David Olusogo is from Nigeria but he never mentions the renowned 19th century Nigerian slave trader Efunroye Tinubu. Even after the British banned slavery she refused to stop, saying she would sooner drown them. There is a huge statue of her in Nigerian in a square named after her. Yet Olusogo never suggests her statue should be pulled down and the square renamed like he did with our Edward Colston. Olusogo is an inventor of history and a Woke propagandists, he is not a historian.
I cannot see why people are so impassioned about describing why people shouldn’t get upset ...and then call it ‘a boring thing to focus on’. It’s only boring to focus on ...if it doesn’t upset you. If it’s so boring to you...why be so impassioned about keeping statues that make some people feel very obviously contentious figures uncomfortable in public? If it’s about education put them in places where people who want to see them can go see them
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
This is the type of civil debate we need to Infuse in the school curriculum to get the younger generations to research both sides of the argument, rather than being drip feed revisionist history
I certainly agree with the desirability of what you suggest. That said we must recognize that the trend in public education is to dumb down the material in order to accommodate more students who can claim to have received a university level education. Even if that were not the case, in our increasingly complex world, to be truly well informed takes a lot of time and effort on the part of both student and professor. It has always been the case that good teachers are worth their weight in gold, being so rare in reality. Furthermore a typical student [ late teens - early twenties ] has to have an eye towards earning a living after being a student, which has the knock-on effect that spending time studying some subjects [ and History is surely one of them ] is a luxury that few without private means can afford.
@Sofie Dunbar Yes - we are in accord here. Picking up on your quotation - Alexandre Pope's famous line from " Essay on Criticism ". In the " essay " [ really a long discourse expressed in couplets ] he describes how some knowledge once acquired leads one on to greater heights, and likens the journey to climbing a mountain in which, as we reach a position, new heights come into view and " heights on heights arise ". Would it were so. As you rightly point out too many students having learned a little assume they know much, so instead of trying to reach the greater heights, they prate about what they think they know. It has long been my contention that it is the duty of the state to train as many young people as is practicable in the basic disciplines in order that they can take on a useful position in the great scheme of things. That said I further contend that to acquire an education as opposed to mere training is the responsibility of each individual, and constitutes the work of a lifetime. It would seem that we have now a situation in which so called professors instead of training their students to think, and think for themselves, they are instead taught what to think. The inevitable result is, to use your word, cohorts of opinionated and dogmatic navel gazers who are convinced they are right. And since they are right, anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be wrong.
@Sofie Dunbar they won't rot. They are protected by law. The argument that the public can deface them or that councils can leave them to rot is flawed because the powers that be have said they must be protected and cleaned. Not to mention that metal statues take far too long to break down. They should be taken down and replaced with symbols that the local community want to look up to. I'm sure there's a million unsung heroes that would make better statues then any slaver.
@Sofie Dunbar maybe go and educate yourself on that Edward Colston statue. Where the wealth that he gave to the city came from. Maybe go and educate yourself on why statues are put on plinths, why you look up to statues and they aren't placed at eye level. If you believe that Edward Colston deserves to be looked up to for kidnapping and murdering thousands of innocent human beings, for enslaving thousands, then you're a pretty sick human being. I imagine you'd also want a statue of Jimmy Savile on your doorstep "for his charity work"? If you are so concerned about the history behind a racist murders statue, put the statue in a museum with context or allow the public to show their distain for it as they have done and will continue to do. In the past we blew up statues we didn't like with dynamite. Now they are all protected and listed. So the message they send is protected by law, even if we no longer want or believe in that message. Your argument is so flawed. It's based on your own privilege and narrow education. Because of this you can't see or understand the pain and suffering caused, to this day, by these statues and the celebration of the hateful, horrible, evil people they represent. Maybe go and ask some BAEM British people what they think of statues of slavers being present on our streets today.
These are learned historians? History is replete with oppression, overthrows and the like. If people weren’t obsessed with identity politics, this wouldn’t be an issue. History has so much more to teach us, than to uphold our individual sensitivities.
I felt the "left" side was hyper-focused on emotion as a justification for removal, while the "right" side was underserved by the male speaker's laissez faire attitude towards statues in general. This debate, as others, tended to ascribe the historical knowledge deficiency to the statue - an inanimate object - instead of the contemporary viewer. It is not the statue of Churchill's job to teach about the life and times of Winston Churchill. That responsibility falls to the viewer if they want to see the statue as a more than just an artwork. Putting statues in museums does not teach the public anything if the public does not go to museums - and museum attendance has been steadily declining. If the average person in the UK doesn't know Churchill held bigoted attitudes towards Indians that may be a problem with the education system, not certainly not the statue. Notwithstanding, Churchill's views towards Indians pale in comparison to his leadership for Britain during WWII. The average high school textbook and curriculum does not have adequate space/time to go through every important historical figures flaws in addition to their accomplishments. That is for the professional scholar and history enthusiast. To me it will always be more important to remember Churchill as a critical leader in the most desperate hour, not a degenerate drunk and bigot.
Very easy to say if you’re not Bengali and one of your relatives didn’t die during the 1943 famine. In the end I think we need to own our differences. He’s a hero to you, a villain to me.
Churchill’s views of Indians were rooted in truth too. He was disgusted by certain Indian cultural practices like dung eating, urine drinking, widow burning and caste prejudice.
@@LonDanDocBengalis have died in famines for centuries - what makes that one so special? It’s more recent? Or is it just you like the victim narrative?
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican only in the inverted world that you live in is a freedom fighter a terrorist, but a racist settler colonialist an innocent person. What is next, Hitler was misunderstood and the British empire was pacifist
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican He wasn't convicted by his peers, the judge was white, the prosecutors were white, the law he by which was prosecuted was made by white people. It was a show trial in a kangaroo court. --------- On the "befriend" part, you should take a good look at the mirror and try to find out who leaders of the world befriended. Bush father shook hand with Saddam Hussein. Trump's rap sheet includes Erdogan, who's guard beat up Americans on US soil, Kim Jong Un, North Korea's little dictator, Xi Jingpin, China's strong man, Putin, who sabotaged US election, the list goes on. Oh and remember the little genocidal regime called Khmer Rouge that the US supported? On the other hand, Nelson Mandela's position was very clear and simple. In his interview with Ted Koppel, he said: "One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think their enemies should be our enemies," "Our attitude towards any country is determined by the attitude of that country to our struggle. Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gaddafi, Fidel Castro support our struggle to the hilt. There is no reason whatsoever why we should have any hesitation about hailing their commitment to human rights as they’re being demanded in South Africa. They do not support only in rhetoric; they are placing resources at our disposal for us to win the struggle. That is the position." So for you to suggest that Nelson Mandela "befriended" the respective dictators is disingenuous. He was being thankful for their respective support, and that's all there is to it. If a thief rescues a person in peril, he should be thanked for his good act, despite the fact that he is a thief. Any suggestion otherwise is an effort to try to muddle the water and to instill guilt by association.
@Jeremy Brookes Ghandi? Quite creative use of words. Since there is a complete lack of any sexual activities, all parties are voluntary, all parties are over 18 years of age, the most appropriate wording of such act would be *nudism* which is a completely legal and moral modern lifestyle in the West. Only barbarian savages would consider a person living such a lifestyle "sexual predator". On MLK, for man and wife to disagree politically is perfectly normal, and to blame a man for what happened after his death is beyond disingenuous. On the rest, if you want to advocate for tearing their statues down, go on right ahead. No one's stopping you. There is this false dilemma opponents of every movement seems to make: either make everything completely fair and unbiased, or do nothing at all. Needless to say, this is a false dilemma fallacy. It's just as stupid as saying, why arrest this thief, what about other thieves? What about this one, what about that one? Unless you arrest all the thieves, why bother arrest this one but not that one?
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican Please cite the evidences proving that Mandela personally attacked any civilian. Remember that Mandela was charged with "inciting workers' strikes and leaving the country without permission" Which part of that is "attack against Civilians"?
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican You meant the Church Street bombing in 1983? When Nelson Mandela was still in prison? To blame a man still in prison for something happening outside of prison is, again, beyond disingenuous. Again, I am asking for evidences. To charge someone on bogus charges in a kangaroo court is common practice, and means absolutely nothing. --- Regarding MLK, evidences, evidences, evidences. Rape evidences, rape watching evidences, rape inciting evidences. Where are they? As a side note, being a womanizer is not a crime (yet). --- Friends falling out all the times. Does not change the fact that they befriended one another at certain points in time, having no problem with past atrocities. Trump also personally admitted having great relationship with all aforementioned dictators, and praised their dictatorial regimes on many occasions. Regarding the rest, it is just your opinion which level of friendship is considered acceptable and what is not, and it's not an argument. I myself consider praising a genocidal regime a more undemocratic and horrifying act than praising such regime for render humanitarian aid, since the former is an endorsement and validation of their atrocities, while the later is not.
