Topic: Statues: Should They Stay or Should They Go?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The danger with "where does it stop" is that you just effectively stop everything don't you?

If you have a problem with everything being looked at again then effectively you're saying nothing should be.

You can't start, because you can't say where it will stop. And that's a big issue because all it does it preserve a status quo which isnt aligned as it should be.

It's more harmful than it is helpful (imo).

Great.

So I asked you a perfectly reasonable question earlier.

Can you have a go at answering that one please.

[BarryCrocker]

Worth pointing out that it is the unedited episode that has been removed from UKTV. The last time the episode was shown on 'mainstream' BBC it was edited. I'm not sure what version you would have got 5 years ago (or indeed today) if you bought a DVD copy.

The offending content is easily Googleable - it is way past what is acceptable nowadays.

It probably was what the Major said that resulted in the show being pulled. I'm not condoning as I hate the word (in all shape and form) but I would had thought the Cleese would have used the Major as someone to laugh at for his bigoted ways rather then laugh with.

And if we're going to pull shows for the use of the 'N' word we better start looking at Taratino Movies, Rap/RnB tunes and comedians like Chris Rock.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think you stop with consensus. I think if you asked the public as a whole whether they feel the kind of language in that Fawlty Towers episode is acceptable the vast majority would say no. Same with the Colston statue.

Where the consensus breaks down you stop and try and build bridges.

I agree that would be sensible and hopefully that will happen (for the sake of 'history')

But once something gathers speed then I would suggest that everything eventually might be 'up for grabs' (And that might be a good thing - I don't run the world, who am I to judge..?)

History is a dangerous, disturbing and fucked up thing. Is preserving it a good thing? I personally have always thought so. The mistakes and issues of the past have quite often been used to improve the present and hopefully the future. You'd have to speak to someone intelligent or a proper historian to gauge the full impact of destroying all your history because you are judging everything about it on the current view of society at this time.

I personally am not convinced that this is entirely a good thing to engage in across the board.

As I said - who gets to decide? Where do they stop?

You could reasonably see if something is 'banned' then it might become illegal to own it - so you've become a criminal for owning a copy of a random item that's been 'legal' all along (I'm just making a point with this sentence, but I think you can see where I'm going with the idea of it)

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The British Library for instance has got probably thousands of books that are unacceptable by todays standards? What is the answer? Someone going in with a black marker pen or a public bonfire outside?

Leave them there. Surely you can see the difference between a book sat on a bookshelf in the BL and a television program being broadcast nationally (whether that be traditionally or on demand) or a statue being used as a piece of public architecture?

[The Gulleysucker]

It's a perfectly valid and reasonable reason for removing it.

My question isn't about what has been done. My question is where do you stop?

The British Library for instance has got probably thousands of books that are unacceptable by todays standards? What is the answer? Someone going in with a black marker pen or a public bonfire outside?

I do have a degree of sympathy, decisions made by mob rule or as a knee jerk response to a mob are rarely satisfactory in the long term.

Such things should be reviewed rationally, and rationally any use of such offensive racial words as in that Fawlty Towers episode these days and outside of a clear historical context is very suspect and should be discouraged.

But I have no issues with slavers statues being taken down, it's long overdue.

As for statues of others, I think sometimes we have to be more careful in this somewhat feverish atmosphere though most historical figures tend to have feet of clay if we look hard enough.

For instance, the Baden Powell business and accusations of him having Nazi sympathies would mean surely Lloyd George statues should go first but I'm not sure the Welsh will look kindly on a bunch of English people telling them they have to take down his statues that are dotted around the place as well as Westminster.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Leave them there. Surely you can see the difference between a book sat on a bookshelf in the BL and a television program being broadcast nationally (whether that be traditionally or on demand) or a statue being used as a piece of public architecture?

I can yes.

But I'm not making the decisions here.

