Shard

So true !

I don't have a strong affection for historical statues (can take or leave them) but paintings and tapestries are sacrosanct !

Siouxie

Lightening it up a bit...
Football was invented in Rugby in 1863, so theoretically, England started footie hooliganism and chants.. club rivalry and all that entailed..

kimilseung

The difference is their positioning in the public sphere, the statues come to us, we go to paintings and tapestries.

Paul_Shepherd

Well said Siouxie. I totally agree, its not all one dimensional.... they didn't erect statues of some of these figures because they were slave traders.. an updated plaque with more information is all that is required in some cases. As you say its history and thats very important.

kimilseung

The statues were for how they spent money
Money from the free (stolen directly or indirectly) labour of other people. The people whose labour created the wealth are nowhere on the statues.
Imagine a statue created for the Krays because of their charitable giving. Imagine the same defenders of Colston, defending the Krays because its history.

Paul_Shepherd

I do see what you are saying, but the Krays were around 1960s during relatively civilised times - the mid 20th century, and they were just cold blooded murderers.
Many of the statues were from a different time... the 17-18th centuries, as I said in earlier posts, it was a very different world back then, a more barbaric world, where human life counted for a lot less, so it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

The world constantly evolves and becomes more and more civilised, even in my life time, the things people used to say and do that were acceptable when I was a young boy in the 70s, are no longer acceptable anymore... again its all about context in my opinion, as long as people have the full facts about that individual, good and bad... they can make their own informed decisions of the balance of good and bad, we cant just erase it.

kimilseung

So you are saying we should keep the things from the barbaric time, and things from the Civil Rights era in the USA and UK too, like a hypothetical statue to a Kray brother, if we "have the full facts about that individual, good and bad"

kimilseung

As we are talking Civil Rights era in the UK , I now propose a statue to Bobby Sands for his charitable contributions, provided, we "have the full facts about that individual, good and bad"

Shard

The solution is to phase out political statues. Scientists, artists, poets, ok. Leaders, benefactors etc, no statue.

kimilseung

Agree, no political statues, but the argument from Mr Shepherd is that the statues such as Colston's, was as a philanthropist.(is that the same as a benefactors ?)
Scientists, artists, poets, can all have their own issues, particularly scientists.
I'd go one further, no statues to people, just ideas and values. I think we can all agree on broad ideas and values (except a very small minority) we all seem to want the same end goals.

Shard

I wouldn't dismiss Paul's point entirely. Some of the historical figures have done both good and bad, and a purge is not entirely necessary, particulary when one part of the community values the statue (eg. Churchill). In time all these figures will become footnotes or the public en masse will decide that the statue is no longer adding any value. At least controversial statues do form a talking point for the history.

Sculptures for ideas might work. What are you envisioning, a hammer and sickle perhaps?

kimilseung

Wouldn't that fall under the cancelling of political statues?

Shard

Surely the opposite. "Not cancelling" ?

kimilseung

Not following, but not sure it matter either.

Shard

I'm for a gradual phase out. Get rid of the statues that people agree to get rid of and don't commission any new ones. So for example with Colston, although it was pulled down by a mob, it seems fair to say that the Bristolians in the end acquiesced to its removal (there was no massive objection).