I agree with David about the Colston statue, but there is another way to deal with it. Public monuments are part of a public discourse. The best response is to reply with another monument. If he was venerated for the wealth he brought in, show where the wealth came from. Erect a companion monument to acknowledge the suffering of the slaves. Saying that he's a great man for doing good things while omitting the bad is propaganda. The antidote to propaganda is truth, not censorship.
@Sofie Dunbar It is a toxic word - my point being that if you say that we should go to Jamaica if we want to learn about slavery, then it would make it so we are enforcing that certain ideas have to be ringfenced in certain cultures. I think cultural apartheid is an apt term for that. I'm not trying to be a dick, or though I may sound like one a bit, but do you see want I'm trying to say?.
Perhaps there should be a Slavery centre where schoolchildren in particular could visit and learn about The Slave Trade, the way they attend the Holocaust Centre to learn about the Holocaust. Statues are all very well if they're in the right place with information telling the truth about the thing they represent.
There's a good one in Liverpool: www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/international-slavery-museum There's also one in either Devon or Cornwall that shows how Barbary slave traders from North Africa used to capture entire English coastal villages as slaves before the British slave trade took off, and that up to early 1600's, England had lost control of its waters'. Sadly, there are actually more slaves today than at any point in human history, which I never would have imagined
Sure, so long as this "slavery centre" points out that slavery is as old a civilization and that uniquely the UK ENDED slavery worldwide! Attacking the statues is all part of the Maoist agenda: ruclips.net/video/JkfRG18ruXg/видео.html
You were conditioned to think about that @Sofie Dunbar. You've been emotionally swayed and influenced by change agents. Encouraged to adopt someone else's thoughts as your own. It's not true either. Here in the UK, with some of the highest welfare standards, very few animals suffer at all, let alone greatly, and lots of thought, effort and money goes into making sure their suffering is kept to a minimum You also haven't given two second's thought to the consequences of getting what you are asking for, and the huge levels of human suffering this would bring. Let me guess . . . you are a city girl with no direct connection to your food who has been to college or has loads of friends who have. You think it's normal to dictate to others how they live, in an authoritarian manner for the greater good, and have no problem denying the facts of biology for the sake of ideology, like humans being omnivores or having binary sexual identities. Free human beings scoff at the poorly thought out dogmas of the indoctrinated youth. Good luck enforcing vegitarianism on us, or your bizarre views on human sexuality. These may sound like great ideas to naive children, but what you are proposing is to force human beings to go against their human nature at the point of a gun. Any serious attempt to force your dogmas on the rest of humanity would likely lead to the deaths of millions, but hey! When have the facts ever stopped idealists pushing their agendas on others, no matter how many of us have to die?
I think the accusation is still valid to some extent @Sofie Dunbar but I apologize if I have misjudged you. I agree there are major welfare issues with livestock exports and certain slaughter practices, but yes, those in the business are overwhelmingly conscientious and committed to minimizing animal suffering at every stage of their lives. Some people would misguidedly seek to impose vegetarianism on ethical grounds, including eggs and dairy. A view which is widely supported by supposedly educated virtue signalling urban 20 somethings with no connection to their food or the land in general. They have no idea of how devastating this would be. Our biology is not open to ideological interpretation, and while I wouldn't dream of knowingly allowing any animal so suffer unnecessarily, I wouldn't think twice about using every resource in my control to avoid human suffering like hunger and poverty.
people were not bothered about statutes till 3 or 4 weeks ago , in this country half of them done even know who they are and there background and im 48
We remember people for their great deeds, and for what that meant to us. Not for every misdeed they've ever committed. And, yes, sometimes that can be politically motivated, in which case the discussion, at least, is entirely warranted.
Would they allow monuments to Hitler. Reasonable then in civil society those are behind evil like slavery and colonialism are also condemned and their monuments torn down.
@@Abraham_Tsfaye It wouldn't be suited in public place probably, but they should be conserved. The more tracks we keep about "bad" parts of History, the less chances they have to happen again.
@@sstruyf89 That depends on what you mean by "doing fine". People can be doing fine in one area, but be completely disadvantaged in another. No group is a monolith. But we have ample evidence that - on average - black people face considerably more obstacles than non-PoC do. I hope I didn't come across as confrontational in my reply.
People should be educated on the good and the bad that said person did. You can’t tear down and try to erase history just because you don’t like it. History happened, yes some was brutal but it happened and looking at the past allows us to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Monuments and public statues glorify historic characters. Hitlers statue doesent belong on the streets of Berlin but in the histoy museum. If you glorify slavemasters, go ahead and put their statues on your streets
The removal of statues, paintings, artworks, books, etc, because they offend some people is a currently contentious issue. We live in a democracy. A vocal minority should not dictate how a society should reward it's past heroes. The decision should be democratic. Here is a simple way of achieving this - Any citizen should be able to start a petition on their local government website to, for example, remove a particular statue. If and when the petition achieves more than 50% of the local constituents, then it should be removed. If it does not achieve more than 50% then the statue should remain, and the petition taken down after a stated period, (let's say 3 months). Inexpensive, fair, and democratic.
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
The chap who wrote his diaries about Churchill was not a fan of Churchill, there is documented history about this. What they are not talking about is that there are more modern day slaves now than there were in the 1800's. I think the statues need to stay but adequate HONEST history should be taught in schools, not the twisted history that Britain has always had black people because it hasn't at all, the windrush generation were not invited by the government etc but getting unadulterated history needs telling to our children, that black Africans also had slaves and the African slaves were usually war captives or been convicted of a crime within the tribe and were sold by the tribe leaders, the biggest buyer of slaves were the Muslim countries and it still does go on now in some places, white people were also taken as slaves , Britain's were taken as slaves by black pirates, kidnapped from their beds or from the streets, drinks would find themselves on board too and these would be taken to African countries and sold so slavery has affected every race and country
14:40 So because SOME people are overly sensitive to topics they have a hard time comprehending, and dealing with emotionally, we should change the physical landscape?
Lord Hephaestus Weren't they advocating for them to be placed in a context where thought and reflection is included in their viewing, rather than their current context of aesthetics, and/or emotions? That sounds more like thoughts-rather-than-feelings.
I would question the whole idea of statues to begin with. The fact is, even Ghandi and Mother Teresa have had their critics, and they bring up some valid concerns. I like what Kurt Vonnegut said about those who want to install the ten commandments in public places. He suggested instead that they use the beatitudes, "blessed are the poor..." Love, tolerance, let's listen to our better angels. Being kind and respectful of others is paramount.
Pulling down Edward Colston is like pulling down Bomber Harris. Really bad idea. It is like saying the dog ate your homework. It is like burning down the school to avoid lessons. It is failure to learn to walk AND chew gum. Failure to eat dinner before pudding and wash hands. Thank God for India. India may be what saves the world from China and Pakistan. What continental sized superpower might come to the rescue of our little Island’s idea of things if America is exhausted?
PRAJEESH P KUMAR ...And now, that moment in time, the film & photographs, the damaged (I don’t think they should even remove the graffiti) broken statue in the museum etc IS British History & always will be... 🤞
Britain reveres and gives their taxes to a monarchy that was involved, monopolized and made wealthy by the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. How do British folks reconcile this with removing a statue?
@@ninobk196 Much of the industrial revolution and the economic expansion of the nineteenth century was financed by the compensation payments issued as a result of the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833, as people sought to reinvest their money. How constructive is it to identify individual beneficaries, when a whole class benefitted?
When the British arrived in India, the subcontinent was dominated by the Mughals when the Spaniards arrived in the New World both the Aztecs and the Incas had conquered, enslaved and subjugated lesser smaller tribes. King Kamekameha and Shaka Zulu through warfare expanded their Kingdoms. But colonialism and Empire is only condemned when it was done by an European Power. Should the Modern Nation of Mongolia be shamed and force to remove their statues of Genghis Khan.....
Legally the people(Brits) there were invaders on foreign soil.You can try and shape it however you like but Europeans arrived first and caused havoc.Be a man admit your fellow countrymen made mistakes.Stop trying to make it your battle and move on.Time to grow up and move on.If you can't move on than sit as you bitterly watch the world change in ways you won't understand. Nobody gets to be number one forever.China is now the king,tomorrow it will be somebody else.
Only Europeans and Americans have the wealth and social comfort to worry about mistakes of the past. There’s a reason nobody else cares about their past wrongs, they’re too busy surviving. It’s unfortunately shocking that the virtuous activity of reviewing our past has turned into an industry of lies cynically used to indoctrinate the young for various purposes, mostly divisive. Our civilization has become so prosperous we’re devolving back into tribalism and that regression is being hailed as a Great Leap Forward.
The Truth is coming into the light, because oppressed people who know the real truth, all of it, can no longer be suppressed. Like Maya Angelou said; "and still I rise." Truth sets us all free!
