Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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 |
That was what was wanted for the
Bristol statue (from February 2018) - this was fought against by a local group, The Society of Merchant Venturers, who say they are commemorating his charity work, rather than his slaving past.
Quote:
|
The city council is proposing to put a plaque on the statue which will recognise and acknowledge the people Colston and others in the city enslaved.
|
---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
How do you determine that then? Or, are we going into some sort of pavlovs dog scenario?
|
More of a "dog whistle" than "Pavlov's dog"...