[Medellin]

Penny Lane road signs sprayed over in 'disgraceful' attack

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/penny-lane-road-signs-sprayed-18407831#ICID=Android_EchoNewsApp_AppShare

"Many historians say has no slave trade links"

Use the app.

[KissThisGuy]

You can't remove every TV programme that might offend someone. If the joke in Fawlty Towers is that Major is a bit senile and a racist it doesn't make sense to remove it. Removing A League of Gentlemen because of Papa Lazarou doesn't make sense either. I've a feeling people choose to be offended by things they haven't even watched so they have no idea of the context of the joke or characters. Tropic Thunder is a movie that people might be offended by Robert Downey Jr. playing a black man if they didn't actually watch the movie to understand the joke.

[Cpt_Reina]

Great.

So I asked you a perfectly reasonable question earlier.

Can you have a go at answering that one please.

Andy, books are not statues. I have no issue with statue being removed because they are functionless.

There's no equivalent to be drawn, and that's why nobody is suggesting the British library be torched.

Again, this what I mean about the broadening of the discussion so wide that you stop any meaningful discussion.

The reviews of the statues have meant that people are looking at the word differently, looking at the people placed on these plynths and the society which placed them there differently - all whilst not harming anything of cultural or historical significance. These are no great works of art or ancient artifacts.

"What about books, what about telly, what about music"... All it seeks to do is stifle and overshadow a much overdue and largely without any meaningful loss review of Britain, its history in regards to racism and how we should look at it.

Its just different, no black person has to walk past a passage from a racist book scrawled on the side of a building on their way to work, if you want to see it you have to seek it out. A more apt comparison might be if that book in the British library had excerpts spray painted on the pavement, in which case they'd be removed wouldn't they. And rightfully so.

A statue of a racist in a public square is very very different to the books within the British library and if you can't see how then perhaps the problem lies more with yourself than with anyone else.

[rafathegaffa83]

And this is quite brilliant by Mary Beard.....

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/statue-wars-blog-post-mary-beard/

Yep. I think she hits the nail on the head here, particularly in the way that history is typically presented and taught in a simplistic manner, which dilutes the complexity of the past. Everything is black and white with no nuance. You're either a hero or villain. Her argument re: Rhodes is interesting because I think it's a very complex one because of the way philanthropy works and is funded. Additionally, in this case the idea of a Rhodes scholar is a brand unto itself. However, I'm sure Colston's backers would similarly argue that his statue shouldn't have been taken down because of the work the charities in Colston's name do.

[Dr. Beaker]

You can't remove every TV programme that might offend someone. If the joke in Fawlty Towers is that Major is a bit senile and a racist it doesn't make sense to remove it. Removing A League of Gentlemen because of Papa Lazarou doesn't make sense either. I've a feeling people choose to be offended by things they haven't even watched so they have no idea of the context of the joke or characters. Tropic Thunder is a movie that people might be offended by Robert Downey Jr. playing a black man if they didn't actually watch the movie to understand the joke.

The original Til Death Us Do Part was the best anti-racist programme ever devised. Sadly most of our single-watt public loved it because they agreed with every word Alf Garnet said.

All humour relies on someone's precious dignity or self-esteem taking a fall, so we had better do without humour altogether or draw up a list of which people it is OK to demean - like politicians for instance.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Andy, books are not statues. I have no issue with statue being removed because they are functionless.

There's no equivalent to be drawn, and that's why nobody is suggesting the British library be torched.

Again, this what I mean about the broadening of the discussion so wide that you stop any meaningful discussion.

The reviews of the statues have meant that people are looking at the word differently, looking at the people placed on these plynths and the society which placed them there differently - all whilst not harming anything of cultural or historical significance. These are no great works of art or ancient artifacts.

"What about books, what about telly, what about music"... All it seeks to do is stifle and overshadow a much overdue and largely without any meaningful loss review of Britain, its history in regards to racism and how we should look at it.

