- 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".
If we do that then we may end up doing that with every statue. For example Martin Luther King Jr statue.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"
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.
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" ?communist
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.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.
I agree with that.It was an attempt by racist to try to discredit him.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 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.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.
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.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" ?
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?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.
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.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?
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" that "MLK is a communist?"I agree with that.
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.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".
There are historical reports of Churchill's imperfection. Interviews, ideology (for the era), imperialism, he also wrote papers. I know those sources.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.
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.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?
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.I don't believe he was a communist.
put them in a museum.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.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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?