• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with keeping but marking controversial statues?

Do you agree with keeping but marking controversial statues?


  • Total voters
    12

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I just read some heated exchanges in regards to controversial statutes.

I am a firm believer that in order to measure the progress in a particular area -> you need a reference point.

A vocal group on the left
says to remove that reference point and start fresh. An opposite group from the right wants them up as on day 1, there is no touching them, even though some are highly controversial.

Churchill is the latest example to be asked in some areas to be taken down.

As originally from Europe I find this outrageous, we would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for great men like Churchill. However, nobody can deny Churchill's flaws and there are many, from his imperialism which came with bigotry at the time.

So what is wrong with keeping the statues and marking them with the good and the bad?

A) "He helped defeat Nazi Germany"

B) "He expressed bigotry towards people from India".

 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,315
Reaction score
18,171
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Being anti-Nazi isn't an achievement. I'm not one that hands out brownie points for people in power who do the right thing.

Churchill is the representation of British colonialist oppression through and through and if your society claims to value equality, freedom and justice you cannot worship this guy and not be a hypocrite.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,969
Reaction score
16,457
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I just read some heated exchanges in regards to controversial statutes.

I am a firm believer that in order to measure the progress in a particular area -> you need a reference point.

A vocal group on the left
says to remove that reference point and start fresh. An opposite group from the right wants them up as on day 1, there is no touching them, even though some are highly controversial.

Churchill is the latest example to be asked in some areas to be taken down.

As originally from Europe I find this outrageous, we would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for great men like Churchill. However, nobody can deny Churchill's flaws and there are many, from his imperialism which came with bigotry at the time.

So what is wrong with keeping the statues and marking them with the good and the bad?

A) "He helped defeat Nazi Germany"

B) "He expressed bigotry towards people from India".



Meh, the idea that “we’d all be speaking German now” is rather silly. Germany had no ability to successfully invade England, much less the US.

Churchill certainly stepped up and gave the UK good leadership when it was needed the most, but acknowledging he was human and therefore subject to the same bigotries and faults of the time is important.

There’s a difference between that and celebrating a regime like the Confederacy which was explicitly fighting to save slavery and was seen as a a pariah even in its day
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,172
Reaction score
17,564
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I just read some heated exchanges in regards to controversial statutes.

I am a firm believer that in order to measure the progress in a particular area -> you need a reference point.

A vocal group on the left
says to remove that reference point and start fresh. An opposite group from the right wants them up as on day 1, there is no touching them, even though some are highly controversial.

Churchill is the latest example to be asked in some areas to be taken down.

As originally from Europe I find this outrageous, we would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for great men like Churchill. However, nobody can deny Churchill's flaws and there are many, from his imperialism which came with bigotry at the time.

So what is wrong with keeping the statues and marking them with the good and the bad?

A) "He helped defeat Nazi Germany"

B) "He expressed bigotry towards people from India".


If we do that then we may end up doing that with every statue. For example Martin Luther King Jr statue.

A) "Great civil rights leader"

B) "Allegedly a womanizer and dirty piece of shit communist" "And maybe a sexist too since men at the time were"



No one puts up statues to honor's someone's bad deeds. They are honored for their good deeds or bravery or skill in the battlefield (in the case of soldiers). Putting up the bad shit they did or might have done is irrelevant to why they are being honored with a statue.
 
Last edited:

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,457
Reaction score
25,440
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm going with keep them. I think we should build a hall of shame in Washington D.C. and display them prominently with a film describing how they made the cut into infamy.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,969
Reaction score
16,457
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If we do that then we may end up doing that with every statue. For example Martin Luther King Jr statue.

A) "Great civil rights leader"

B) "Allegedly a womanizer and dirty piece of shit communist"



No one puts up statues to honor's someone's bad deeds. They are honored for their good deeds or bravery or skill in the battlefield (in the case of soldiers). Putting up the bad shit they did or might have done is irrelevent to why they are being honored with a statue.

