I disagree that it has to mean anything more.

 

To me thar is projection for willingness to make everything into a culture war.

 

Especially in a case like this where the creator of the statue is long dead. It's just a thing.

 

I mean that sums up exactly how society is at the moment, 'a culture war'. We can't ignore how society would react to the damaging of the statue, regardless of whether we should or shouldn't care because it's just a statue.

We can't just forget our past though. I think Steve put it greatly that not everything is black and white as people may like us to believe. Tony Blair rightfully gets a shitload of stick for the Iraq war, but without him millions of people may not have had access to a basic standard minimum wage in the UK. John Lennon had a history of violence against woman, yet he is considered one of the music greats of the world. Michael Jackson was a peadophile but people still listen to his music. Walt Disney was a Nazi sympathiser, casual racist and anti-Semitic but people still visit Disneyland. History is lurked with people who are celebrated and immortalised but did murky things, always has, always will be.

 

And I would argue that it is an active choice to remember and celebrate those people while looking past those things.

 

We make our own history every day. As a people, we choose who deserves to be celebrated. We can change the script if we believe we should.

 

I would argue that to consistently avoid doing so implicitly says that we don't believe those things are worthy of criticism or condemnation. That a man's contribution to entertainment outweighed his private abusive behaviour.

 

How many steps from Lennon to Chris Brown, to Weinstein?

I mean that sums up exactly how society is at the moment, 'a culture war'. We can't ignore how society would react to the damaging of the statue, regardless of whether we should or shouldn't care because it's just a statue.

 

But we can, and I believe, SHOULD, are morally obligated to, start and engage in the discussion of whether a statue is symbolic of a way of living, or if its a decorative piece of stone or metal commissioned or gifted at one moment in the past, never intended to become a mascot five decades hence.

I don't really care about the statue itself either — it is what it is. It shouldn't change that Churchill was a problematic man who isn't free from criticism.

 

Maybe people would be less upset if our education system was just a little bit more honest about our history.

 

 

And I would argue that it is an active choice to remember and celebrate those people while looking past those things.

 

We make our own history every day. As a people, we choose who deserves to be celebrated. We can change the script if we believe we should.

 

I would argue that to consistently avoid doing so implicitly says that we don't believe those things are worthy of criticism or condemnation. That a man's contribution to entertainment outweighed his private abusive behaviour.

 

How many steps from Lennon to Chris Brown, to Weinstein?

 

Yes agreed totally. Churchill is looked upon favourably as he opposed Fascism and wouldn't bow down to it and ended up being the catalyst for the Allies winning the war. I totally agree we choose to remember what we want, I'm sure we can insert from Batman quote from a Christopher Nolan film here :lol: Churchill is the simplified symbolic war hero, it was the greatest event in modern history. He was a flawed, but he also stopped us from becoming Nazi dominated Britain. Tricky one and I can totally see why the world in 2021 is a bit confused.

@1371502626119020546

A statue/memorial is not just a statue, it is a recognition that a person's contribution to the history of the country is so significant that society has chosen to recognise that contribution in this way.

 

Nobody is suggesting that any politician, especially one who had a 60 year+ career in parliament made decisions that everybody agreed with all the time but whether the contribution made during the wars years outweigh any negative opinions.

 

For instance is WWii the worst thing that has ever happened in human history? Therefore should somebody who personified the fighting spirit of the british people be remembered?

 

Churchill having fought in both the Boer War and WWi did not even become PM until he was 65.

A statue/memorial is not just a statue, it is a recognition that a person's contribution to the history of the country is so significant that society has chosen to recognise that contribution in this way.

 

Nobody is suggesting that any politician, especially one who had a 60 year+ career in parliament made decisions that everybody agreed with all the time but whether the contribution made during the wars years outweigh any negative opinions.

 

For instance is WWii the worst thing that has ever happened in human history? Therefore should somebody who personified the fighting spirit of the british people be remembered?

 

Churchill having fought in both the Boer War and WWi did not even become PM until he was 65.

 

But he’d be remembered without a statue as well. I didn’t need a statue in order to find out who he was and what he did. I wasn’t ignorant of him until I stumbled across a statue.

 

The thing that worries me about glorifying statues like this is that it glorifies war time and the fact that ‘we’ won and people have been trying to rub peoples faces in that fact for a long time but definitely loads since the turn of the century. It’s become a brag. And Churchill is the biggest symbol of that there is, aside from the union flag of course. The fact that you can’t even bring up any of his bad points without someone accusing you of treason or being ungrateful or whatever speaks volumes. If things don’t change now the same thing will happen in fifty years whenever someone tells the truth about Boris Johnson and right wingers will be screaming about how he got us through the pandemic.

 

The problem is the police are giving more protection to a statue than actual living women. It’s an issue.

The war wasn't a sporting contest - it was a fight for our country, our way of life and our very existence. The consequences of defeat would have been extreme.

 

An attack on Churchill's statue is not an attack on Churchill, it is an attack on what it represents - the triumph of democracy over facism.