I disagreed with the removal of the Colston statue because of the way that it was done. People shouldn't be allowed to destroy a statue without favour to do so. There should be a vote on the matter. it worries me to think that statues like the one of Winson Chuchill in London might be destroyed because a few people decide that is what they want to do. If a person wants to destroy a statue then they should win the right to do so with a proper vote.
By not listening to people who have been historically repressed it further solidified a feeling of continuous repression . A bit of a paradox. We can’t make everyone happy, but there are certain times we should agree to try.
It should come as a surprise to no one that world history is replete with oppression, slavery, and a whole litany of bad things. Those who are complaining about how badly " their people " [ which is code for the particular group identity which the individual choses to most closely identify ] could equally argue in favour of keeping alive the memory of the oppression, or alternatively advocate measures to wipe out any lasting reminders that it happened. There is another alternative - shut up, stop whining and start doing something positive about improving yourself which should be a good starting point for the improvement of the world in general.
@@crustyoldfart It's deeper than this though. I'm a black born brit and all I learnt in school about why I'm here is the slave trade. Just because you can't empathise with a struggle, it doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions because history evidently defines the present. Especially when history has been severely white-washed to paint Europeans as saviours and civilisers. Ironically, some Greco-Roman studied in Africa. Yet in Britain, all we see of Africa are starving children with flies in their eyes, or sometimes wildlife shows. I seriously recommend you read George Orwell or Machiavelli. I see you know a bit about social psychology. Perhaps expand on that... groupthink works in both ways... maybe you can overcome your cognitive dissonance.
@@samyoe It's really sad that all that was taught you in school was that you were [ and by implication WHO you were ] was determined by the slave trade. There is no shortage of bad teaching anywhere anytime. My rather blunt comment above I feel is good advice to anyone. Just as what or who you are as an individual has little to do with what some bad teaching would have you believe, it is the basic belief of British culture that we become more the product of our own efforts - which includes individual effort and individual thinking. You accuse me of having ' cognitive dissonance '. I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you are accusing me of lacking empathy. If that is the case I am probably guilty as charged. As to Orwell I did read ' Animal Farm ', and also ' 1984 ' many decades ago. As to Machiavelli my knowledge of his writings is through translation, particularly ' The Prince '. I much later in life became a senior public servant in the Canadian federal system. I was much impressed by how accurate were Machiavelli's observations about Princes, and not to put our trust in them. [ Since princes no longer figure large in our current political regime, I think we can safely substitute ' politician ' here. So I identify with his views on trusting politicians ]. I think the same advice might be extrapolated to include historians, the main stream media, teachers, purveyors of religion .... and I could go on. Since you raised the writings of Machiavelli let me try to remember one of his quotes picked up while I was trying to learn Italian. ' gli oumoni vivono in pochi, gli altri sono poccarelle ' . Apologies if I have that wrong, but I'm going on memory alone.
@@peteredwards338 he does, he just doesnt think we should look at people as all good or all bad. Very few people throughout history have been pure saviours, and we shouldn't see them as such.
A slight correction to Peter's comment regarding Lenin statues. Many of them were, indeed, pulled down, however, many stayed. Just recently, when tensions between Ukraine and Russia were beginning to grow, it's the many remaining Ukrainian Lenin statues that got the short end of it, which, in turn, was understood in Russia, only somewhat justified, as an act of russophobia. And in Russia itself there is an ongoing discussion, among other things, regarding Lenin's body in the Mausoleum and the fact that maybe it's time to bury him, or about the Dzierżyński's statue that used to be on Lubianka, and that some argue should be reinstalled, now that 'ancient' Soviet past to a large amount of people doesn't look as terrifying compared to the 90-s they actually had the misfortune of living through or to the propaganda version of what happens in the rest of the world. In countries like Belarus, Moldova, or Kazakhstan Lenin statues are still a fixture and often even occupy main squares. On rare occasions previously removed statues get reinstalled when a Communist politician becomes a mayor, for example. So it's not as clear-cut as Peter purported.
Lenin is the exception that proves the rule. By this I mean I agree with removing statues of oppressors 100% but Lenin was perhaps the greatest political figure of his century and more statues of him should be erected!
ANYONE WHO DESTROYS PROPERTY THAT ISN'T THEIR'S SPECIFICALLY. SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY, ANYONE WHO ENTICES OTHER'S TO DO THE SAME, SHOULD BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE SEVERELY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS. END OF DISCUSSION
Celebrate good people. Memorialize them. Remember bad people. But don't ever celebrate them. Teach both in schools. History does not need Statues. Schools need History. The lessons of even a few decades ago are soon lost. 17th to 19th century Bristol is not 21st century Bristol. In light of recent events, I would not condone mob action. But I shed no tears.
@MattAs with any electoral process, there are people that don't care about the issue enough to vote, people to young to vote, people ineligible to vote etc. If you you check out The Bristol Post or Bristol Live, they literally had to scour the streets to find a Bristolian who is bothered that the statue came down. People were taking their kids to the empty plinth for photos, to be a part of history and enjoy the atmosphere. This has put Bristol 'on the map'.
Toppling statues is a part of world history. Were Glasgow wrong to remove their Jimmy Savile statue? I've learnt more about Colston and Bristol in the last few days after the statue came down, than if it had stayed up with it's not very informative plaque. www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/controversial-statues-monuments-destroyed.html
Churchill and Nelson were important figures in existential wars. I'm already aware that they aren't perfect. Don't care,national history is nuanced. We have statues of Cromwell,who certainly wasn't perfect ,why us no one demanding he be taken down.
'It's not that they love the poor, it's more that they hate the rich'. It's not that Olusoga and Hirsch are fighting injustice, they are feeding their own resentments. And platforms as IQSquared are providing them a place where they can express it freely.
That's what happens in a civilised debate. 1:13 They saw the irony when the Moderator mentioned that The Guardian Newspaper (who Olusoga and Hirsch write for) historically sided with the cotton traders.
"Weaponizing Public Spaces" - Afua Hirsch - actually it was the Victorians who came up with the idea of public spaces. I believe Birkenhead Park, designed by Joseph Paxton , which opened in 1847, is regarded as the first public park in the world. As a result, millions of people around the world have enjoyed public parks .
@@thezemi5Imperialism was what it was. Everyone was at it for millennia. I really couldn’t care less. But I do like old attractive places, and I don’t give a SHYTE if it’s offensive to a few people whose ancestors CHOSE to come and live here in our awful country.
Simon Webb (History Debunked) is a pseudohistorian, hes connected with the far right and hes also interviewed far right figures and spoken at hard right conferences.
I don't even know who many of the slave traders were. Perhaps the way of treating these objects rather than tearing them down is to add a plaque explaining who they were, good and bad. In this way they educate rather than simply commemorate.
The likes of this panel can discuss this topic til the cows come home. At the end of the day, statues do get torn down, but not by people like this. It happens organically and depends on many factors not least the version of history the people believe (at the time) and the political situation (at the time)
Statues mean nothing bit of public art makes a city rather than a village , villages don't have statues. If the people are so bad put up a plaque saying they are so bad . People are oppressed by statues? Grow up.. I was born Irish... Cromwell was an arsehole as far as I am concerned but who am I to say the Brits cant have their arsehole hero . It's their country. I have gazed upon his statue and I didnt feel oppressed.
I do not shy away from the appalling things that this country has done in its past but lets this into some context. Just about ever country throughout history has done something that they are not proud of be it slavery, subjugation of another race, religious persecution or genocide. But one of the interesting things I found about this debate is there was a lot of British basing over slavery but no one asked the question why don’t the Africans take ownership of their role in the trade because the trans-Atlantic slave could never of happened without Africans selling their own people into slavery. Slavery was common practice in Africa long before the white man arrived so it wasn’t something new just because the white man arrived. No Mentions the fact that between the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries African pirates raided our shores and took hundreds of men, women and children into slavery in Africa. Slavery in Africa continues to this day but the silence is deafening about that.
Can you please list these African slave traders? Any genocide or slavery relies on the cooperation of a certain amount of the indingenous population. For instance the Holocaust would not have been possible without Jewish collaboration with the Nazis. My last point is that it was ARABS who enslaved Europeans not AFRICANS
Contrary to what the Oxford mouth says, it is very important to look back at your past and evaluate it critically. He just doesn't want his historical idols scrutinised!
