Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Marco]

And that's exactly my point. Some people (not the genuine ones who want to put and end to racism, and good on them) are taking things to extremes, like the twunt who spray painted "is a racist" under Churchills name on his statue.
What possible purpose can that serve?

I agree and don't have any truck with the latter, or taking things to extremes, but largely the protests haven't been about that.

Marco.

[Pierre De Grenoble]

I actually thought it was a photoshopped pic when i first saw it, so amazed was i that anyone could possibly be "that" stupid.
I don't think even Corbyn would sink that low.
Anyway, thats Labour fucked for the foreseeable future.

Your looking at the leadership after the next election. Jeeza was a prick that put his principles before party & country to detrimental effect. but here's the thing he NEVER lied. ( go fact check) which is more than can be said for Billy Bluster with the 6 foot long nose.

[InThe Sticks]

The gallery of modern art in Glasgow was built from the money of slave labour and as was god knows how many other famous buildings in the UK.
All i'm saying is attacking an defacing an inanimate object does nothing to end racism.

Anyone remember Fusilier Lee Rigby? Did we have protests and violence for that?

[Marco]

All i'm saying is attacking an defacing an inanimate object does nothing to end racism.

I agree with that, but it's symbolistic, and fine if taken to a point, but of course not as far as tearing down buildings. That would be just ridiculous.

Marco.

[guy]

Either way and also, in these times, why would anyone want to present some kind of 'point' or 'argument' against pulling down symbols like that statue

The point or argument against pulling down symbols is that nothing of any historical interest/point/lesson would be left.

The list could go on but here are a few of my thoughts:

Many historical figures in Europe had a statue/s erected in their memory, given that most if not all made their money/status through abhorrent practices does that mean we should Destroy the lot?

The Taliban dynamited images of Buddha in Afghanistan, was that right?

In Africa we have Robert Mugabe, Al Bashir, Idi Amin etc should any evidence/artefact from their regime be left for future generations?

[InThe Sticks]

I agree with that, but it's symbolistic, and fine if taken to a point, but of course not as far as tearing down buildings. That would be just ridiculous.

Marco.

Why not, they stand for the exact same thing and have come from the same exact slave money.
Chucking a "symbol" in the river whilst the main bulk of the symbol still remains is madness, it achieves nothing apart from to appease the baying mob.

[Joe]

There's far too many statues anyway.

It's interesting that many statues of Lenin, Stalin and Marx were pulled down in Eastern Europe after the end of Communist rule there. Did anyone bleat about that, or was it OK because a) they were 'bad guys' and b) the statues weren't that old, so not as 'valuable' in some intangible way. The point is the statues symbolised oppression, and those newly freed from that oppression wanted them gone.

[RobbieGong]

The point or argument against pulling down symbols is that nothing of any historical interest/point/lesson would be left.

The list could go on but here are a few of my thoughts:

Many historical figures in Europe had a statue/s erected in their memory, given that most if not all made their money/status through abhorrent practices does that mean we should Destroy the lot?

The Taliban dynamited images of Buddha in Afghanistan, was that right?

In Africa we have Robert Mugabe, Al Bashir, Idi Amin etc should any evidence/artefact from their regime be left for future generations?

I hear ya Guy and certainly not arguing but things need to be taken in context ie: if at the time of a given rebellion against what the people see as injustice, (often longstanding), and have had enough of, feel strongly that the 'system' needs to do something about, (cause that's where any worthwhile change is laid down, solidified), and at said time, height of passions and feeling, those said people attack a symbol that represents the very thing they have had enough of then I completely get that, cause that's clearly ( to me anyway understandable in the context

Your 'argument' or 'point' "does it mean this should or that should then ?" is out of context for me. If there is ever a larger debate coming from quarters saying, remove all those types of publicly displayed statues, symbols images then we look at that IF that time ever arises. If those images represent oppression, pain, suffering, supremacy, domination etc then I say great, get rid.

We have documented history books telling the stories, realms of info online for access, museums, artefacts and so. We don't need such statues, standing tall and proud, proud of what ?

[RobbieGong]

There's far too many statues anyway.

It's interesting that many statues of Lenin, Stalin and Marx were pulled down in Eastern Europe after the end of Communist rule there. Did anyone bleat about that, or was it OK because a) they were 'bad guys' and b) the statues weren't that old, so not as 'valuable' in some intangible way. The point is the statues symbolised oppression, and those newly freed from that oppression wanted them gone.

Absolutely !

[Marco]

Why not, they stand for the exact same thing and have come from the same exact slave money.

You make a point, by protesting against racism, and what happened to George Floyd, by using a racist symbol as the focus of that protest, which is what taking down the Edward Colston statue was about, as it was an affront to the black people of Bristol, particularly as Colston had been lauded as some kind of heroic figure of benevolence.

The police took no action because they understood the strength of feeling of the people concerned, so allowed it to happen. However, that should not be allowed to set a precedent and create a subsequent 'domino effect' with every other such statue or building throughout the country.

Essentially the difference between doing something justifiable in moderation and taking it to extremes.

Marco.