Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

[Jdsk]

But Gettysburg is effectively an open-air museum. So it makes sense to display objects which may be objectionable in other settings. Like Madame Tussaud's used to have the Chamber of Horrors....

There's certainly a difference between celebrating and displaying for information. Several objects have recently been moved in accordance with that difference, and of course information can always be added without moving anything.

Jonathan

[Ben@Forest]

Yep I know a bit about Richard I ! I know that his portrayal in the Errol Flynn movie Robin Hood was a bit wide of the mark. But I agree, I'm not in favour of demolishing statues across the board - or even adding to their inscriptions - unless there's a very good reason. Two reasons come to my mind. One: that the statue's presence might upset a number of people seeing it (as with Colston and Rhodes). Two: that the statue might become a focus point for extremist groups.

Though I understand where you've got your criteria from and why I'm still not sure they'd be interpreted well. What if the Irish diaspora objected to statues of Oliver Cromwell (there are five statues of Cromwell in the UK)? - and there were calls from Ireland last year:

https://www.irishpost.com/news/fresh-ca ... ent-186439

And how would extremist groups be defined? And how long or often should they meet at a statue for it to be 'disappeared'? I don't go to Newcastle regularly but at the Monument (a tall column with Earl Grey at the top) I've seen protests of all type from far-right to what might be termed more radical environmentalists.

Grey saw the First Reform Bill through and abolished slavery in most of the British Empire (though that didn't stop him being put on the BLM list of statues to be toppled). If he went, apart desecrating one of the most fabulous developments in British architecture - Grainger Town, which has 450 building of which 244 are listed - 29 are Grade I, it wouldn't stop those politicking of any stripe congregating there.

[pwa]

The debate about the events surrounding the Colston statue are interesting and very healthy. It is good that people are talking about these things. I had been aware of the Colston controversy in Bristol for quite a few years before his statue ended up in the drink, and when I saw it go I was very happy. I laughed and cheered. But later I thought about it and decided that this was very much the second best way of getting that offensive and degrading lump of metal off its pedestal, the best way being the people of Bristol voting to have it relocated in a museum. It is disappointing that the latter didn't happen.

I'm still glad the statue is gone from its place of honour. Retaining it was a bit like asking Jewish people to accept the retention of a statue of a leading Nazi because he donated money to a few good causes. We should be putting effigies like that in museums with labels that explain them properly.

We must deal with other statues on a case by case basis. Just taking Cromwell as an example, he did contribute something beneficial to our development as a democracy. He had a huge beneficial influence on our history. But he was engaging in war and he did so in ways that we now find grossly unacceptable. As did William Wallace. We should be having discussions about these statues. My own inclination with Cromwell at this moment might be to keep the statues but with better plaques that include mention of the negative aspects of the his legacy. But I am open to the notion of relocating to a museum.

[KTHSullivan]

Henry VIII, persecuted Catholics.
Elizabeth I, ditto.
Boudicca killed lots of Romans.
Hadrian built a wall to subjugate what became Scotland.
Henry I / Henry II subjugated the Welsh.
William I, used to cut the hands and feet off people who disagreed with him.
Isaac Newton had shares in the South Sea Company (Slave Traders)
James I persecuted puritans to such an extent the effectively sought political asylum in what was to become the USA.

etc etc etc.

Lets pull everything down and put it all in a museum. Lets dwell on the past. Lets burn books!

[kwackers]

Lets pull everything down and put it all in a museum. Lets dwell on the past. Lets burn books!

I'm fairly statue agnostic, but in contrast to your reduction to absurdity perhaps venerating folk who's history is less than sparkling isn't ideal?
Nobody's talking about rewriting history here and I get that it's hard to look back through the eyes of folk long dead but tbh I'm sure there are lots of folk who did genuine good who don't have a statue.
The current system of putting statues up for those who simply pushed loads of cash into an area does seem a bit 'crap'.
When it comes to writing history it certainly favours the rich (and aristocracy).

[661-Pete]

And how would extremist groups be defined?

I'd expect (and hope for) the Government of the day to do that. Although, what with recent behaviour by one Mr Tr*mp, that may be off-target...

What if the Irish diaspora objected to statues of Oliver Cromwell (there are five statues of Cromwell in the UK)?

This is where my suggestion of putting contentious statues in a museum, comes in.

...apart desecrating one of the most fabulous developments in British architecture - Grainger Town, which has 450 building of which 244 are listed - 29 are Grade I....

I'm only talking about statues of people, or otherwise offensive symbols such as swastikas*. Not architecture!

I'm an alumnus of Oriel College Oxford, so I have a sort of 'interest' in the Rhodes statue. Part of the college buildings are also called the Rhodes building, and one of the quads is called the Rhodes Quad. I wouldn't be calling for those to be demolished or dug up! But I see no reason why the statue of Rhodes, which is only visible from the High, shouldn't be replaced with something a bit more appropriate, without destroying the character of the building. Yes, move that statue to a museum...

*We saw several Hindu temples adorned with swastikas, when we visited Indonesia. But they're of course totally unconnected with nazism.