At the moment, a statue just means that *someone, sometime* admired another man's achievement enough that they wanted to preserve his memory, or celebrate the achievement. A statue represents an opinion. But if we start adding 'context', choosing which ones to keep, then each statue becomes a battleground over how we are to see that person and related historical events (and sometimes more - sometimes how we are to see aspects of society). The surviving statue, by its survival, becomes a statement about what "we" as a society supposedly think about someone. Everybody who disagrees with a standing statue is being actively marginalised, and everyone who wants to keep a statue which is being removed is also being actively marginalised. A problem avoided if statues are just accepted as historical objects in public places, which you can like or dislike as you wish. There's no problem with critical evaluations of our past. Historians are good at this. Any historian who believes in the concept of 'progress' is tempted to see the past as inferior, and that sort of historian is considered to have a conservative approach. There's a difference, though, between people critically assessing their past and people being forced, essentially, to endorse a critical perspective on that past. If we look at Colston (a relatively unknown figure outside Bristol) when we take his statue down, we are saying, "we *must* see his engagement in the slave trade as I. Bad, shameful, and immoral II. More important than anything else about him. III. More important than all the stories and myths and culture that had been built up around this man after his death (these implicitly have to be abandoned)." We're not allowing people to critically evaluate history. In fact we're going to lose a lot of historical detail and heritage (all the stories about Colston humbly helping the poor, the "Colston Day" public holiday, a part of a tradition about the wealthy in Bristol providing charity for the poor - these will all be forgotten) and we're telling people what to value. It's as if society were to make a declaration of approval/ disapproval for each historical figure. It bothers me.
@@CBfrmcardiff Removing history is usually done by people who the history negatively affects. Elizabeth the first removed Mary's statues because of her Protestantism that was a majority at the time in england, to which elizabeth the first was a hardcore old style catholic. Hitler removed Libertarian statues and historical accounts of jews who helped the country so he could blame the jews for the countries problems more easily to divert attention from his Nazi regime. Communist china removed China's old history entirely so people didn't question the dogshit communist agenda, and straight up lied saying that china was always this way. Considering Antifa, the majority in people who want to tear down the statues, wave communist hammer and sickle flags, and communisms large-scale history with Slavery, I have no reason to assume that they don't want people to forget how bad slavery is so that they can re-introduce it.
At 31-32 minutes I think that that lady made some mistakes. She said 'that you played a part in', referring to white people having had slaves in the past. In the context of the rest of her sentence she's using identity politics. She also judges Churchill solely by his racism and not by the fact that he saved the UK. In addition, she didn't judge Gandhi solely by his racism, hence she is prejudiced towards Churchill.
"You" is an accepted pronoun for people in general. Three of the panel use it around 29 mins, with the lady in red saying "You" for acknowledging both sides of the debate. Also, the panel should be judged for what they said, not what they didn't. They are answering questions posed to a time limit.
Churchill saved UK and Gandhi saved India. So what? Should we stop criticizing them for their abhorrent display of racism? We in India, criticize Gandhi from time to time for his problematic stances whereas the UK just never seems to acknowledge the outright racist, dehumanizing ways with which Churchill treated his colonies. This is in no way to say you have to HATE him. You can very well like the diplomatic politician that he was AND acknowledge he wasn't the best human being. Like we like Gandhi AND criticize him for a lot of his fuck ups. It isn't that difficult to do.
@@manjarishukla6677 I'm no expert on Indian perceptions of Ghandi. But you have a very cartoonish idea about both discourse in Britain (there is plenty of criticism of Churchill here) and also the character of Churchill himself (read his books and read about his time in government and how he behaved and why, and you will see that he wasn't a one dimensional curse). I would wager that there is much more self-criticism of the UK, in the UK, than within most countries around the world. Societal self criticism has both strengths and weaknesses, and who's to say what level of self- criticism is optimal? But India's certainly appears to be sub-optimal; look at the worship of nationalist figures, including Bose (was that the name of the Axis collaborator?), the assertion that complicated events such as the Indian Mutiny can only be interpreted according to one fixed narrative (as a nationalistic war for independence), the refusal to compromise over Kashmir and the persecution of Muslims... India needs more healthy self-criticism.
@@CBfrmcardiff no i think she is right about talking about Churchill in the UK, and Afua has directly experienced that when she brings facts about churchill into the debate she is shut down for saying something bad about him. we are also only taught a very one sided view of him. in response to what OP said, i have also seen afua criticise gandi before, very much acknowledging his racist views
David is right when he says that statues are erected to memorialise and venerate individuals. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to continue to perform this role. For example, the presence of the Colson statue has sparked debate in Bristol about the part the city played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Removal of the statue would only remove a significant spark for this continued debate, so why not reinterpret the statue in a manner which places Colson in context by referencing his role in the slave trade? There are many forms of physical reinterpretation of the statue which could be undertaken to do this, but it would surely have more educational value than leaving the statue in place uninterpreted, or removing it from public display and once again seeking to hide Bristol's past.
I think David said the debate around statue and having an updated plaque to reflect the full history had been going on for years. Hopefully something will be done if the statue gets dragged out of the River Avon.
I agree, but what is often glossed over is that the process of the statue's removal occurred in protest which is itself a form of grappling with the nation's history. Surely it only adds to the history of the object that it was engaged with in such a way. Now the story is told with the history of Colston (the "real" or "full" history, not the sanitised version previously offered in his original memorialisation) firmly rooted not only in the public conscience but also through the object, since it is now in a museum displaying the scars of the day it was toppled. I would add that a lot of these comments see the literal toppling of these statues as 'erasing history' despite a broader story of Britain's imperialism and major participation in the slave trade now being told and recognised.
I just love how Afua Hirsh talks so much about the pain felt by people whose ancestors suffered as slaves and then makes so impassioned a statement on the pain felt by her own Ashanti people for the loss of their treasures - but conveniently fails to mention that the wealth of the incredibly aggressive and militaristic Ashanti was almost entirely built on the profits of - slavery. That's right - the Ashanti were one of the most active tribes in capturing and selling other people. When she says that slavery was about the oppression of Black people by white people she is deliberately and consciously lying. The Ashanti were also in the habit of starting wars on the thinnest of reasons, including on one occasion over an Ashanti man who had stolen a gold nugget the size of a thumbnail from King Kofi's treasury and fled in terror into the Fanta area in the south. The fourth Ashanti war, which put paid to the kingdom, happened because of the three previous Ashanti invasions of Fanta territory, their continuing sabre rattling and their refusal to stop making slaves out of other people. Don't be fooled into thinking that Africans were all victims.
Did the Ashanti build imperial strength and glorify thier past with statues? You are deluded if you are trying to make simplistic equivalence between the Ashanti and their colonisers. You created the hierarchy and now you are trying to do away with it. Take responsibility for once and stop shifting the blame.
Elijah Hezekiah - The Ashanti created a kingdom which was incredibly wealthy and they did that almost entirely on the profits of slavery. They were a very aggressive and powerful state. They enslaved their neighbours and were cruel beyond your imaginings in the way they did it. They created their own hierarchy and from the way you write, I have to conclude that you know absolutely nothing about West African history. No - the Ashanti did not put up western style statues, but so what? That isn't the West African way of doing things, as you should know, so why would they? My fiancee is Igbo, from Nigeria, by the way. In your naive comment about colonisers also betrays your lack of knowledge. You clearly think all colonisers were the same - they weren't. The British were invited in by a number of peoples and were generally benign, normally leaving local tribal power structures in place and working with the tribal chiefs to create and safeguard trade. In some cases that wasn't the case and invasions and annexations did take place, but the management style was generally as described once that had happened. Unlike the French and especially the Belgians, the British did not normally have tribal hierarchies dismantled and usually encouraged a great deal of local participation in the running of a colony. Unlike French colonies (some of which still exist) locals were not excluded from authority and the British colonial staff was normal tiny. If you want to blame anyone, aim your guns at the French, who are still running colonies in the Pacific in exactly the way they did in Africa, and the Belgians, who burned, murdered and raped their way across the Congo in order to terrorise the population and extract the maximum possible profit. During World War I several tribes in the Congo were actively aiding the German War effort, in the hope that the Germans (who had run a model colony in Togo [although certainly not in what is now Namibia]) would beat the Belgians and bot them out of Africa. When a small British expedition made it through to Lake Tanganyika, the tribes which had been supporting the Germans switched their allegance overnight as soon as they heard the British were there. In what is now Ghana, the British were invited in by the Fanta, after the navy had destroyed the coastal slave trade. The Fanta had been suffering from the predations of the Ashanti for generations. The Fanta did not regret inviting the British in and in fact most of the British troops which took part in the last two Ashanti campaigns were Fanta, fighting in the Gold Coast Regiment, alongside Jamaican soldiers of the West India Regiment. Fanta people who I know are well aware of the record of the Ashanti and do not generally bear any animosity towards the British. From the late nineteenth century the British also encouraged local elites to form political parties and get involved in governmental activity. This was the case in almost every colony and the intention was to gradually extend dominion status to all colonies once they were ready. Before you say that the 'white' colonies got that status long before any of the African colonies, the timescale was generally about the same, given that most African colonies were established many decades later than NZ, Australia, South Africa or Canada. By the time decolonisation came about, most African colonies had well established political parties organised along Westminster lines and the majority of officers in their armies were African. Have you ever wondered why so may Yorubas are so pro-British, at the same time as being so very traditional? It is because the British were beneficial to Nigeria encouraging local people to involve themselves in business and left it with political and military structures which worked properly. The Nigerian civil service, so dominated by Yorubas, was created for Nigeria by its colonial government, which always intended to make itself obsolete. No such thing happened in France's colonies which had to fight wars for their freedom and were often left with power vacuums. The Belgians wrecked Congo and then pulled out suddenly, leaving a power vacuum which has led to an almost continual state of warfare there ever since. Which would you rather have had? The system which produced Badmus or the one which create Mobutu?
