@bob_the_fisherman Said
I actually agree with you that history is far too nuanced to be contained in a statue, which is why I am ambivalent about some of what is taking place. Interestingly enough, one of the American guys whose statue has caused controversy specifically argued against having his statue erected because he believed it would cause problems (Lee, maybe. Honestly can't remember now).
Churchill did some great things worthy of note. WWII may well have worked out far less pleasant without him. However he also did and said some terrible things by the standard of today. Should we ignore the good he did and focus only on the bad? It does not matter to him either way, but if we sanitise the past does it not pose its own dangers?
A plaque on a statue speaking of the good and bad could have been an alternative.
On balance I argue against tearing these things down in a climate like this, although that ship has sailed. One thing people seem not to comprehend is that the world is an ugly place, and people can go from civilised to something else very quickly once a mob is involved. We have seen it over and over.
In an ideal world a discussion would be had about statues and people would arrive at a peaceful consensus on them, but, that ain't gonna happen either. The ball is rolling and it will continue to roll beyond the control of any individual.
Hopefully, whatever the outcome, the violence does not escalate.
Hmmmm.... I read that expecting a 'but' somewhere along the line. I was pleasantly surprised not to see one. Well, not an obvious one anyway, but OK... you make your point and that's fair. Let's take it from there.
I don't think Churchill was as complex a character as some would like him to be remembered as. He was an empirist and believed strongly in the superiority of the white man, something that has never been adequately acknowledged. My point about statues is that they are superficial. They can't see into the intricacies of an individuals' character. Only education can do that.
I think we're very fortunate in Britain in that we DO have a good education system, particularly in matters relating to our history. UK has no 'official' history. The education of our children is directed at giving them enough salient facts to stimulate their interest so that they will then study for themselves. By accessing works written by educated scholars who specialise in specific areas of history. Investigate, challenge, consider and conclude. Make your own mind up.
Our history is flexible and not easily contained. Every time some new evidence comes to light, it challenges what we thought we knew before and makes us review our opinions and beliefs.
For example, the discovery of the remains of King Richard III stimulated a lot of new research into his life and reign. Until then we had been highly influenced by Shakespeare's hatchet job on him from the 16th century. But Shakespeare was writing about a Plantagenet King who had been overthrown by the grandfather of Elizabeth I. A Tudor. It might have been expedient of him at the time to paint Richard in the worst possible light to gain the patronage of the Queen. He sure as hell didn't want to upset a red head with a volatile temperament with a man like Walsingham around who would throw anybody who looked like a subversive into the Tower.
Now we see Richard III in a different light. History hasn't been re-written or discarded, it's been reviewed and updated in the light of new evidence. That is what objective and honest scholarly institutions do.
And so it should be with Churchill. For seven decades he has been revered as almost faultless.... the saviour of the nation.... The Greatest Ever Briton according to the poll carried out in a popular BBC series some ten years or so ago.
Isn't it time that this figure, who commands such a lofty place in our national psyche, be reviewed and other parts of his life, that occurred before 1939, be brought to the table...?
As for your comment that peaceful consensus isn't going to happen, I disagree. I think the dumpings and the vandalism would stop very quickly if there was enough goodwill for the protesters to believe that their grievances were being adequately addressed.
It takes two to tango. The trouble is, white people haven't learned how to do that particular dance. Many black councillors in a number of places around the country have tried to raise the question of objectionable memorials but have been rejected. Petitions have been ignored. Questions to MP's and local councils have not been responded to.
How Bristol Resisted The Removal Of Colston's Statue For Years
Protests about the statue had been going on since 2016. Nobody listened.
Protesters eventually felt they had no recourse but to take direct action (a phrase I personally dislike and I'm sure you do too, but it rather fits). They pulled Colston down and that has put the issue on the table.
Councils aren't ignoring the issue any more.
I'd rather it hadn't been done this way. I hope you'll take my word for that. But because I speak with black people.... listen to them.... hear their grievances and in making up my own mind, I agree that their complaints are legitimate, I sympathise with them.
Many years from now, probably when you and I have shuffled off this mortal coil, schoolchildren might read about this in a history book. They'll make up their own minds, which is how I hope we will still do history in this country. My feeling is that they'll think the removal of statues that celebrated racists was a good thing.