Its just different, no black person has to walk past a passage from a racist book scrawled on the side of a building on their way to work, if you want to see it you have to seek it out. A more apt comparison might be if that book in the British library had excerpts spray painted on the pavement, in which case they'd be removed wouldn't they. And rightfully so.

A statue of a racist in a public square is very very different to the books within the British library and if you can't see how then perhaps the problem lies more with yourself than with anyone else.

So statues are meaningless, but when they are removed they then make people look at the world differently?

Got you.

[The Gulleysucker]

...Everything is black and white with no nuance. You're either a hero or villain. ...

It is unfortunate but correct, but often there is a reason for it being simplified as taught.

Unless you're particularly interested in a period, an event or a figure, history tends to be an incredibly boring subject to learn. It takes an enthusiastic and knowledgeable teacher and then quite a bit of dedication and application by the pupil to really start to dig into it and to then be equipped to take a reasoned position. Most kids just won't do that, they need it simplified, so much nuance is lost and it becomes a binary thing for many.

For example Marie Stopes, a heroine of Family Planning and with many Clinics named after her was also a supporter of eugenics. Now that's a tricky one.

[stevo7]

Penny Lane road signs sprayed over in 'disgraceful' attack

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/penny-lane-road-signs-sprayed-18407831#ICID=Android_EchoNewsApp_AppShare

"Many historians say has no slave trade links"

Use the app.

Sheep

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It is unfortunate but correct, but often there is a reason for it being simplified as taught.

Unless you're particularly interested in a period, an event or a figure, history tends to be an incredibly boring subject to learn. It takes an enthusiastic and knowledgeable teacher and then quite a bit of dedication and application by the pupil to really start to dig into it and to then be equipped to take a reasoned position. Most kids just won't do that, they need it simplified, so much nuance is lost and it becomes a binary thing for many.

For example Marie Stopes, a heroine of Family Planning and with many Clinics named after her was also a supporter of eugenics. Now that's a tricky one.

Is a very good point. I happily admit the only reason I have a passion for history was because of an absolutely fantastic teacher I had.

Although before I went to that school History was basically a boring, shite subject - every lesson he provided was a masterclass in drama, intrigue, detail and context. He managed to bring history to life at every step. Amazing fella - I honestly think he could have been on the world stage presenting programmes on it. Since then you have plenty of equally passionate presenters showing the world as it was outside our lives of today.

But the thing he did best was context. We learned all about peoples from across the globe and several eras of history and many of their actions were horrendous and disgusting - torture, racism, murder - it was all there. But everything was about context. I don't think any society can judge any other society as a whole because every society never instantly got to where they are. Mistakes were made in the past and every culture has got skeletons in the cupboard.

[The Gulleysucker]

...., but don't insinuate that his critics might be wrong

If he was such a Nazi sympathiser, why was he listed in the Sonderfahndungsliste G.B?

Notably, Lloyd George wasn't...

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Sheep

One mans Sheep is another mans Freedom Fighter.

[Dr. Beaker]

It is unfortunate but correct, but often there is a reason for it being simplified as taught.

Unless you're particularly interested in a period, an event or a figure, history tends to be an incredibly boring subject to learn. It takes an enthusiastic and knowledgeable teacher and then quite a bit of dedication and application by the pupil to really start to dig into it and to then be equipped to take a reasoned position. Most kids just won't do that, they need it simplified, so much nuance is lost and it becomes a binary thing for many.

For example Marie Stopes, a heroine of Family Planning and with many Clinics named after her was also a supporter of eugenics. Now that's a tricky one.

But it's quite a simple message to say on a plaque, 'Joe Bloggs made a fortune from slavery, and with some of the proceeds built us a nice art gallery.' Anyone, of any pursuasion, can then research further if they feel the need.

[The Gulleysucker]

But it's quite a simple message to say on a plaque, 'Joe Bloggs made a fortune from slavery, and with some of the proceeds built us a nice art gallery.' Anyone, of any pursuasion, can then research further if they feel the need.

Absolutely, and it should be done.