@@Crispvs1 loool of course the good ole psyhchosis. The alustric benevolent colonisers who had to civilise the everly needing African who suffered from its animalistic ways and needed the British so bad that the brits had to get involved. Unfortunately for you, I am well versed in my history and you trying to obscure complexity with simplistic view of history is your business it is the way the system and ideology your bought into runs. The children of your never ending benevolent act to the world have come to collect from their investment in your system integrate them into your imperial project and look after them or have you run out of your kindness? Talk about deluded. Lool you stole power from the Yorubas. They asked you guys to solve one problem and you almagamted a completely group of people then financed the genocide of Igbos. You are the baddies.
You know Elijah, I am not that badly versed in your history either. My Igbo fiancee and her family have never mentioned any 'genocide' of them by the British. They do talk frequently about the Yorubas and especially the Hausas in the 1960s of course, when they took up arms and declared their independence as their neighbouring tribes tried to sideline them and keep them out of any power. Yes - there was warfare in what became Nigeria - no-one denies that, but it was no 'genocide'. It was also mainly against tribal groups (who admittedly were mostly Igbo) who were involved with the slave trade. Yes there was the integration of different tribes into first three, then two and then one colony, but if the tribes didn't like that, after 1961 they could have changed it if they had wanted, but the one example of a tribe doing that was violently opposed by the other tribes. Yes - history is complicated, but don't simplify it the other way either. As for 'stealing power from the Yorubas', who dominates government and civil service in Nigeria today and always has? The Yorubas. The British didn't steal power from the Yorubas - they shared power and then left it largely in the hands of the Yorubas. No-one denies that some things weren't done fairly, but there was no way that the British would ever have damaged the tribal hierarchies in the way the French and Belgians did. The British also left a system which Nigerians already knew how to use. The French and Belgians left nothing and destroyed the tribal hierarchies along the way. Many of the 'stars' of Nigerian politics and military have been Hausas - but the wheels of government are controlled by the Yorubas and you know that. The principle 'baddie' my intended talks about, by the way, is General Gowan, not any British man or woman.
Bla, bla, bla. Please start with what was the intent of the statue in the first place. No one or no single point is perfect. Even 'Good' is bad if that is all you have. One needs to compare, reflect, understand etc. So 'good' vs 'bad' or 'good' vs 'better'. It seems we are simply using the removal of statues as a rally point to demonize or control another section of society. But I don't agree that the installation of the statue is always to show power over a group or person. Use of the words confront, denial, dominate, white power, or a woman was killed because of a statue, all show that the discussion is accepting the only frame that was presented. Why not put a statue of Marx across from a statue of Aristotle or Cleisthenes. I am sure they were not perfect, saints or that someone can not find offense to the idea but that is a choice that is made by the community not the 'one'.
@Tinita Bondi oh your down with the what other ism. A bit like a mother protesting to the council for the lack of safe pedestrian crossings near her local school after her child is killed trying to cross the road. Your answer is to say in India there are 100 times more pedestrians killed every day on the roads than in Britain I don't see you going over to India and fighting for more pedestrian crossings, and when are you going over to India to fight for them . That is the pathetic argument you are using its called deflecting or alternative facts? A fav right wing debating tool .
It came to light in a recent documentary that one of Ms Hirsch's ancestors was a slave trader in Africa don't think we should be putting a statue up of her pretty soon and should be commenting on this subject with her family background anyway.
Afua Hirsch is very typical of a blinkered left wing activist. Lets just throw away all the good history about Nelson and Churchill because one or two people in their times criticised them. Firstly why should we trust or believe the opinions of people from decades ago, and what is the point? It's this constant looking backwards in time picking away at history and historic figures that achieves nothing positive, and causes division. We all need to look forward and work on improving things in the future, not keep creating upset and division by arguing about people who are long dead.
So the moderator Johnathan Freeland is a columnist for the Guardian and he wrote a book called " Bring Home the Revolution: The Case For a British Republic " So he wrote a book advocating to remove Britain's Monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England . ... and now Johnathan Freeland is moderating a debate whether to tear down part of Britain's heritage. Did anyone ever notice that everyone of these statues is a Protestant ? It seems Johnathan Freeland 's opinions are quite clear . .
Its immoral to promote or attempt to remove the Heritage of People and their Country. Doing so removes the Cultural Identity of People and makes them far more vulnerable. This applies throughout history and this certainly applies today. .
Agree with David Olusoga 's argument that statues of slave traders , like Coltson , should be removed. However, removing statues of Churchill, Cook or Nelson is clearly an attempt to de - legitimatize a Heritage and remove the Cultural identity of People . . When there is an attempt to de - legitimize Robert Baden - Powell and Alexander Graham Bell that spells it out loud and clear this is really about removing a Cultural Identity. .
yes..maybe it will mean that before long, people won't remember there was a slave trade in Bristol, and then we can repeat all our mistakes all over again
I will be also glad when all the ,mosques are gone....a place where people revere a slave trader of Africans, and a religion that enslaved Africans for 1400 years of tears!
Statues are not there to be revered but rather put in place to mark a point in history related to an event or location. You do not have to support or decry the person represented but they serve as an historic record.
David and Afua as ever miss any context. Bristol was already the second city in England from about 1550, and a major trading centre in Europe. And will we ever hear either of them mention the 3 million white European slaves taken by the North Africans, Ottomans and Arabs?
are there statues anywhere in africa commemorating enslavers of europeans? trying to compare separate incidents over history to centuries of systematic enslavement of over 12 million people, affecting countless others and forming the racist basis of our society today is whiny and ignorant
Quick, quick, let’s re-write history and (try and) make White British people feel guilty because they have the audacity to be proud of being British and of authentic British history.
David Olusoga and Afua Hirsch were brilliant in this debate and blew their opponents away. Afua was right. Statutes are symbols of reverence. You have to crank your head to see it. Evil figures like Colston and Rhodes don't deserve that reverence.
A year ago I mentioned the Chatham House and someone joked that the Guardian always has someone on standby there. So have to wonder, does Jonathan Freedland have a connection to the Chatham House ?
This conversation, at its heart, is about white supremacy. The statues are not monuments to a person, but to the ideology of white supremacy. The erecting of these statues in the United States were 100% about celebrating white supremacy and intimidating and humiliating the people that they were oppressing through apartheid. To intellectually argue that these statues are benign, are simply bookmarks in the living book of history, or small problems in light of bigger ones are always spoken from positions of privilege and with a complete lack of empathy for the people who are descendants of the victims of these brutal ppl and who wish to be recognized as equals in the societies they belong to.
But they don't, do they, belong to this society, which isn't the United States. It is Great Britain. If you insist on thinking of things from an American perspective, this is our 'Indian Reservation', and 'colonials' are now settling in it and complaining about statues to tribal chiefs who did a bit too much rough work with their antecedents.
I have a suggestion: statues can be put up as long as the plinth lists all of their deeds - both good and bad. Then everyone who sees it can make up their own mind.
This comment is true in terms of the title. The debate should have been more accurately titled 'Remove or Leave in Place'. None of the panellists argue for 'Revere'. Obviously they couldn't find any academics in favour of revering slave-traders and racists. Did they expect to? In view of this, the title seems a bit facetious.
I'm pretty conservative but I gotta agree with relegating statues that David mentions to the museum and replacing them with thoughtful, intelligent people ahead of their time but equally historic (in america think Joshua Chamberlain or William Lloyd Garrison or whatever)
But they don’t end up in museums. That’s a lie. They always end up being melted down and destroyed or toppled over and pushed into the Bristol harbour like what happened to the Edward Colston statue. Don’t believe their lies.
But empire wasn't the most important aspect of modern British history. The industrial revolution (fuelled by tutors mercantilist policy and loom innovations) was
Quite Fascinating and paramount, the ethical nature of confronting morality. We can only recover from the PAST if we confront it in open Civil dialogue. Thank you for such a wonderful panel.
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
" We can only recover from the PAST if we confront it in open Civil dialogue. " . Actually we have more human rights , children's rights , animal rights , democratic rights, socialized healthcare , schools and universities than any other civilization in history. The origins of this came from the Age of Enlightenment and the struggle of 19th Century Labour class during the Industrial Revolution. Want to run a corporate globalist agenda ? Simple , attack our heritage, history , culture and art to discredit our common bond and national identity . .
