Pol Pot got away with what he did with UN turning a blind eye! And is only fairly recently as well. I've been to the Killing Fields and it's absolutely sobering.

Pol Pot got away with what he did with UN turning a blind eye! And is only fairly recently as well. I've been to the Killing Fields and it's absolutely sobering.

I've been there too and it is a truly chilling experience.

 

I remember reading about Pol Pot when his regime was toppled and being horrified that a genocide on that scale had happened in my lifetime and with the Holocaust well within living memory.

In conclusion humans suck!

Shouldn’t the discussion really be why people think statues need more protection than living women?

 

I agree with the police protecting the statue a few days though. If the statue had been damaged or vandalised, the far right would come out in force and cause even more problems with breaking covid restrictions, probably without masks as many far right are anti maskers too, and also there would have been more violence.

Edited March 16, 20214 yr by The. Snake.

I wanted to return to this point because I don't know, I think he does.

 

This article has stuck in my mind ever since I read it last year: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocr...1Z8MBEiuSX6uYoI

 

In summary, Churchill and the attitudes and values of his type of Britishness, the stiff upper lip, the never say die, the British exceptionalism, that he has come to represent, are the same values that are almost always presented by the contemporary incarnation of the Tory Party. That drags large numbers of the population to vote for them, even those who do not stand to gain from them being in government. Which is a majority of the country. Going against these values is asking to be crucified by the press. So when I ask for the ability to critique Churchill, I am also asking for the ability to imagine a British society that is not so dominated by the exceptionalism and nationalism that many of us rightly find embarassing and outdated.

 

Basically, keeping his statue up is a cultural signifier that British conservative culture is here to stay. Which stands in opposition to the protests of rightful causes now and last summer.

 

I mean yes, I understand symbolically why it might raise attention or strike at the heart of what is wrong with the establishment. I still maintain though, damaging it achieves nothing. It will simply further the divisions we need to repair and anger a sizeable part of the media/population and raise a discussion that has no point...it's not like it's ever gonna get removed any time soon as he is still widely thought of and even if it is, so what? That's a drop in the ocean compared to the real changes that need to happen. Maybe I'm living in a fairy tale land here, but I still think at this time, we need to have a constructive discourse about what can be done to protect women, stop racism and lessen the sometimes damaging patriotism in education of our past. Maybe we can consider if it's needed when we're in a better and less divided place as a society, but as it stands, it is ultimately a literal piece of stone in this wider debate.

 

On another note, I do feel that 100 Greatest Britons poll that he won that people often cite is very outdated anyway, I reckon if another one is ran, he wouldn't do as well.