Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News0 min ago
Jimmy Saville
Think of it this way...Jimmy Saville.
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
"No-one whose ever sung the British national anthem can deny that slavery is evil."
I have not seen anyone on here defend slavery. And lets not forget it still happens today. Also people from Britain were also taken as slaves at one point in time remember and not so long ago either with the Germans and the Japanese.
I have not seen anyone on here defend slavery. And lets not forget it still happens today. Also people from Britain were also taken as slaves at one point in time remember and not so long ago either with the Germans and the Japanese.
sp1814 - Your basic premise is fundamentally flawed.
The issue with the demolition of statues, leaving aside the fact that this is done by mob vandalism, not by society's agreed consent, is that people are putting modern attitudes on historical behaviour.
As has been pointed out, slavery to our modern morals is a heinous crime, and utterly unacceptable - but at the time it was taking place, it was seen as normal and acceptable. The statues were erected for the philanthropy exhibited by these wealthy men, not for the way in which they obtained their wealth, which was simply not considered because it was the way of the world at that time.
You can say that we would not accept slavery now, but that does not alter the fact that it is a part of history, and history cannot be 'adjusted' because you don't like some of it - we have to accept all of it.
In terms of Jimmy Savile - his behaviour in the times in which he lived has never been seen as acceptable by anyone, and its exposure - notwithstanding an absence of any legal process or conviction - means that he cannot be celebrated now, or in two hundred years time because his actions were not and will not be seen as the norm for the times.
That means that your entire comparison is meaningless.
Monuments remind us of our history, good and bad - as I have pointed out, that is why Auschwitz is still standing, unless the revisionists want that demolished as well.
The issue with the demolition of statues, leaving aside the fact that this is done by mob vandalism, not by society's agreed consent, is that people are putting modern attitudes on historical behaviour.
As has been pointed out, slavery to our modern morals is a heinous crime, and utterly unacceptable - but at the time it was taking place, it was seen as normal and acceptable. The statues were erected for the philanthropy exhibited by these wealthy men, not for the way in which they obtained their wealth, which was simply not considered because it was the way of the world at that time.
You can say that we would not accept slavery now, but that does not alter the fact that it is a part of history, and history cannot be 'adjusted' because you don't like some of it - we have to accept all of it.
In terms of Jimmy Savile - his behaviour in the times in which he lived has never been seen as acceptable by anyone, and its exposure - notwithstanding an absence of any legal process or conviction - means that he cannot be celebrated now, or in two hundred years time because his actions were not and will not be seen as the norm for the times.
That means that your entire comparison is meaningless.
Monuments remind us of our history, good and bad - as I have pointed out, that is why Auschwitz is still standing, unless the revisionists want that demolished as well.
I don't dispute Colston was doing something that *wasn't* illegal, but it's going too far to say he was doing something that *isn't* illegal. Tense matters, doesn't it? That seemed to be your argument with regards to Turing, for example. What he was doing was thought of as wrong at the time, but what was wrong at the time should not have been wrong. All I am doing is suggesting that the same logic applies in this case: what Colston was doing was right (in his mind and in the mind of society and the law, although not the slaves' minds), but what was deemed right at the time should not have been right.
Society today is entitled to decide who it admires and who it does not. It is entitled to use its own judgement on that point, and shouldn't be bound to decisions made in the past, in different contexts. Whether or not Colston is worth of a statue is a question for today, not for 1895 -- which, incidentally, further reinforces the point: Colston got his statue 175 years after he died. The people of 1895 had every right to decide they admired him, and we have every right to decide that we shouldn't.
Society today is entitled to decide who it admires and who it does not. It is entitled to use its own judgement on that point, and shouldn't be bound to decisions made in the past, in different contexts. Whether or not Colston is worth of a statue is a question for today, not for 1895 -- which, incidentally, further reinforces the point: Colston got his statue 175 years after he died. The people of 1895 had every right to decide they admired him, and we have every right to decide that we shouldn't.
jim360 - // Treating slavery as not a crime was wrong. Therefore its non-criminal nature shouldn't be used as a defence of those who were guilty of it. //
No-one is defending slavers today - but that does not mean that we suddenly pretend that slavery didn't exist by removing monuments to philanthropy built on slavery.
