- Nov 18, 2008
See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
If you want to play these stupid games, expect stupid prizes.
What if I am a descendant of one of the people Mandela killed? Should that statue be allowed to stand?
Alright so you're not going to answer difficult questions directly, as expected from you
This is a societal question. Society should ask in all cases whether a statue of an individual represents their best values. If it doesn't, they should decide how to remove it. In some cases where this process has become stuck, unfortunately people will take it into their own hands. But I think local governments should have celebrated the removal of these statues a long time ago, and it's an indictment on their values that they didn't do it, until a public uprising took care of the problem.
Whether a statue offends someone is not even relevant. People like Edward Colston simply should not be commemorated.
Really, they're just what... using his likeness to prop up the earth?
Periods of history where the groups now moaning benefited at the expense of the rest of humanity. For them it wasn't evil, it was glorious. Fsck 'em.
No one is commemorating Edward Colston in this day and age.
It's a statue that was erected in the past. We learn and move on. What is so hard about this to understand?
Who said anything about any of this was glorious? It's a statue. Stop revering these things and recognize them for what they are: historical items.
“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.
In contrast to the earlier memorials that mourned dead soldiers, these monuments tended to glorify leaders of the Confederacy like General Robert E. Lee, former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and General “Thomas Stonewall” Jackson.
“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memorials had instead been placed in cemeteries.
The values these monuments stood for, he says, included a “glorification of the cause of the Civil War.”
The Colosseum was a thing where great suffering took place. Should we strip it down because leaving it up is glorifying those days?
Well seeing as the reason for the statues creation was to commemorate him surely you would agree that it holds absolutely no value in this day and age
"The statue, designed by John Cassidy, was erected in the area now known as The Centre in 1895, to commemorate Edward Colston's philanthropy.It was proposed by James Arrowsmith, the president of the Anchor Society."
Yet as long as it stands, it commemorates him.
If they're really just valueless historical items they belong in museums. In public we all know statues are commemorative.
The fact is, as I said, that the people who commissioned the statues in the first place knew exactly what they were for.
To me it sounds like you're the one trying to rewrite history by pretending that these statues were anything other than an attempt to enshrine racial segregationist values in the South.
Of course not.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871). Although female choice explains sexual selection, it is the males who evolve in order to meet the chosen criteria of strength and power; such nineteenth century differentiation between the sexes was crucial in providing an alleged biological basis for the superiority of the male.
Democrats against unions. Lol.
No it does not. The museum in Bristol and commemorative plaques around the harbour does a far better job than that statue.It holds value in reminding us that the pursuit of capitalism often leads to atrocities.
My argument about statues is that they are not there to educate people about history,the people who create them say so themselves,they are for commemoration
as to whether or not they should have statues,my personal opinion is that people who admire them should be able to commemorate them especially if they contributed to society as Colton is said to have done
Confederate statues are a different matter however.....