ChatterBank1 min ago
Looks Like Lord Nelosn Is Next On The List....
32 Answers
http://
I said it as a joke in a thread the other week, it seems the left are indeed after the good lord.
I said it as a joke in a thread the other week, it seems the left are indeed after the good lord.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For what it's worth -- no. No, Nelson's statue shouldn't be taken down. But as long as we idolise people then we ignore their flaws, and that could be as damaging as overstating them. If historical preservation is so important to those defending the existence of these statues, should that not include an honest and frank discussion of these people's flaws as well? Would it not defeat the object to suppress them, and therefore the debate?
Perhaps an alternative approach is something like what they have on the modern reshowings of some Tom and Jerry cartoons, what with the blackface and the racial caricatures that are at best dubious. Something like:
"“Tom & Jerry” shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While not representing the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."
And then, similar disclaimers deserve attaching to other such controversies. Problem solved, perhaps? Accept the flaws, disown them, and make it clear that they are not what is being celebrated, without allowing that to distract from the achievements that do deserve the celebration.
Perhaps an alternative approach is something like what they have on the modern reshowings of some Tom and Jerry cartoons, what with the blackface and the racial caricatures that are at best dubious. Something like:
"“Tom & Jerry” shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While not representing the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."
And then, similar disclaimers deserve attaching to other such controversies. Problem solved, perhaps? Accept the flaws, disown them, and make it clear that they are not what is being celebrated, without allowing that to distract from the achievements that do deserve the celebration.
But anyway, linking Nelson the debate in the US is tenuous at best. Lee and Nelson were both products of their time, and both had unsavoury views to modern eyes, but Lee, unlike Nelson, represented divisions within the country; Nelson, I think, was admired rather more universally (in Britain, at least; as another illustration that context matters to statues, I do hope that no-one here would suggest putting a statue of Nelson up in the Place de la Concorde). And, of course, Robert Lee himself suggested that such divisions should be "consigned to oblivion", rather than re-opened due to war memorials and statues, etc.
It's a shame, because there are probably a great many people who are a little too proud of British history without really looking at the parts they should be less proud of. If the original article had stuck to that, it might have made a good point. As it is, that's lost in the noise.
It's a shame, because there are probably a great many people who are a little too proud of British history without really looking at the parts they should be less proud of. If the original article had stuck to that, it might have made a good point. As it is, that's lost in the noise.
Usual Daily Express nonsense.
// In an opinion piece on the Guardian website, columnist Afua Hirsch argued it “is figures like Nelson who immediately sing to mind” when hearing the latest about the 700-odd confederate statues which have been pulled down in the US.
She wrote that while the reaction in Britain to the Charlottesville incident is “almost entirely condemnatory of neo-Nazis in the US”, the “colonial and pro-slavery titans of British history are still memorialised” in the UK. //
No where in those words is there a call for the column to be toppled. The writer is contrasting the different attitudes between the US and UK.
// In an opinion piece on the Guardian website, columnist Afua Hirsch argued it “is figures like Nelson who immediately sing to mind” when hearing the latest about the 700-odd confederate statues which have been pulled down in the US.
She wrote that while the reaction in Britain to the Charlottesville incident is “almost entirely condemnatory of neo-Nazis in the US”, the “colonial and pro-slavery titans of British history are still memorialised” in the UK. //
No where in those words is there a call for the column to be toppled. The writer is contrasting the different attitudes between the US and UK.
Gromit
If you read the original piece it is quite clearly in favour of "considering" whether we should remove the Nelson statue though, even if you take into account that the author almost certainly didn't write the headline. Never does she outright say the words "we should remove the statue of Lord Nelson" but the tone of the article clearly favours it.
https:/
If you read the original piece it is quite clearly in favour of "considering" whether we should remove the Nelson statue though, even if you take into account that the author almost certainly didn't write the headline. Never does she outright say the words "we should remove the statue of Lord Nelson" but the tone of the article clearly favours it.
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.