Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
We're possibly in agreement but I'm not sure (long morning and not enough coffee) but there's a big difference in a statue giving thanks to a slave trader and to one of Churchill.
The former has absolutely no place in modern society, especially with the inscription that it had. My thinking would be to erect something in replacement such as a monument to the 'unknown slave' in remembrance of the thousands upon thousands that were shipped (with many thousands dying) this would allow subsequent generations to learn the history without celebrating the individual.
|
They’re not the same by any means, but there’s a spectrum of behaviour they both sit on. Churchill had some views about other races and initiated certain actions in empire territories that really don’t look at all good to modern eyes. Had he not led the country to victory in World War 2 his contribution to society probably wouldn’t be seen in the same way at all.
But mainly I’m lumping them together because of the tendency of certain campaigners to do so, if the vandalising of Churchill’s statue is anything to go by.
I think this suggestion is worth considering:
Quote:
Scotland's first black professor has again called for plaques on Scotland's statues to give a truthful account of their links to the slave trade.
Sir Geoff Palmer, professor emeritus at Heriot-Watt University, said the move could help educate school pupils and change attitudes against racism.
He previously called for a plaque under Edinburgh's Melville Monument, which honours slave owner Henry Dundas.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-52965230