Richard Bransons and Alan Sugars of their day.

Unfortunately, their replacements will likely be virtue signalling vanity pieces by whichever politician gets involved in doing so though.

I'm not bothered either way, since we all have good and bad within us, and as to what we do in life, but I think all involved in slavery deserve to be binned for just being accepting of what might have been current then. I was in Nelson House at school so perhaps biased - and why I developed an interest in sailing.

 

[Notanumber]

Does that include Islam?

Learn What Role Islam Played in African Slavery

The current Mayor of London will no doubt overlook Islam’s involvement in his proposed purge of history.

 

[Secret Chief]

Here is a short list of some of the notable ones apparently in the firing line - not sure I would miss any of these - even Nelson or Peel - as their deeds are well known, so perhaps no need for a statue?

Racists or heroes? Black Lives Matter want to topple statues of famous Britons due to slavery links | Daily Mail Online

I don't have an anti-virus app on my computer. Is it safe to link to the Daily Heil?

 

[Augustus]

I think all involved in slavery deserve to be binned for just being accepting of what might have been current then.

Why slavery particularly other than anti-racism is the current political fad? People had been accepting of it for the entirety of human history (or at least since the rise of settled communities).

If it had been so self-evidently wrong to everybody, there would have been a concerted abolitionist movement long before the end of the 18th C.

"Cancelling" people of great historical significance simply because you were born in the 16th C and failed to be a moral visionary centuries ahead of your time at the same time as achieving great things in another realm seems a bit ridiculous to me.

People like to think that had they been born in the 16th C then they'd have seen all of these things as evil, but most people are average and would have shared exactly the same values as those they now want to cast as being beyond redemption.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't have an anti-virus app on my computer. Is it safe to link to the Daily Heil?

Probably not - I used to look at it regularly to balance up what I usually looked at for news, along with the Express, and a few others, but I've mostly given up due to time considerations, and usually only get dragged there for some quoted article. But the list will be found elsewhere too.

Really no anti-virus? Cor, blimey!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why slavery particularly other than anti-racism is the current political fad? People had been accepting of it for the entirety of human history (or at least since the rise of settled communities).

If it had been so self-evidently wrong to everybody, there would have been a concerted abolitionist movement long before the end of the 18th C.

"Cancelling" people of great historical significance simply because you were born in the 16th C and failed to be a moral visionary centuries ahead of your time at the same time as achieving great things in another realm seems a bit ridiculous to me.

People like to think that had they been born in the 16th C then they'd have seen all of these things as evil, but most people are average and would have shared exactly the same values as those they now want to cast as being beyond redemption.

True, but any I would look up to might have better sensibilities than to look down on others because of their skin colour or language, etc. I'm sure plenty did think slavery was abhorrent, even long ago. They still need binning because of the offence they still cause to the ancestors of those slaves, and they deserve this consideration in my view. What really is the point of such statues?

 

[Secret Chief]

Really no anti-virus? Cor, blimey!

No, that was artistic licence.

I do look at the ****Online every now and then, and the Excess, just to see what the enemy are thinking
It's also gives my jaw muscles a workout from it dropping to the floor. Although a lot of that ilk seem to post on the BBC site too. Lots of anti BBC posts on the BBC website. Funny that, they hate it but can't stop posting their ridiculous drivel on the site. You couldn't make it up (but of course they do).

 

[Augustus]

True, but any I would look up to might have better sensibilities than to look down on others because of their skin colour or language, etc. I'm sure plenty did think slavery was abhorrent, even long ago. They still need binning because of the offence they still cause to the ancestors of those slaves, and they deserve this consideration in my view.

In your opinion, why specifically slavery rather than anything else we find morally objectionable today?

Slavery wasn't just 'white people being racists'. The slave trade was probably the most inclusive business in human history: Muslim, Jew, Christian, Pagan, white, black, brown you could be a part of the money making machine.

When someone like Francis Drake was alive, millions of Europeans were being captured and enslaved by Barbary Pirates. Modern notions of race, which were mostly a product of the Enlightenment, didn't even exist and the American colonies hadn't even been founded.

His 2nd cousin, whose company he worked for, just happened to be one of the first British slave traders who tapped in to the age old slave trading networks run by Arabs and Africans.

What really is the point of such statues?

What is the point of statues for iconic figures from history who did great things? To act as a link to the past via the great things that they did, not to stand as validation of every single thing they ever did when judged by modern ethical standards.

Countless world heritage sites, like the Pyramids, Taj Mahal or Colosseum were built on the backs of slave labour to stand as monuments to the greatness of their patrons. No one is calling for these to be torn down or claiming that they legitimise 21st C racism.

Nelson's Column is also an iconic site and part of history, destroying it would be an act of cultural vandalism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In your opinion, why specifically slavery rather than anything else we find morally objectionable today?

Slavery wasn't just 'white people being racists'. The slave trade was probably the most inclusive business in human history: Muslim, Jew, Christian, Pagan, white, black, brown you could be a part of the money making machine.

When someone like Francis Drake was alive, millions of Europeans were being captured and enslaved by Barbary Pirates. Modern notions of race, which were mostly a product of the Enlightenment, didn't even exist and the American colonies hadn't even been founded.

His 2nd cousin, whose company he worked for, just happened to be one of the first British slave traders who tapped in to the age old slave trading networks run by Arabs and Africans.

Well slavery is a more obvious affront to human dignity, but it is hardly alone. I have the same distaste for much of the same - the usual hierarchies where so many have power over others not because they deserve such but because of circumstances or where peoples were enslaved by more powerful forces. It obviously went on all around the world and few major nations have not indulged in it and few have not experienced such too. I can't justify the arguments usually made that it was for their benefit - an argument often made as to 'civilising' them.

What is the point of statues for iconic figures from history who did great things? To act as a link to the past via the great things that they did, not to stand as validation of every single thing they ever did when judged by modern ethical standards.

Countless world heritage sites, like the Pyramids, Taj Mahal or Colosseum were built on the backs of slave labour to stand as monuments to the greatness of their patrons. No one is calling for these to be torn down or claiming that they legitimise 21st C racism.

Nelson's Column is also an iconic site and part of history, destroying it would be an act of cultural vandalism.

I think it unlikely that Nelson will be toppled, and as I indicated (if not clear), I don't wish for that to happen. I know there are many monuments to the past that might be controversial but statues of people do tend to validate their personal worth, and often present them as some sort of hero when, as we have seen, all too many had rather more negative things in their actions than we might seem to think. I think we should try to see history as accurately as possible if we are to learn from it, and often letting our monuments remain as when they were erected fails to do this - since the reasons why they were made, and praising some particular person, would not necessarily be valid now.