In science, opinions don’t really matter: the world and Universe really do behave in a particular fashion. Either your conception of how the world works agrees with reality, in which case it’s valid, or it doesn’t, in which case it isn’t. Yet scientific arguments and debates happen all the time, even though they never settle anything. The only solution that’s scientifically valid is to obtain the critical evidence: a lesson we all need to be reminded of. The most important rule in any scientific debate is this: it doesn’t matter who wins the debate. It doesn’t matter who makes the better argument; it doesn’t matter who convinces more people; it doesn’t matter who votes with you. What matters is that you identify the key points of evidence that could definitively settle the contentious issues, and then you do your best to go out and find that evidence. Once you do, you follow it wherever it leads.
I listened with intense interest to this debate and would like to comment with a non scientific comment. In my twenties, I taught in the Middle East where there were a lot of Palestinians and Palestinian students who became my students at university level. These students were high achievers and extremely diligent so I was surprised when one of them challenged me about the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and my country was responsible for the diaspora that had followed. Whilst I had studied history this aspect of early twentieth century was not foregrounded. For these polite and extremely hardworking students, I was probably the only British person they had met and although protocols of classroom dynamics might have deterred them for making me lose face in the classroom with this challenge, I nevertheless understood that who else had they to turn to for an explanation as to why their parents and grandparents had subsequently left their homes taking heir front door keys hoping to return in 1948. How were they to come to terms with their lose of heritage and political and economic rights. To say the past does not matter is quite clear if you not disadvantaged by it
They were weak and got conquered. The conqueror takes the spoils. That's how it's been throughout human history. We only go on about the British Empire because it was recent and hugely successful. And because of the British Empire we are in a position to make moral judgements about empires and human rights THAT WERE NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE THE BRITISH EMPIRE EXISTED. You're welcome.
For me the problem with Peter's argument is that it trivializes the importance of statues as historical objects that have repercussions in the present,that say something about our society and its culture. They aren't simple pieces of copper,bronze, etc. As society, at some point in time we decided that an individual did something important and therefore worthy of respect, reverence and most importantly remembrance. Who we chose to make part of our collective historical memory isn't a trivial and unimportant matter, it is in fact one of the most important things that we do as society. Who we believe to be as a country/nation depends on whom we decide to remember and how we remember them. After all, how many of the important historical figures that we have built statues for aren't also an important part of the educational curriculum. We keep teaching new generations why they are important and what they did .Therefore we keep shaping our historical memory as a nation. Statues are but a sign of who is considered worthy enough to be part of our national conversation. It's a matter of a national sense of historical identity, and is an essential part of the way a nation builds its future. And If statues aren't important then why are some people angry,bothered or concerned when they are removed. Why are we even having this conversation if they are nothing but a piece of copper? If so was the case then they would be no different than a bench,table etc . After all, how many times do we notice when a bench in a public space has been removed?When was the last time the removal of a bench created a national conversation?. How can any historian be oblivious to this is beyond my understanding. Isn't after all their job to learn and analyze not only the past but also the way the past shapes our future. Aren't statues historical objects and therefore of profound importance to historians.
Im off to read about how Africans were enslaved for 1400 years under Islamic rule and then Im off to deface a place of prayer!!! You idiots dont know what youre unleashing!
What about next month when the next group is offended by something else. The woman was exactly right. We do not weaponize emotions. We say grow up. Removing the statue does not erase history. This is ludicrous! Most of the panel (4 of the same peoe fars as I could tell) said they didn't even care and don't pay attention to them.
If only the amassing of statue pullers sat down in the same room with the institutions of imperialism and hacked away at themselves, their responsibilities and aspirations in the newest days of history. History is written down, it’s remembered but it sadly just not taught. It’s politicised with only the juiciest of facts and sandwiched in a warm bun of social media and click bait. History means different things to different people but my love of it comes from the story. Real characters that reveal the complexity of the fight, the right to live and how a civilisation is built around that. Great discussion, an unfinished discussion and motivation indeed to stop burning ourselves out with anger and live on a diet of concrete, facts, nuance and wisdom.
@@watchedastimeranout8850 Our statuary is part of our cultural heritage; those foreign elements in society agitating for its removal are functionally termites.
This guy. D. Olysogua is not a real historian. He’s just a diversity propogandist.I have seen some of his documentaries and he talks a lots of nonsense . His intention is not to teach history but to create imaginary historical realities. Especially when he says that blacks have been present in British isles since Roman Empire. That’s totally not true and beyond nonsense
@Sofie Dunbar If you study the Danelaw/Anglo-Saxon period, you will study this. You don't read 'History' at University, you read a specific era. I strongly refute the idea that there is a counter-whitewashing taking place. It's a study of context - we need to appreciate the perception of our achievements from the outside world.
By the same token, killing 30,000 slaves, Lincoln also, by declaring war, not compromising, northern aggression it's called by some, when only 1% of southerners were even slaveowners, yet more men died in that Civil War than all wars fought since, combined! So, by that logic, the slavery issue introduced as the primary reason for fighting, only later by Lincoln, shouldn't his status come down?
This woman's take on colonisation at 52.07 is absolutely condescending and steeped in imperial apologetics .Basically telling Black &Brown people to 'get over it' in long winded academic
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
@@samyoe "washing" history is a a socialist agenda, Marxist russia under Lenin, Communist Russia under Stalin, Communist China under mao, Fascist italy under mussolini and Nazi germany under hitler. They all did it. If you have to revise history to be correct then your objectively wrong.
Everything and anything could serve as an antisocial focus. A Starbucks, a park bench, a wall. Perhaps people should learn to grow a backbone and realise it's not all about them, history is what it is and you learn from it. Also old statues are works of art in themselves. I've walked past Colston state a hundred times and never gave it a moment's attention, it's just part of the historical splendour of Bristol - something we have a lot of in Britain and what makes it different to USA, Australia and New Zealand which have only modern buildings. Where would you stop? Pull down the Pyramids that were built by slaves? Tear down the Colisseum in Rome because slaves built it and Christians were eaten by lions for entertainment? Grow up.
What an idiotic idea. If radical right wing extremists gather at certain statues then you know exactly where they are and you can easily identify and surveil them and put some extra cops nearby in case of violence or terrorism. If i was in charge id go even further. I would place a huge golden memorial decoy statue of Hitler in a commemorative temple in the middle of Berlin, with a trap door leading to a gas chamber that opens up when neo Nazis go to pay their respects. lol
The man in the far right ( surprise) sounds incredibly unprepared. The points he is raising in the beginning are just so trivial and weak that I am surprised he would feel comfortable being in a public debate tlike this. ( about how no one cares about statues and then about how other cities have lots of buildings and places built by slaves, etc)
I love it when the British say that they decolonized their former colonies but truthfully speaking my ancestors had to literally fight, die and get tortured so that someone like me and my mother could grow up and live in a country where we were not inferiors. To give context I'm from Nairobi, Kenya where the MauMau fighters fought for our collective freedom we weren't given our freedom truthfully speaking no European country ever willingly gave any of their colonies their freedom people had to DIE!!!! that is not an opinion it is a fact and I would have loved for slavery to have never existed but it happened its part of me and other African and also the entire world. Don't tell us to forget about history because we cant my grandmother still remembers how life was in during colonialism she remembers how her father was killed in front of her and it still hurt's her, we still live with the consequences of your boundless greed we are not poor because we were lazy because if we were you would have never had any use for us to be your labor, we are poor because our wealth, our resources, our time and everything we did went into building your wealth and your economies. You have those amazing buildings and estates because you literally stole from others. You can't call someone poor while you were the same same person who stole from them, you cant call us third world country's while the reason we are not developed is because we weren't given a chance to develop. we didn't have a chance to grow into our potential coz that was struggled with no remorse so whenever you call African countries or other nations in the world poor, undeveloped, third world nations remember that the reason we are in our positions right now is because you couldn't keep you GREED inorder not because were lazy.
@stop immigration it's funny you say that genocide is an African sport when you were the one's who went around the world slaughtering hundreds of millions of human beings whose only mistake was that they didn't look like you and we're stupid enough to welcome you're ancestors to their home's instead of killing them when they landed on our beaches, And yes African empires, kingdom's, chiefdoms and tribes used to fight and have conflicts with each other that I'm not denying in the same way France, England, Scotland, Italy, Spain and Prussia all used to fight with each other so please get of your high horse it's not like Europe was a beautiful paradise that had no conflicts or wars 🤣🤣🤣, And as for developing the world NO ONE asked you to do so and i understand the concept of minding your own business and sovereignty was lost to you people a long time ago but doesn't mean it stopped existing. And seriously just because we didn't live like you doesn't mean we weren't civilized we had our own economic systems or how do you think goods travelled all the way from the East and south of Africa to the North and West of Africa huh! We traded with each other, we also had our own social and political systems and hierarchy and just because it was different from yours doesn't mean it was wrong. And as for you not owing us anything unless you're illiterate you know that isn't true i don't even have to put up an argument on that just sit down and read a book instead of talking about things you know nothing of it's just sad Anyway to sum it up the World would have been so much better of if you had just stayed in your little continent instead of going around the world STEALING, RAPING, TORTURING, ENSLAVING AND COMMITTING MASS GENOCIDE cause that's your history and legacy in the rest of the world no matter what you think or what you put in your history books to make yourselves feel better we still remember everything and some of us may have forgiven but none of us have forgotten what your people did to the rest of solely because they're greed.