 

That is why it is positioned outside Parliament, a reminder that democratic institutions are our very way of life, something we may take for granted now but came periliously close to losing.

Yes it wasn’t a sporting contest but that is how all the flag wavers see it now. There are a lot of very insecure British people out there that feel better when they can boast about how great their country is. They will ignore everything awful about the UK by bleating on about winning the war.

We can't just forget our past though. I think Steve put it greatly that not everything is black and white as people may like us to believe. Tony Blair rightfully gets a shitload of stick for the Iraq war, but without him millions of people may not have had access to a basic standard minimum wage in the UK. John Lennon had a history of violence against woman, yet he is considered one of the music greats of the world. Michael Jackson was a peadophile but people still listen to his music. Walt Disney was a Nazi sympathiser, casual racist and anti-Semitic but people still visit Disneyland. History is lurked with people who are celebrated and immortalised but did murky things, always has, always will be.

This is a very dangerous approach to defend the status quo saying it will never change and we should accept it. I'm talking in a broader sense by saying we can easily change the system if we wanted to... if white male cishets that is of course... The problem is they don't so here we f***ing are, arguing about what's more important - a living woman's health and security or A PIECE OF FUCKING STONE.

An attack on Churchill's statue is not an attack on Churchill, it is an attack on what it represents - the triumph of democracy over facism.

Word of the day - compartmentalisation.

An attack on Churchill's statue is not an attack on Churchill, it is an attack on what it represents - the triumph of democracy over facism.

 

If you choose to read it that way.

 

Which, with respect, feels like an excuse for a piece of rock.

 

Is an attack on a Banksy an attack on art or just vandalism? What about knocking over a sculpture in the Tate? Or toppling Saddam Hussein's statue?

 

This is a very dangerous approach to defend the status quo saying it will never change and we should accept it. I'm talking in a broader sense by saying we can easily change the system if we wanted to... if white male cishets that is of course... The problem is they don't so here we f***ing are, arguing about what's more important - a living woman's health and security or A PIECE OF FUCKING STONE.

 

My point wasn't in relation to defending the status quo and just to accept it how it is, it is more to accept that sometimes good people do bad things and sometimes bad people, do good things and not everything is as black and white as people like to believe. Different views are accepted at different times. For example, I am sure in 100 years people will be laughing that cannabis was ever illegal as an example!

An attack on Stalin's statue is not an attack on Stalin, it is an attack on what it represents - hot guys.

If you choose to read it that way.

 

Which, with respect, feels like an excuse for a piece of rock.

 

Is an attack on a Banksy an attack on art or just vandalism? What about knocking over a sculpture in the Tate? Or toppling Saddam Hussein's statue?

 

Yes toppling Saddam Hussain's statue was toppling what it represented - the years of oppression.

 

But I can’t see how attacking Churchill’s statue becomes an attack on democracy. It’s people fighting back at our government who are all but fascists at this point. It’s people want to be heard and not silenced.

But I can’t see how attacking Churchill’s statue becomes an attack on democracy. It’s people fighting back at our government who are all but fascists at this point. It’s people want to be heard and not silenced.

omg exactly. The exact same argument can be easily made for people who criticise the government. HOW DARE THEY say bad stuff about the government THEY ELECTED?! It's an ATTACK ON ARR DEMOCRACY!!1

I do find it funny that those who are quick to leap to the defence of Churchill are usually those in their 40s-60s who never existed during the war or lived under a Churchill parliament. Sure he was a good wartime leader, but if he was so great why did the country vote him out right after the war ended? He's not immune to criticism just because he got the country through the war.

Edited March 15, 20214 yr by Envoirment

I think statues are an important part of history and society and I generally don't agree with defacing or removing them to try and prove a political point, though I can make an exception for slave traders that offered no other true benefits to the country like the one in Bristol, those should be stored in a museum. Removing them is like pretending it didn't happen, and that is detrimental to a cause, because you're never gonna erase what's in the past, the point is to acknowledge faults and learn from it (and purely from an aesthetic perspective, some are beautiful).

 

I do think Churchill's statue should stay up as he was an extremely important figure in our history, removing it will solve absolutely no problems. I honestly just want both want both 'sides' (it's a shame it's come to me saying that) to leave it alone. It's being used as some bizarre symbol for both and it should not be important at all in current affairs because...what is defacing or defending that statue gonna prove in the long run? The man's long dead, he has no bearing on current politics. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Regarding Churchill himself, like many historical or celebrity figures, it's just all about balance. He did some great things that deserve to be remembered and was certainly a big part of us winning the war, his speeches are still analysed for good reason, but that in no way absolves him of his terrible second term, very clear racism and pro-Empire stance and this should be very well documented in all history education and culture around, if you won't hear a single word against him, then you can honestly piss off as you clearly aren't well read. He was a sometimes great but very flawed figure ultimately. The main issue is one side thinks he's a total demon and the other thinks he was beyond fault. I suppose that's what happens in a divided society, but it's a real shame as this discourse is just not gonna go anywhere unless we agree a compromise that Churchill's reputation is not a black or white issue.