Calling MLK a “communist” was nothing more than a deluded smear. To the good ole boys and red baiters, anyone who opposed Jim Crow was a “communist”.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,072
Reaction score
53,700
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Other - I don’t care what Canada does concerning its statues.
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
5,615
Reaction score
3,231
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My stance is pretty consistent. We let those who paid for the statute, those who own the property it sits on, those who have to walk by it, and those who's economy are impacted by the damn thing work it out. In short if the statue is sitting in Mobile Alabama, let the citizens of Mobile, and the taxpayers who own that land, and the folks who own that statue figure it all out . While its popular among the good people of Mobile to have that slab sitting on their courthouse land or in their park, that is where it should sit, when it no longer is as popular, let that political pressure grow, mature and create a coalition to move that slab elsewhere.

Local taxpayers actually get to change their minds from one generation to the next about the kind of art that they want hanging around the tax owned property based on whatever criteria they like and for whatever reason they like.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
21,819
Reaction score
7,726
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The intent of a statue is to honor the real or perceived good that person did. The only thing the plaque should say is what the statue is and why it’s there. If someone wants to litigate the rest of the honoree’s existence then they can do that elsewhere.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,629
Reaction score
42,491
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why is it always so surprising to Americans that statues sometimes get torn down?
From what I can gather it's a rather common occurrence in other parts of the world when revolutions happen.
Were the folks who tore down Saddam statues "dirty leftists" or just people who couldn't stomach seeing that bastard in bronze on land they pay taxes to maintain?
 

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Churchill is the representation of British colonialist oppression through and through and if your society claims to value equality, freedom and justice you cannot worship this guy and not be a hypocrite.
You speak like some modern-day atheists who woke up to all the right answers on how to drive an automatic car on the highway of life dismissing the struggles of the manual car. It is comfortable to judge history from 2022.

I for one, I am not willing to close my eyes and gamble that someone else would have done it right with Hitler or we would have found right and wrong eventually (in the case of the atheism analogy).

Churchill was a great man in my view but a flawed man, a product of imperialism. Compared to what the French, Ottoman, and the Russian empire left behind in terms of a system of government to work with, I think the British left a somewhat framework to build on which the West did. It is still a work in progress with the winds of populism beating hard, but I think we are making significant progress. No wonder so many people want to come to Canada/US, all part of the British Empire at one point.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,172
Reaction score
17,564
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Calling MLK a “communist” was nothing more than a deluded smear. To the good ole boys and red baiters, anyone who opposed Jim Crow was a “communist”.
I agree with that.It was an attempt by racist to try to discredit him.
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
5,615
Reaction score
3,231
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The intent of a statue is to honor the real or perceived good that person did. The only thing the plaque should say is what the statue is and why it’s there. If someone wants to litigate the rest of the honoree’s existence then they can do that elsewhere.
I am not interested in the 'intent of the statue' as defined by you if you don't pay the taxes for the public land, or own the statue or have to walk by it. I am only interested in what the folks who own it, live near it, pay for its upkeep, or the grounds it sits on think it should say. The plaque on the bottom can say one thing 1927, something else in 1969, and something else in 2022 if that is what the local political consensus requires, in order for the statue to stay where the public sees it. Or they can move it into a storage shed or sell it.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,172
Reaction score
17,564
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
and where can I find this alleged evidence that MLK was a communist? Which talk radio host managed to make some more money over that "theory" ?
Don't know. Racist pieces of shit like to use that claim to try to discredit his work as a civil rights leader while communist pieces of shit try to use the claim of him being a communist to prop themselves up.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
21,819
Reaction score
7,726
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am not interested in the 'intent of the statue' as defined by you if you don't pay the taxes for the public land, or own the statue or have to walk by it. I am only interested in what the folks who own it, live near it, pay for its upkeep, or the grounds it sits on think it should say. The plaque on the bottom can say one thing 1927, something else in 1969, and something else in 2022 if that is what the local political consensus requires, in order for the statue to stay where the public sees it. Or they can move it into a storage shed or sell it.
So you don’t mind if someone adds a plaque to that obnoxious statue of George Floyd’s head outlining what a scumbag he was in life and itemizing his criminal history?
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
5,615
Reaction score
3,231
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So you don’t mind if someone adds a plaque to that obnoxious statue of George Floyd’s head outlining what a scumbag he was in life and itemizing his criminal history?
Nope. Its not my statue. I don't own or keep up the land on which it sits or pay taxes that do. I never have to walk by it, and its not impacting on the tourism dollar on which my restaurant depends. I am sure the locals have developed an arts/culture committee and a process that deal with controversies like this and come to some decisions on what to do with the politically challenging art in town. Let that system work itself out.