[BarryCrocker]

Absolutely, and it should be done.

100%. QR code with a link to regulated page, maybe even Wiki at a push.

[Cpt_Reina]

So statues are meaningless, but when they are removed they then make people look at the world differently?

Got you.

Exactly.

The only time that statue of Colston did anything to further the true representation of the man was when it was thrown in the drink.

Wasn't fit for any such purpose prior to that.

Maybe we've stumbled on an actual function for these things, you put them up so you can pull them down and actually educate people on who it is that's stood there, warts and all... Such enlightenment only seems to happen when they come down though.

[rafathegaffa83]

But it's quite a simple message to say on a plaque, 'Joe Bloggs made a fortune from slavery, and with some of the proceeds built us a nice art gallery.' Anyone, of any pursuasion, can then research further if they feel the need.

Bordeaux has finally started to do this after years of requests from academics, activists and politicians. They've put plaques explaining the history of various streets named after people connected to the slave trade. The notion being pushed there is that renaming streets would airbrush people connected to the slave trade out of history. Rather they want the names to remain so nobody forgets the role played by those individuals

[Dr. Beaker]

Bordeaux has finally started to do this after years of requests from academics, activists and politicians. They've put plaques explaining the history of various streets named after people connected to the slave trade. The notion being pushed there is that renaming streets would airbrush people connected to the slave trade out of history. Rather they want the names to remain so nobody forgets the role played by those individuals

That's exactly the point isn't it. These people should not be forgotten, which they soon would be if all the statues are destroyed. The individuals and their deeds should be remembered. As I said previously, we should know what made Britain 'Great', and who paid the price.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Exactly.

The only time that statue of Colston did anything to further the true representation of the man was when it was thrown in the drink.

Wasn't fit for any such purpose prior to that.

Maybe we've stumbled on an actual function for these things, you put them up so you can pull them down and actually educate people on who it is that's stood there, warts and all... Such enlightenment only seems to happen when they come down though.

Bollocks.

You need to go to a few more museums mate and take an interest in culture. Maybe read some books. Maybe even watch some programmes on history and culture?

[Cpt_Reina]

Bollocks.

You need to go to a few more museums mate and take an interest in culture. Maybe read some books. Maybe even watch some programmes on history and culture?

Can't help but notice you've omitted 'take a walk around town and look at statues' as a means to educate myself.

I'll leave it there.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Bollocks.

You need to go to a few more museums mate and take an interest in culture. Maybe read some books. Maybe even watch some programmes on history and culture?

What is there in his post to warrant that kind of response?

[El Lobo]

Bollocks.

You need to go to a few more museums mate and take an interest in culture. Maybe read some books. Maybe even watch some programmes on history and culture?

Wow....

[No666]

One of the great books for teaching children about slavery and its aftermath in the southern states is Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. I gave it to my daughter aged about 10 or so. There's no privileged white child who can read it and fail to identify with the young black girl protagonist, and iirc it's heavily autobiographical. Yet there was a movement to ban it, and it still raises criticism, because some of its appalling white characters use the n-word as their speech is depicted in an entirely historical-realist manner. Failing to trust to the intention of the writer in a work of literary and social merit leads to such ludicrous outcomes. Again - who gets to decide? Are we confident in our self-elected censors?

[stevo7]

One mans Sheep is another mans Freedom Fighter.

From your view which is which in this circumstance in relation to Penny Lane sign?
It's been vandalised a number of times over the years for different protests - and robbed.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

British museums in particular will tend to have looted items within

Yep they have and I'm all for them returning their stolen items

[The Gulleysucker]

The problem with the British, is they assume there is a huge BLACK and WHITE difference between the European parties of WWII...

I don't, I'm well aware much was a narcissism of small details dispute.

As for Baden-Powell, here is what he says:

Yes he is using the typical language and displaying the typical attitudes of most Europeans of that time towards other races.