[Pebble]

The toppling of statues seems to be more about looney left extremists (and bristol seems a hot bed of that) I think the blm connection is was just an excuse to express their anti british extremism. If extinction rebellion done a march the same rent-a-mob suspects would be out in force desperate for it to turn to chaos and violence.

I may have some sympathy for a genuine BLMer regarding the toppling of statues, but if it turns out to be rent-a-mob then they could have the whole 10 years.

[kwackers]

As I said I'm statue agnostic.
I'm not even sure I'm aware of the majority they just seem to be dreary pieces of self important nonsense.

However, now I've had a cuppa and a chance to reflect...
Lets just junk the lot and replace them with some proper public art that we can admire.

[Ben@Forest]

...apart desecrating one of the most fabulous developments in British architecture - Grainger Town, which has 450 building of which 244 are listed - 29 are Grade I....

I'm only talking about statues of people, or otherwise offensive symbols such as swastikas*. Not architecture!

But that's the point. The Grey Monument commemorates a person but is also the focal part of Grainger Town, which was itself built between the 1820s and 1840s. Destroying or changing it would be like blowing up religious images that you don't believe in.

I'm guessing Grainger Town was largely built on the profits of domestic coal rather than slavery (though there'll be arguments about the nature of that industry too) but I'm sure someone can find links to slavery somewhere. Should some of our best Georgian architecture be held to ransom by 21st century attitudes?

[Oldjohnw]

It isn't whole streets of architecture but statues. The National Trust didn't pull anything down but instead gave some context. It was heavily criticised in both the press and with many politicians for rewriting history.

It wasn't rewriting history: it was writing history.

[Mike Sales]

It isn't whole streets of architecture but statues. The National Trust didn't pull anything down but instead gave some context. It was heavily criticised in both the press and with many politicians for rewriting history.

It wasn't rewriting history: it was writing history.

History is rewritten all the time. That is what historians do, as new evidence is found or interpretations are changed.
All societies have what might be called foundation myths, which can also change because they are the ideas useful to society at the time.
Colston's statue was erected 150 years after his death, at a time when, in the old confederate states of the USA, similar statues of long- dead Civil War heroes went up. The reasons are obvious.
As society changes it is necessary that the myths are changed to reflect this.
This is essential, contentious and political.
Now that many descendants of the people Colston and others shipped across the Atlantic live in Bristol, and Britain generally, it is unsurprising that they resent memorials honouring slavers, which also remind them of continuing injustices. It is not so long since the Bristol bus boycott.

[Ben@Forest]

It isn't whole streets of architecture but statues. The National Trust didn't pull anything down but instead gave some context. It was heavily criticised in both the press and with many politicians for rewriting history.

It wasn't rewriting history: it was writing history.

I'm not sure which bit you're referring to, but l presume not Newcastle city centre. My point is if you remove Grey's Monument (or the statue at its top) you are removing something which is of intrinsic historical interest and which is genuine to the period.

When tourist guides get there they do a spiel about the 1832 Reform Act and slavery and lighten the mood a bit talking about Earl Grey tea. If he goes then what? Talking about modern art (of which there's no shortage in the city centre) and often an artist who has no direct connection to the NE. (I'm not saying it's therefore bad, but I'm not sure it tells as good a tale).

[KTHSullivan]

As I said I'm statue agnostic.
I'm not even sure I'm aware of the majority they just seem to be dreary pieces of self important nonsense.

However, now I've had a cuppa and a chance to reflect...
Lets just junk the lot and replace them with some proper public art that we can admire.

What then happens if an individual or group of individuals does not have the same admiration of public art and vandalise it? Or some group comes to appreciate that the pigment for the ultramarine stripe on "sunset over a fried egg" was manufactured from Lapis lazuli mined by poor Afghan peasants in Badakhshan and transported to the non-health and safety processing plant by poor crippled donkeys?

[Mike Sales]

As I said I'm statue agnostic.
I'm not even sure I'm aware of the majority they just seem to be dreary pieces of self important nonsense.

However, now I've had a cuppa and a chance to reflect...
Lets just junk the lot and replace them with some proper public art that we can admire.

What then happens if an individual or group of individuals does not have the same admiration of public art and vandalise it? Or some group comes to appreciate that the pigment for the ultramarine stripe on "sunset over a fried egg" was manufactured from Lapis lazuli mined by poor Afghan peasants in Badakhshan and transported to the non-health and safety processing plant by poor crippled donkeys?

Are there not laws against damaging public property or whatever generally. Do statues (and public art) need special protection?
There are some who are quite militant against public art which offends their aesthetic sense.

[kwackers]

As I said I'm statue agnostic.
I'm not even sure I'm aware of the majority they just seem to be dreary pieces of self important nonsense.

However, now I've had a cuppa and a chance to reflect...
Lets just junk the lot and replace them with some proper public art that we can admire.

What then happens if an individual or group of individuals does not have the same admiration of public art and vandalise it? Or some group comes to appreciate that the pigment for the ultramarine stripe on "sunset over a fried egg" was manufactured from Lapis lazuli mined by poor Afghan peasants in Badakhshan and transported to the non-health and safety processing plant by poor crippled donkeys?

I'll probably be walking/cycling/driving past them with the blind ignorance I have now.
So either way I'm good.