This is the first Intelligence Squared debate I haven't enjoyed. Likely because to much of it was absurdity coached in modern terminology. First, the concept of reparations; Really? You're going to tax the working class of today, fighting to make a living for themselves, and whose grandparents were normally in dire straits as well, to pay for "Reparations", (despite the idea that these people are not victims) for what some rich people did 400 years ago? Sure, that'll work - what could possibly go wrong? Secondly slavery did not begin 400 years ago - it has been a human constant for thousands of years - so you want to punish to people who put an end to it? People might want to think that through a bit. Third, if you want to "fix" history, why start with the UK? The Blacks that were sold on the slave blocks were often from tribes other blacks and tribes had attacked. They had been captured and sold by their own culture and race, should you not be looking for compensation from the people who actually enslaved them? I think Black American Academic Thomas Sowell put his finger on it when he pointed out that "Have we not reached the height of absurdity, when some people are held accountable for things done hundreds of years before they were born, while others are not held accountable for what they are doing today." And of course, it would have added to the debate if Peter Frankopan had been able to stop shilling for more funding for history and other countries, and stayed on topic for more than a minute or two. That would have helped as well. All told, I wasn't impressed with the debate or the lack of intellect put into it.
Generally true, but that doesn't explain all of the statues erected for Confederate figures, and especially in the context of when they were placed, in the 1960's. They were clearly a message to the blacks during the civil rights movement, a means of passive aggressive intimidation. If history is revised to be truthful and inclusive, to give the disenfranchised some measure of justice, that's a step in the right direction. Only the privileged and powerful would resist moving towards a more equal society. US history textbooks are also very untruthful in their portrayal of the genocide of Native Americans.
@@michaeljenner1795 And yet society moved on regardless. How many people gave the statues a second thought as they walked past? The only people who care are race obsessed far left activists who don't just want to pull confederate statues down they want to pull the West down and replace it with some egalitarian utopia that will end up like communist China. No thanks. I'd rather keep the mildly offensive statues.
Reckoning with our past does not mean destroy it. Common sense means learn from it which is what our academics supposedly leading our young people to their future are employed to do. David Olusoga made sure this statue was dragged down in Bristol in advance with his own own unsupported estimate of deaths at his hands. David is Nigerian and cannot honestly say his own historic family were not involved in local slavery.
Professor Olusoga needs to go help in Africa where he is needed instead of trying to force his opinions on people who know that he has a chip on his shoulder.
Dawn, don't be such an embarrassment. David Olusoga has every right to make the points he does. As a British person I am delighted that people such as Olusoga and Hirsh are making very justified criticisms. Every country needs free debate to improve.
@@ianmanners5963 He can make them just as well in Africa. If he wants to make them in Britain, he can do so from a position of - yes! - *reverence* for our land, amenities, and people. Your taxes were spent to build a bronze memorial in statuary to the Mau Mau. This 'nuanced debate' is no more than a tool to undo your instinctive defences of your cultural heritage. There is no 'moral line' on which the Mau Mau fall on the 'right' side and Colston and Rhodes on the 'wrong'. Or did poor old Rhodes not cut enough animal tendons and child throats with the panga to merit his statue staying?
When will the statues of famous slave traders standing in Nigeria be pulled down
David Olusogo is from Nigeria but he never mentions the renowned 19th century Nigerian slave trader Efunroye Tinubu. Even after the British banned slavery she refused to stop, saying she would sooner drown them. There is a huge statue of her in Nigerian in a square named after her. Yet Olusogo never suggests her statue should be pulled down and the square renamed like he did with our Edward Colston. Olusogo is an inventor of history and a Woke propagandists, he is not a historian.
@@Baboonfromdatoon Hes a modern day race baiter employed by the university of Manchester . inventing history to create hate .
@@Baboonfromdatoon David Starsky got a kicking for infinitely less offensive behaviour than Olusogo's traducements of truth .
When will the statue we were taxed to build to the Mau Mau in Kenya be pulled down?
I cannot see why people are so impassioned about describing why people shouldn’t get upset ...and then call it ‘a boring thing to focus on’. It’s only boring to focus on ...if it doesn’t upset you. If it’s so boring to you...why be so impassioned about keeping statues that make some people feel very obviously contentious figures uncomfortable in public? If it’s about education put them in places where people who want to see them can go see them
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
@@RM-ov8gk you can take black Friday too plz
The against side didn't seem that pro-statues or keeping them up, they were arguing that other activism would be more beneficial.
This is the type of civil debate we need to Infuse in the school curriculum to get the younger generations to research both sides of the argument, rather than being drip feed revisionist history
I certainly agree with the desirability of what you suggest. That said we must recognize that the trend in public education is to dumb down the material in order to accommodate more students who can claim to have received a university level education. Even if that were not the case, in our increasingly complex world, to be truly well informed takes a lot of time and effort on the part of both student and professor. It has always been the case that good teachers are worth their weight in gold, being so rare in reality. Furthermore a typical student [ late teens - early twenties ] has to have an eye towards earning a living after being a student, which has the knock-on effect that spending time studying some subjects [ and History is surely one of them ] is a luxury that few without private means can afford.
@Sofie Dunbar Yes - we are in accord here. Picking up on your quotation - Alexandre Pope's famous line from " Essay on Criticism ". In the " essay " [ really a long discourse expressed in couplets ] he describes how some knowledge once acquired leads one on to greater heights, and likens the journey to climbing a mountain in which, as we reach a position, new heights come into view and " heights on heights arise ".
Would it were so. As you rightly point out too many students having learned a little assume they know much, so instead of trying to reach the greater heights, they prate about what they think they know.
It has long been my contention that it is the duty of the state to train as many young people as is practicable in the basic disciplines in order that they can take on a useful position in the great scheme of things.
That said I further contend that to acquire an education as opposed to mere training is the responsibility of each individual, and constitutes the work of a lifetime.
It would seem that we have now a situation in which so called professors instead of training their students to think, and think for themselves, they are instead taught what to think. The inevitable result is, to use your word, cohorts of opinionated and dogmatic navel gazers who are convinced they are right. And since they are right, anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be wrong.
Colin Bennett Kids should learn research & debate from BOTH SIDES that their local statues should stay or go! Great class for teens!!
@Sofie Dunbar they won't rot. They are protected by law. The argument that the public can deface them or that councils can leave them to rot is flawed because the powers that be have said they must be protected and cleaned. Not to mention that metal statues take far too long to break down.
They should be taken down and replaced with symbols that the local community want to look up to. I'm sure there's a million unsung heroes that would make better statues then any slaver.
@Sofie Dunbar maybe go and educate yourself on that Edward Colston statue. Where the wealth that he gave to the city came from. Maybe go and educate yourself on why statues are put on plinths, why you look up to statues and they aren't placed at eye level. If you believe that Edward Colston deserves to be looked up to for kidnapping and murdering thousands of innocent human beings, for enslaving thousands, then you're a pretty sick human being. I imagine you'd also want a statue of Jimmy Savile on your doorstep "for his charity work"?
If you are so concerned about the history behind a racist murders statue, put the statue in a museum with context or allow the public to show their distain for it as they have done and will continue to do.
In the past we blew up statues we didn't like with dynamite. Now they are all protected and listed. So the message they send is protected by law, even if we no longer want or believe in that message.
Your argument is so flawed. It's based on your own privilege and narrow education. Because of this you can't see or understand the pain and suffering caused, to this day, by these statues and the celebration of the hateful, horrible, evil people they represent. Maybe go and ask some BAEM British people what they think of statues of slavers being present on our streets today.
Olosugas books were removed in our school library because of the lies throughout the book
These are learned historians? History is replete with oppression, overthrows and the like. If people weren’t obsessed with identity politics, this wouldn’t be an issue. History has so much more to teach us, than to uphold our individual sensitivities.
