Should Statues Of Certain Historical Persons Be Removed So As To Satisfy Today's Political Correctness Ideals?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/805623/New-Orleans-Civil-War-statue-removed-deemed-racist

[ToraToraTora]

NO!

[ToraToraTora]

if the PC mob have their way only Saint Mandela and the Dali llama will be allowed!

[jackthehat]

It's a knotty issue.
I can see merit in both sides of the argument...

[naomi24]

No.

[jim360]

Is there any historical figure that you would *not* want to see a statue of all day? It's hard to argue that statues aren't powerful symbols, celebrating the life of the person they represent, so if that person is also a total winker then maybe it's not a good idea to keep around a statue.

All the same, I worry that people on the side of the argument calling for these things to be removed all over the place are confusing commemorating our history with celebrating it.

[Old_Geezer]

No. But we ought not add to them either.

[Old_Geezer]

They seem to be under the illusion that the American civil war was simply about slavery. I was under the impression that the main disagreement was about maintaining independence or being forced into a union. I don't see not wishing to be part of a large, almost continent sized, lump is a shameful part of history which must be hidden.

[vulcan42]

No, this is the beginning of rewriting history.

[jim360]

I don't think it was the only cause, but it was certainly the main one.

[ToraToraTora]

the fact is if a statue exists then enough people thought the person depicted deserved it and the authorities allowed it on that basis, on that basis any statue is valid. The corollary to that is that there will no doubt be an equal number of people offended. If in the area concerned the latter outweigh the former then the statue would no doubt be removed by due legal process or in the case of tyrants like, for example, Saddam Hussien, by those liberated.

[ToraToraTora]

the main issue was slavery OG.

[Old_Geezer]

That isn't my understanding. Mine is that Lincoln supported the cause the encourage more support against the South. But it has become the thing most noted.

[jim360]

So since this statue was removed by due legal process, I suppose that means that there's no objection?

[Peter Pedant]

well....
Three of these – William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, and Simon of Trent – became objects of local sects and veneration,

these are child saints ( now unsainted thank God) who were eaten by Jews - well not eaten but reputedly eaten in the Blood Libel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saint_Hugh_of_Lincoln

please do not confuse with St Hugh Bishop of Lincoln

and if someone said - should we take down the statue of the martyred child saint - Little St Hugh of Lincolm - then I would say yes

What about statues of Cyril Smith of Rochdale or Jimmy ( st Jimmy ) Savile - if theere were any - people would say - time for the foundry wouldnt they ?

[ToraToraTora]

how was the due legal process arrived at? did they hold a vote?

[Old_Geezer]

One has a right to object. Probably no legal basis to prevent or return it though.

[Khandro]

NO, retrospective history should not be allowed.

[jim360]

From the article:

"The City Council voted in 2015 to remove monuments honouring two of the Confederacy's best-known generals - Beauregard and Robert E. Lee - as well as Confederate President Jefferson Davis and a 19th-century white supremacist militia."

So yes, a vote was held.

[Islay]

I can see both sides of this rather difficult arguement.

[ToraToraTora]

fair enough jim, I think they are wrong but they decided so that's up to them.