Churchill statue poll

Should The Winston Churchill statue be removed?


  • Total voters
    146

Milzy

Guru
After what I've been reading lately I'm surprised the thing is still standing. Let's have a C.C poll and find out if anyone really cares about it.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
How about "He was a bit of a nodder by modern standards, but we can't re-write history to suit modern sensibilities by imposing today's morals on the past, so the statue should stay"? The options are too narrow and do not reflect the reality of differing opinions.

By todays measure he was a racist, but at that he was a rank amateur compared to to one Mr A. Hitler Esq. of Number 1, The Bunker, Berlin, and the mere fact that we're able to even freely have this discussion today is because of him.
 
Last edited:

cookiemonster

Legendary Member
Location
Hong Kong
How about "He was a bit of a nodder by modern standards, but we can't re-write history to suit modern sensibilities by imposing today's morals on the past, so the statue should stay"? The options are too narrow and do not reflect the reality of differing opinions.

By todays measure he was a racist, but at that he was a rank amateur compared to to one Mr A. Hitler Esq. of Number 1, The Bunker, Berlin, and the mere fact that we're able to even freely have this discussion today is because of him.


:bravo:
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
One can be both a racist and a hero, To my mind they are not binary choices.
I think the racism negates the 'heroism'
More than just a bit.

Was it his life that got laid down for our right to free speech??

Nope it was countless thousands of 'cannon fodder'

Of course we had to defeat the Nazi Imperialist war machine, and Churchill was instrumental in that, with strategies, and rousing speeches.

But Churchill also thought that racism, and taking over other people's countries was a 'natural' thing for people to do.

He was an apologist for 'our' Empire building - we just didn't have such 'sharp' uniforms.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/churchill-gandhi-briton-indian-greatest/584170/

Maybe we don't need to take that statue down as such, but I think we need to far better understand our 'whole' history, and what we (as Britishers) have done in the world.

Not just focus on the supposedly 'glorious' bits, and neglect to mention, and reparate for the damage we've done.

Personally I'm wary of putting anyone on a pedestal.

It leads to lazy, compartmentalised thinking, and rarely gives the full picture.

But if we are going to venerate anyone - venerate the peacemakers, the people who work towards healing, and justice for all.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
Whilst were at it, lets pull down most statues etc, as you'll see many of these folk had a 'questionable' past.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
On a related matter, I don't think anyone that hasn't served their country with with an exemplary record should be allowed to have any say on whether such statues etc should be removed.

Now, I'm off to tippex all mention of Tony Blair from the history books for his unlawful and colonial behaviour in invading and subjugating Iraq.
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
I think the racism negates the 'heroism'
More than just a bit.

Was it his life that got laid down for our right to free speech??

Nope it was countless thousands of 'cannon fodder'

Of course we had to defeat the Nazi Imperialist war machine, and Churchill was instrumental in that, with strategies, and rousing speeches.

But Churchill also thought that racism, and taking over other people's countries was a 'natural' thing for people to do.

He was an apologist for 'our' Empire building - we just didn't have such 'sharp' uniforms.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/churchill-gandhi-briton-indian-greatest/584170/

Maybe we don't need to take that statue down as such, but I think we need to far better understand our 'whole' history, and what we (as Britishers) have done in the world.

Not just focus on the supposedly 'glorious' bits, and neglect to mention, and reparate for the damage we've done.

Personally I'm wary of putting anyone on a pedestal.

It leads to lazy, compartmentalised thinking, and rarely gives the full picture.

But if we are going to venerate anyone - venerate the peacemakers, the people who work towards healing, and justice for all.
The fact that he was a leader of cannon-fodder is neither here nor there, there needs to be leaders and throwing themselves on the bonfire during a grave conflict is not always helpful....

But in the same way that we should not allow the good that men do overshadow the evil, we should also be careful not to swing too far the other way. For that we need a balanced conversation and in turn for that to happen we need a balanced education about History, Empire, Colonialism, Trade, Exceptionalism. Those of us of a certain age were brought-up on the faded glories of Empire, Brittania Rules the Waves, Fighting them on the Beaches, the New Elizabethan age etc. It takes a long-time to change that narrative unfortunately.

So, Churchill is both Hero and Racist and I don't see them as mutually exclusive (yet).
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
On a related matter, I don't think anyone that hasn't served their country with with an exemplary record should be allowed to have any say on whether such statues etc should be removed.

Now, I'm off to tippex all mention of Tony Blair from the history books for his unlawful and colonial behaviour in invading and subjugating Iraq.
Yet that was wrong too.

Define 'serving their country' please - many people 'serve' in multiple ways.

Carrying a gun to do it, doesn't elevate you above anyone else.
It just means you've been given a mandate to terminate the lives of others, on order.
 
Last edited:

newfhouse

Regressive elitist lefty
He's probably done something ! :reading::reading:
That was my point, really. The answer is far more nuanced than the poll question allows. Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity, but nobody could reasonably argue against his statue being destroyed. Eric‘s achievements, as far as I am aware, outweigh any character defects, so his statue can probably remain without causing offence.

Churchill sits between the two on a complicated multi-dimensional spectrum. Opinions can, will and should change over time. The purpose of the statue also matters. Does it celebrate, commemorate, or educate?
 
Top Bottom