All countries in that era, as they emerged from industrialisation and the power their mass produced rapid fire weapons gave them over other less fortunate countries and their peoples seemed to be infected with their own versions of innate racial supremacy, the Japanese certainly had similar racial supremacy ideas of their own regarding other nations in their vicinity.

Some of this still lingers on in parts of the world and is at risk of re-emerging rebadged.

[Red-Soldier]

From the archives: How do you decide when a statue must fall?

We name buildings after people, or put up statues to them, because we respect them. But what if we then discover they did wrong? In what cases should the building be renamed, or the statue be removed, asks the BBC's in-house philosopher, David Edmonds.

It's been described as "the loveliest room in Europe". Gothic on the outside, classical on the inside, it's a cathedral but not for the gods. It's a cathedral for the worship of books. The Codrington Library in All Soul's College is one of Oxford University's hidden architectural gems. It's also got a back story, and one rather embarrassing for the College.

Inside the library is a magnificent marble statue of the former All Souls Fellow after whom it is named, Christopher Codrington. Codrington died in 1710. His will was found, so we're told, in his boots.

A fortune - £10,000 - was bequeathed to All Souls for the books and the building.

And the source of all this money? Well, Codrington was descended from a line of sugar magnates. Their plantations were in Barbados and Antigua - and they were worked by slaves.

All around the world, institutions are dealing with a conundrum. What to do about statues or buildings or scholarships or awards, honouring or funded by people we now regard as seriously morally flawed? It's causing tensions from Princeton to Cape Town to Sydney.

You don't have to walk far from All Souls College to find another illustration of the dilemma - it takes just one minute, in fact.

Oriel College has become one focus of the Rhodes Must Fall movement. Some students have objected to the statue of Cecil Rhodes - it's inappropriate, they say, to have a statue of this 19th Century businessman, an advocate of white supremacy whose life was so deeply enmeshed with British imperialism.

Despite a vociferous campaign to have the statue removed, the College announced early in 2016 that Rhodes will not fall (a decision no doubt influenced by threats from potential donors that if it were pulled down or relocated, they would withdraw their bequests).

According to Daniel Butt, a politics fellow at Balliol College, arguments about whether to pull down or move once revered figures - like Rhodes - inevitably provoke powerful emotions.

"We want to have positive views of our ancestors, we want to think we come from a moral community, that people who came before us were good people - and also that we're good people," he says. "We react very strongly to the idea that just by living somewhere or having a certain identity we're linked to historical injustice or present-day wrongdoing."

Oxford attracts millions of tourists a year. Few of them will be aware that everywhere you look in the city you can find links with Britain's colonial past.

Balliol College, where Daniel Butt teaches, is no exception. In the late 19th Century it educated many of those who went on to administer the Empire, including three successive viceroys of India (Lansdowne, Elgin and Curzon).

How then should we deal with discomforting reminders of the past? One approach is to do nothing. The do-nothing advocates say history shouldn't be rewritten. To do so would be a form of censorship. And, they say, it's ridiculous to expect every great historical figure to be blemish-free, to have lived a life of unadulterated purity.

Even those held up as saintly figures, such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, had flaws (Gandhi's attitude to women is excruciating, seen through 21st Century eyes).

So we're on a slippery slope. If we were to denude Britain of all the statues of dead politicians and soldiers who held a few views we now find problematic, the country would be littered with unoccupied plinths. And what message would it send to contemporary philanthropists? Give generously today, and risk having your reputation trashed tomorrow.

But this "do-nothing" position seems too extreme. Imagine that Goebbels had endowed scholarships to Oxford, like Rhodes. Would anybody seriously claim the Goebbels Scholarships shouldn't be renamed (would anybody want to be a Goebbels Scholar?) or that a Goebbels statue shouldn't be demolished?

Daniel Butt says some sorts of crime or reprehensible behaviour are rightly regarded as so severe that they can't help but contaminate our overall assessment of that person's moral worth.