I live in Oregon, never saw a reason to have an opinion on statues in the South when I don't share the culture. I have yet to come across any Robert E Lee's in my public parks or on my courthouse steps
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,968
Reaction score
6,202
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, keep them and unmarked.

For their beauty, if nothing else.

Hear tell, a street in Richmond, Virginia, had a beautiful street lined with great statues.

It really made Richmond stand out.

Great tourist attraction, too.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,172
Reaction score
17,564
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Irony is an art that many fail at. Back to the real world -> Is there any evidence you are going to submit? I am curious in regards to "the source".
I have never said it was true that he was a womanizer and piece of shit communist. Many people mostly racists and communists claim its true.
 

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have never said it was true that he was a womanizer and piece of shit communist. Many people mostly racists and communists claim its true.
There are historical reports of Churchill's imperfection. Interviews, ideology (for the era), imperialism, he also wrote papers. I know those sources.

Where do you go to find reports and documentation from the "mostly racists" that MLK was a "communist"? Was MLK caught on a secret recording pledging allegiance to the Soviet Union?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,172
Reaction score
17,564
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There are historical reports of Churchill's imperfection. Interviews, ideology (for the era), imperialism, he also wrote papers. I know those sources.

Where do you go to find reports and documentation from the "mostly racists" that MLK was a "communist"? Was MLK caught on a secret recording pledging allegiance to the Soviet Union?
Don't know don't care. I don't believe he was a communist. All i know is that racists trying to discredit the man claim he is communist and communists trying to prop themselves up or add legitimacy to their cause claim he is a communist. So I don't believe either of their claims.
 

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't believe he was a communist.
Well, good, then we agree. He was more of an American patriot than men that sat with their oxygen tanks spreading division amongst the masses -> up until the last weeks of their life in my opinion. Not sure if you know him, he was a top conservative man on the radio airwaves (Rush was his first name) or people at MSNBC that currently make millions over the same aspect (division) as the good Reverand Al Sharpton.

4.jpg


Back to MLK, -> also impacted things in Europe towards unity. When he traveled to West Germany he refused to take no for an answer when he said he will visit the East too. In my opinion -> he knew how important it is for those people crushed by authoritarianism to hear some words of inspiration even though the majority weren't even religious or did not even speak english.

Furthermore, he stopped in England in the same year when he got his Nobel Prize. 1 year after -> The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first legislation in the United Kingdom to address racial discrimination.
 
Last edited:

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
17,493
Reaction score
18,064
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I just read some heated exchanges in regards to controversial statutes.

I am a firm believer that in order to measure the progress in a particular area -> you need a reference point.

A vocal group on the left
says to remove that reference point and start fresh. An opposite group from the right wants them up as on day 1, there is no touching them, even though some are highly controversial.

Churchill is the latest example to be asked in some areas to be taken down.

As originally from Europe I find this outrageous, we would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for great men like Churchill. However, nobody can deny Churchill's flaws and there are many, from his imperialism which came with bigotry at the time.

So what is wrong with keeping the statues and marking them with the good and the bad?

A) "He helped defeat Nazi Germany"

B) "He expressed bigotry towards people from India".


put them in a museum.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
31,105
Reaction score
9,364
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I just read some heated exchanges in regards to controversial statutes.

I am a firm believer that in order to measure the progress in a particular area -> you need a reference point.

A vocal group on the left
says to remove that reference point and start fresh. An opposite group from the right wants them up as on day 1, there is no touching them, even though some are highly controversial.

Churchill is the latest example to be asked in some areas to be taken down.

As originally from Europe I find this outrageous, we would all be speaking German now if it wasn't for great men like Churchill. However, nobody can deny Churchill's flaws and there are many, from his imperialism which came with bigotry at the time.

So what is wrong with keeping the statues and marking them with the good and the bad?

A) "He helped defeat Nazi Germany"

B) "He expressed bigotry towards people from India".


I'd rather they be removed to a museum where the context around their emplacement and then removal is explained for those who visit to better understand history.
 
Top Bottom