History is about what we were and what we did, right and wrong. It enables us to remember what we did wrong, and ensure that we don't do it again.
If modern society wants a rethink of monuments to slavers, there are democratic processes in place to discuss and decide an action plan, it does not fall to a self-righteous mob of hooligans to take irreversible action to salve their own personal and mis-placed sense of blame for something their ancestors did.
Vandalism based on self-righteous realignment of history is never acceptable. Nigel Farage was wrong to appear to equate BLM with The Taliban, but the behaviour is absolutely the same, which is probably the point he made, badly, but possibly valid.
No-one is defending slavers today - but that does not mean that we suddenly pretend that slavery didn't exist by removing monuments to philanthropy built on slavery.
History is about what we were and what we did, right and wrong. It enables us to remember what we did wrong, and ensure that we don't do it again.
If modern society wants a rethink of monuments to slavers, there are democratic processes in place to discuss and decide an action plan, it does not fall to a self-righteous mob of hooligans to take irreversible action to salve their own personal and mis-placed sense of blame for something their ancestors did.
Vandalism based on self-righteous realignment of history is never acceptable. Nigel Farage was wrong to appear to equate BLM with The Taliban, but the behaviour is absolutely the same, which is probably the point he made, badly, but possibly valid.
sp - // The difference between the way that (say) Jimmy Saville is views now is based on him knowing what he was doing at the time was wrong. //
No, it's not, it's based on every single person with a fragment of intelligence, morality and human decency knowing that what he did was wrong.
I have made this argument before about terrorists - no-one looks in the mirror and says to their reflection "I am an irredeemable evil and horrible human being and the world would be better without me in it …" and I am sure Savile never did that either.
People think they are right, it is society that judges them as such.
In the days of slavery, society judged slavers as right, not paedophiles, that is the difference.
No, it's not, it's based on every single person with a fragment of intelligence, morality and human decency knowing that what he did was wrong.
I have made this argument before about terrorists - no-one looks in the mirror and says to their reflection "I am an irredeemable evil and horrible human being and the world would be better without me in it …" and I am sure Savile never did that either.
People think they are right, it is society that judges them as such.
In the days of slavery, society judged slavers as right, not paedophiles, that is the difference.
jim - // Yes, I agree that the mob tearing the statue down is wrong, although it's notable that most people have given up defending the presence of the statue since. Society has agreed with the mob in this instance, but that is presumably luck rather than judgement. //
Society may agree that the statues should be removed, but that does not give cart-blanche to a load of vandals to go ahead and destroy them.
And let's not accord the vandals a sense of cultural and moral action on behalf of the rest of us - their action is vandalism and destruction based on a nihilistic sense of hate disguised as moral outrage, it's not, it is not based on any level of moral compass at all.
Society may agree that the statues should be removed, but that does not give cart-blanche to a load of vandals to go ahead and destroy them.
And let's not accord the vandals a sense of cultural and moral action on behalf of the rest of us - their action is vandalism and destruction based on a nihilistic sense of hate disguised as moral outrage, it's not, it is not based on any level of moral compass at all.
// That really is an absolute nonsense! How can anyone possibly be deemed guilty of a committing a crime for doing something that isn’t illegal? For goodness sake keep it rational at least. Sheesh!//
erm havent we just had Saville as a criminal without a conviction - so rationality was never really there
as someone's said - -that (this thread) really is an absolute nonsense!
erm havent we just had Saville as a criminal without a conviction - so rationality was never really there
as someone's said - -that (this thread) really is an absolute nonsense!
jim - // The people of 1895 had every right to decide they admired him, and we have every right to decide that we shouldn't. //
No argument there, but 'we' have had no say - the decision has been taken out of out of our hands by the actions of a tiny minority of self-righteous prigs who think their skewed version of moral outrage entitles them to wantonly destroy something.
If 'we' decide statues have to come down, I have no argument, I will not stand by and see some band of thugs think and act for me.
No argument there, but 'we' have had no say - the decision has been taken out of out of our hands by the actions of a tiny minority of self-righteous prigs who think their skewed version of moral outrage entitles them to wantonly destroy something.
If 'we' decide statues have to come down, I have no argument, I will not stand by and see some band of thugs think and act for me.
-- answer removed --