"There are some forms of moral wrongdoing that are beyond the pale, that are just so wrong that it becomes completely inappropriate to have that kind of person as a role model, to put them on a pedestal and look up to them," he says. "Paedophilia might be an activity which falls into this category."

Still, the vast majority of people are neither complete monsters nor complete angels. So what is needed is a middle path, a way of thinking about which buildings to rename, which statues to leave, which to remove. Dr Butt believes it would be a mistake to seek a universal formula. "There are so many different variables. So we don't want a one-size fits all. We have to examine particular cases on their merits."

What sort of considerations, then, should come into play? One may be whether the views or actions of the figure in question were typical for their time. If so, that could make them less blameworthy. Another is the extent of their misdeeds and how that is evaluated against their achievements. Churchill held opinions that would disbar him from political office today - despicable yes, but surely massively outweighed by the scale of his accomplishments.

Then there are what philosophers call consequentialist considerations. How does looking at the statue make passers-by feel? This, in turn, will be connected to whether the history still resonates - an ancient statue of some medieval warlord, however bloody and brutal his conquests, probably won't bother anybody. And, arguably, a statue of Rhodes in Cape Town will arouse more offence than one of the same man in Oxford.

Then there are other prosaic but important factors, like the cost of pulling a statue down (might the money be better spent elsewhere?) and the aesthetic value of the statue.

Decisions about how to remember the past are profoundly political as well as ethical. Next to Balliol College is a stone monument, Martyrs' Memorial. It marks the place where, in the mid-16th Century, in the reign of Queen Mary, Protestant bishops were burned. But the memorial itself was only erected three centuries later, in the mid-19th Century, when elements within the Anglican Church were anxious about the growing influence of Catholicism.

Statues and plaques usually occupy public spaces and confer honour and respect. Pulling them down, or renaming buildings, carries symbolic significance. But should institutions do more? Should they make amends in more tangible ways for sins of earlier generations?

Intergenerational justice is a hugely complex topic, not least because over the passage of time it becomes tricky to identify beneficiaries and victims. But Daniel Butt believes that where there is a clear historical continuity with the past, a modern institution has a duty to remedy wrongs, most especially when the impact of these wrongs is still being felt - for example in racial discrimination. He says Oxford's complicity in colonialism confers upon it obligations - obligations which it could discharge in several ways.

"We could think about scholarships in particular areas in the world, we could think about revising our curriculum. But this shouldn't be a decision made by a bunch of mostly white, mostly male academics sitting in an Oxford committee room. This needs to be a process of conversation involving a wide range of different communities - certainly students, but also representatives of the communities with which Oxford has this very complicated past."

All Souls College is one of Oxford's most private institutions - its fellows are not required to do any teaching, and can focus exclusively on research. For that reason, few students pass through the lodge which opens on to Oxford's High Street. The college made a substantial donation to Codrington College in Barbados (which teaches theological studies) 30 years ago, but until recently, it has been reluctant to address seriously the awkward provenance of its extraordinary library.

However, a new generation of fellows has begun to agitate for a more honest reckoning with history. Last year several All Souls academics organised a low-profile conference to examine the life of Codrington and his link with the college. Daniel Butt delivered a paper at the conference.

"My view is that they should change the name of the library," he says. "Codrington is beyond the pale in terms of historical injustice. He was involved with slave owning that we now readily condemn as being clearly unjust. I just don't think it's appropriate to honour someone from the past in this kind of way. So I would change the name, and I would at the very least move the statue."

The college will probably not go that far. But it will be taking some concrete steps. It is supporting Codrington College with a five-year grant and has just announced that it will be establishing a fully-funded graduate scholarship to Oxford for students from the Caribbean.

One idea that emerged from the recent conference is a plaque to acknowledge the suffering of the slaves who made Codrington's fortune. Some might dismiss this as a "politically correct" meaningless gesture. But it would be further evidence that the college is at last beginning to square-up to its historical entanglements.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41904800

[Circa1892]

The more I think about this, the more I worry that the weird way this is turning into a debate about statues and TV shows from decades or centuries ago, the more it's a way of people subconciously letting themselves off the hook.

