Your thoughts on removing monuments built to honour controversial historical figures?

[Adil_94]

we have seen the recent outrage in the U.S over the decison to remove the statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee who fought to preserve slavery. There have also been a spate of statue and monument removals of confederate flags war memorials and heroes.

critics say that this is erasing important history of the nation that people need to remember.

while those who back these moves say that its necessary to make a clean break with America's dark past.

in the U.K there was an attempt to remove a statue of the famous imperialist cecil rhodes in oxford university because of his actions.

But as a nation we do celebrate someone like Churchill who openly held racist and bigoted views and even now he is held in high regard as one of the greatest if not the greatest British leader of all time.

Do u think removing the legacy of these controversial figures is the right thing to do ? Or should they be allowed to stand as they were from a different era and it is a stark reminder of a nations past.

 

[Badsha]

They should remain. I mean the coliseum had some disgusting stuff going on in them. Roman emperors were among the worst. Should we remove those statues too now?

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Should stay.

With regards to current events not all Confederate soldiers supported slavery, the war wasnt fought purely based on slavery, and if slavery supporting is the basis of removing statues then I reckon 90% of US statues will be getting removed.

Last but not least, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it"

End of the day once its not something ridiculously disgusting or extremely offensive let it be and serve as a reminder of humanitys dark history.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

we have seen the recent outrage in the U.S over the decison to remove the statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee who fought to preserve slavery. There have also been a spate of statue and monument removals of confederate flags war memorials and heroes.

critics say that this is erasing important history of the nation that people need to remember.

while those who back these moves say that its necessary to make a clean break with America's dark past.

in the U.K there was an attempt to remove a statue of the famous imperialist cecil rhodes in oxford university because of his actions.

But as a nation we do celebrate someone like Churchill who openly held racist and bigoted views and even now he is held in high regard as one of the greatest if not the greatest British leader of all time.

Do u think removing the legacy of these controversial figures is the right thing to do ? Or should they be allowed to stand as they were from a different era and it is a stark reminder of a nations past.

Which world do you live in? Winston Churchill is being printed as the face on the newest bank note currency representing the British Isles. He is still revered across the western world as the greatest British leader in modern times from Australia to the Americas.

 

[Adil_94]

@Cpt.Rishwat read the paragraph above the one u quoted i specifically mentioned Churchill as still being loved and praised by the mainstream in the U.K despite his outright racist views.

My closing statement was just a generic one about how we should view controversial historical figures. Possibly in a couple of hundreds of years time once Nazism the Holocaust is long in the past and there are no WWII survivors and it fades into being a memory.

the legacy of Churchill will be re-opened and scrutinised and he will be castigated for his views and actions.

Dont shoot the messenger next time Uncle.

Churchill in Britain is just seen as the plucky leader who didnt submit to fascism. Before the war Churchill was seen as an out of touch elitist by many working class Brits harking back to a bygone era who saw the workers as peasants.

one of the reason why he was voted out in 1945 after the war ended was because of his views on workers rights.

but that aspect of Churchill.isnt really focused on nor is him calling Indians vile creatures. those narratives are drowned out on Churchill later on in history maybe they wont be as the emotional attatchment to Churchill will decrease.

@Cpt.Rishwat

 

[Pakistanian]

Should stay.

With regards to current events not all Confederate soldiers supported slavery, the war wasnt fought purely based on slavery, and if slavery supporting is the basis of removing statues then I reckon 90% of US statues will be getting removed.

Last but not least, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it"

End of the day once its not something ridiculously disgusting or extremely offensive let it be and serve as a reminder of humanitys dark history.

So I guess Europeans would be fine with having a statue of Adolf Hitler?

As an American I support the demolition of these statues, they serve no purpose other than to add salt to the wounds of our African-American brothers.

 

[Rayyman]

Robert E. Lee is one of my favorite historical figures from America. An awesome leader even though he was on the dark side. The statue itself wasn't commemorating his opinions on slavery, but his skills as a commander. People need to realize this.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Robert E. Lee is one of my favorite historical figures from America. An awesome leader even though he was on the dark side. The statue itself wasn't commemorating his opinions on slavery, but his skills as a commander. People need to realize this.

Yes, but that statue has no place in a public area. Should be in a museum. He was a brilliant leader and tactician, in the end, he was still on the side that was "against" the United States. Thus no reason to have him placed everywhere.

 

[Rayyman]

Yes, but that statue has no place in a public area. Should be in a museum. He was a brilliant leader and tactician, in the end, he was still on the side that was "against" the United States. Thus no reason to have him placed everywhere.

Okay fine, but the way the statue was treated by the people was appalling at best.

Democratic Party has been portrayed as the better party by the media ever since Trump's election. That's wrong as both parties have their flaws and extreme left/right wing people.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Okay fine, but the way the statue was treated by the people was appalling at best.

Democratic Party has been portrayed as the better party by the media ever since Trump's election. That's wrong as both parties have their flaws and extreme left/right wing people.

I agree. Trump hasn't really made it hard for people and the media to think this either.

The other side of the coin is, Obama's legacy leads to Trump winning. People were tired of Dem policies.

 

[shaz619]

@Cpt.Rishwat read the paragraph above the one u quoted i specifically mentioned Churchill as still being loved and praised by the mainstream in the U.K despite his outright racist views.

My closing statement was just a generic one about how we should view controversial historical figures. Possibly in a couple of hundreds of years time once Nazism the Holocaust is long in the past and there are no WWII survivors and it fades into being a memory.

the legacy of Churchill will be re-opened and scrutinised and he will be castigated for his views and actions.

Dont shoot the messenger next time Uncle.

Churchill in Britain is just seen as the plucky leader who didnt submit to fascism. Before the war Churchill was seen as an out of touch elitist by many working class Brits harking back to a bygone era who saw the workers as peasants.

one of the reason why he was voted out in 1945 after the war ended was because of his views on workers rights.

but that aspect of Churchill.isnt really focused on nor is him calling Indians vile creatures. those narratives are drowned out on Churchill later on in history maybe they wont be as the emotional attatchment to Churchill will decrease.

@Cpt.Rishwat

Churchil is far from perfect, it is true a lot of us are hypocritical in Britain when we're judging his legacy, we're generally very selective

 

[LordEddardStark]

Should remain.

There were many great men who were never pro slavery but still sided with confederacy because their states had already seceded from Union. Even Mary Lincoln's several family members fought on side of confederacy against Union. The war therefore was not just between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions; it was between 2 different geographical factions too. For some, removing symbols of confederacy may symbolize turning their back on darker times of America, but others belonging to Southern states may take it as an encroachment on an important historical event that has remained part of their history since ever.

On a side note, Robert Lee was a much better general and tactition than any of the Union generals. Even Grant was merely a shadow of Lee in his shrewdness and military acumen. Only if numbers were on his side, there would not have been a United States present now.

 

[shaz619]

With regards to the statues, I think a decision should be made which doesn't encourage excess violence, it can be tough when it comes to some really sensitive topics.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The statues aren't usually built because of the subjects disgusting views (which probably weren't considered disgusting at the time) but because they've contributed something of great value to the society that erects them. If the people still admire those contributions then they should remain.

 

[Slog]

Robert E Lee in particular has a legacy asides from the Civil War as well.

He was integral in the succesful Mexican-American war and actually did a lot of work post-Civil War to unite the American people and reduce hatred and differences