That statue of Robert Peel, who's dad was a wrong 'un, or that statue of Gandhi or Churchill - that's the problem, those blokes from decades or centuries ago - they're the real wrong uns, or that episode of Fawlty Towers. By spending SO much time talking about and thinking about this, we're allowing ourselves to absolve ourselves of any responsibility. By focussing on say - Churchill's actions in Bengal, and the horrors of them - we can ignore questions of ourselves such as "am I intimidated by people for no fucking reason", "did I genuinely hire the 'BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB", or what our own, smaller but still systematic and ingrained behaviours are which could make a difference...

[killer-heels]

The more I think about this, the more I worry that the weird way this is turning into a debate about statues and TV shows from decades or centuries ago, the more it's a way of people subconciously letting themselves off the hook.

That statue of Robert Peel, who's dad was a wrong 'un, or that statue of Gandhi or Churchill - that's the problem, those blokes from decades or centuries ago - they're the real wrong uns, or that episode of Fawlty Towers. By spending SO much time talking about and thinking about this, we're allowing ourselves to absolve ourselves of any responsibility. By focussing on say - Churchill's actions in Bengal, and the horrors of them - we can ignore questions of ourselves such as "am I intimidated by people for no fucking reason", "did I genuinely hire the 'BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB", or what our own, smaller but still systematic and ingrained behaviours are which could make a difference...

There are also questions as who decides who is pure? Apparently Alisson supported or voted for Bolsanaro. Does that mean that Alisson agrees with someone who quite clearly is racist? Should we allow people who back a racist to play for our club?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

100%. QR code with a link to regulated page, maybe even Wiki at a push.

This is a great idea.

[rafathegaffa83]

100%. QR code with a link to regulated page, maybe even Wiki at a push.

The QR code is one of the things Bordeaux is doing.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

What is there in his post to warrant that kind of response?

Yeah Apologies Cpt_Reina - that was entirely unwarranted.

Sorry

[Red-Soldier]

The more I think about this, the more I worry that the weird way this is turning into a debate about statues and TV shows from decades or centuries ago, the more it's a way of people subconciously letting themselves off the hook.

That statue of Robert Peel, who's dad was a wrong 'un, or that statue of Gandhi or Churchill - that's the problem, those blokes from decades or centuries ago - they're the real wrong uns, or that episode of Fawlty Towers. By spending SO much time talking about and thinking about this, we're allowing ourselves to absolve ourselves of any responsibility. By focussing on say - Churchill's actions in Bengal, and the horrors of them - we can ignore questions of ourselves such as "am I intimidated by people for no fucking reason", "did I genuinely hire the 'BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB", or what our own, smaller but still systematic and ingrained behaviours are which could make a difference...

Yep.  The main issues are current systemic racism, particularly by the police.  I feel all the rest is just diluting the real issue at hand.

It never occured to me that Bo-Selecta was racist, I just thought it was shite and stupid.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

From your view which is which in this circumstance in relation to Penny Lane sign?
It's been vandalised a number of times over the years for different protests - and robbed.

Sorry was just being flippant over that other saying "One mans terrorist.."

Just making a joke.

Be interesting to see where this trail ends though. I was going to say "My concern is.." but I'm not that bothered really.

I'm a bit concerned (well, kind of) - if the trail ends at actual destruction - once things are destroyed - unique things anyway - then you can't get them back.

I care about history because I had a great teacher - should anyone care about history? Should it all be destroyed? I don't know myself. I'd be upset if that was the end-game thinking. Not because I 'support' or 'have a support of a cause' or of 'the people in the history' but for the history itself if that makes sense..?

[ljycb]

I’m against slavery so I’m glad that the statue of the slave trader swam with the fishes for a bit. Just found it funny.