I felt the "left" side was hyper-focused on emotion as a justification for removal, while the "right" side was underserved by the male speaker's laissez faire attitude towards statues in general. This debate, as others, tended to ascribe the historical knowledge deficiency to the statue - an inanimate object - instead of the contemporary viewer. It is not the statue of Churchill's job to teach about the life and times of Winston Churchill. That responsibility falls to the viewer if they want to see the statue as a more than just an artwork. Putting statues in museums does not teach the public anything if the public does not go to museums - and museum attendance has been steadily declining. If the average person in the UK doesn't know Churchill held bigoted attitudes towards Indians that may be a problem with the education system, not certainly not the statue. Notwithstanding, Churchill's views towards Indians pale in comparison to his leadership for Britain during WWII. The average high school textbook and curriculum does not have adequate space/time to go through every important historical figures flaws in addition to their accomplishments. That is for the professional scholar and history enthusiast. To me it will always be more important to remember Churchill as a critical leader in the most desperate hour, not a degenerate drunk and bigot.
Very easy to say if you’re not Bengali and one of your relatives didn’t die during the 1943 famine. In the end I think we need to own our differences. He’s a hero to you, a villain to me.
@Daniel Taylor no it couldn't (unless it was an idiot or a bigot doing the saying) PS this is NOT a defence of Churchill
Churchill’s views of Indians were rooted in truth too. He was disgusted by certain Indian cultural practices like dung eating, urine drinking, widow burning and caste prejudice.
@@LonDanDocBengalis have died in famines for centuries - what makes that one so special? It’s more recent? Or is it just you like the victim narrative?
Do we have Hitler statue? Nope.
Do people still learn about Hitler everyday? Yep.
So the "we can't learn history without statues" argument is false.
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican only in the inverted world that you live in is a freedom fighter a terrorist, but a racist settler colonialist an innocent person. What is next, Hitler was misunderstood and the British empire was pacifist
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican
He wasn't convicted by his peers, the judge was white, the prosecutors were white, the law he by which was prosecuted was made by white people.
It was a show trial in a kangaroo court.
---------
On the "befriend" part, you should take a good look at the mirror and try to find out who leaders of the world befriended. Bush father shook hand with Saddam Hussein. Trump's rap sheet includes Erdogan, who's guard beat up Americans on US soil, Kim Jong Un, North Korea's little dictator, Xi Jingpin, China's strong man, Putin, who sabotaged US election, the list goes on.
Oh and remember the little genocidal regime called Khmer Rouge that the US supported?
On the other hand, Nelson Mandela's position was very clear and simple. In his interview with Ted Koppel, he said:
"One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think their enemies should be our enemies,"
"Our attitude towards any country is determined by the attitude of that country to our struggle. Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gaddafi, Fidel Castro support our struggle to the hilt. There is no reason whatsoever why we should have any hesitation about hailing their commitment to human rights as they’re being demanded in South Africa. They do not support only in rhetoric; they are placing resources at our disposal for us to win the struggle. That is the position."
So for you to suggest that Nelson Mandela "befriended" the respective dictators is disingenuous. He was being thankful for their respective support, and that's all there is to it.
If a thief rescues a person in peril, he should be thanked for his good act, despite the fact that he is a thief.
Any suggestion otherwise is an effort to try to muddle the water and to instill guilt by association.
@Jeremy Brookes
Ghandi? Quite creative use of words.
Since there is a complete lack of any sexual activities, all parties are voluntary, all parties are over 18 years of age, the most appropriate wording of such act would be *nudism* which is a completely legal and moral modern lifestyle in the West.
Only barbarian savages would consider a person living such a lifestyle "sexual predator".
On MLK, for man and wife to disagree politically is perfectly normal, and to blame a man for what happened after his death is beyond disingenuous.
On the rest, if you want to advocate for tearing their statues down, go on right ahead. No one's stopping you.
There is this false dilemma opponents of every movement seems to make: either make everything completely fair and unbiased, or do nothing at all. Needless to say, this is a false dilemma fallacy.
It's just as stupid as saying, why arrest this thief, what about other thieves? What about this one, what about that one? Unless you arrest all the thieves, why bother arrest this one but not that one?
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican
Please cite the evidences proving that Mandela personally attacked any civilian.
Remember that Mandela was charged with "inciting workers' strikes and leaving the country without permission"
Which part of that is "attack against Civilians"?
@Cromwellian Protectorate Republican
You meant the Church Street bombing in 1983? When Nelson Mandela was still in prison?
To blame a man still in prison for something happening outside of prison is, again, beyond disingenuous.
Again, I am asking for evidences. To charge someone on bogus charges in a kangaroo court is common practice, and means absolutely nothing.
---
Regarding MLK, evidences, evidences, evidences. Rape evidences, rape watching evidences, rape inciting evidences. Where are they?
As a side note, being a womanizer is not a crime (yet).
---
Friends falling out all the times. Does not change the fact that they befriended one another at certain points in time, having no problem with past atrocities.
Trump also personally admitted having great relationship with all aforementioned dictators, and praised their dictatorial regimes on many occasions.
Regarding the rest, it is just your opinion which level of friendship is considered acceptable and what is not, and it's not an argument.
I myself consider praising a genocidal regime a more undemocratic and horrifying act than praising such regime for render humanitarian aid, since the former is an endorsement and validation of their atrocities, while the later is not.
I agree with David about the Colston statue, but there is another way to deal with it. Public monuments are part of a public discourse. The best response is to reply with another monument. If he was venerated for the wealth he brought in, show where the wealth came from. Erect a companion monument to acknowledge the suffering of the slaves. Saying that he's a great man for doing good things while omitting the bad is propaganda. The antidote to propaganda is truth, not censorship.
well said
Well, he's now at the bottom of a river. That would have been a good idea though if it would ever have come true
I really like this idea.
@Sofie Dunbar I get it - you're saying a form of cultural apartheid is the solution.
@Sofie Dunbar It is a toxic word - my point being that if you say that we should go to Jamaica if we want to learn about slavery, then it would make it so we are enforcing that certain ideas have to be ringfenced in certain cultures. I think cultural apartheid is an apt term for that. I'm not trying to be a dick, or though I may sound like one a bit, but do you see want I'm trying to say?.
Perhaps there should be a Slavery centre where schoolchildren in particular could visit and learn about The Slave Trade, the way they attend the Holocaust Centre to learn about the Holocaust. Statues are all very well if they're in the right place with information telling the truth about the thing they represent.
There's a good one in Liverpool: www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/international-slavery-museum There's also one in either Devon or Cornwall that shows how Barbary slave traders from North Africa used to capture entire English coastal villages as slaves before the British slave trade took off, and that up to early 1600's, England had lost control of its waters'. Sadly, there are actually more slaves today than at any point in human history, which I never would have imagined
Sure, so long as this "slavery centre" points out that slavery is as old a civilization and that uniquely the UK ENDED slavery worldwide!
Attacking the statues is all part of the Maoist agenda: ruclips.net/video/JkfRG18ruXg/видео.html
You were conditioned to think about that @Sofie Dunbar. You've been emotionally swayed and influenced by change agents. Encouraged to adopt someone else's thoughts as your own.
It's not true either. Here in the UK, with some of the highest welfare standards, very few animals suffer at all, let alone greatly, and lots of thought, effort and money goes into making sure their suffering is kept to a minimum
You also haven't given two second's thought to the consequences of getting what you are asking for, and the huge levels of human suffering this would bring. Let me guess . . . you are a city girl with no direct connection to your food who has been to college or has loads of friends who have. You think it's normal to dictate to others how they live, in an authoritarian manner for the greater good, and have no problem denying the facts of biology for the sake of ideology, like humans being omnivores or having binary sexual identities.
Free human beings scoff at the poorly thought out dogmas of the indoctrinated youth. Good luck enforcing vegitarianism on us, or your bizarre views on human sexuality. These may sound like great ideas to naive children, but what you are proposing is to force human beings to go against their human nature at the point of a gun. Any serious attempt to force your dogmas on the rest of humanity would likely lead to the deaths of millions, but hey! When have the facts ever stopped idealists pushing their agendas on others, no matter how many of us have to die?
I think the accusation is still valid to some extent @Sofie Dunbar but I apologize if I have misjudged you. I agree there are major welfare issues with livestock exports and certain slaughter practices, but yes, those in the business are overwhelmingly conscientious and committed to minimizing animal suffering at every stage of their lives.
Some people would misguidedly seek to impose vegetarianism on ethical grounds, including eggs and dairy. A view which is widely supported by supposedly educated virtue signalling urban 20 somethings with no connection to their food or the land in general. They have no idea of how devastating this would be. Our biology is not open to ideological interpretation, and while I wouldn't dream of knowingly allowing any animal so suffer unnecessarily, I wouldn't think twice about using every resource in my control to avoid human suffering like hunger and poverty.
@Sofie Dunbar what's your take on the transatlantic slave trade or colonisation and Britain's involvement in it?
people were not bothered about statutes till 3 or 4 weeks ago , in this country half of them done even know who they are and there background and im 48
So
People were definitely bothered about these kind of statues before that. The debate you left this comment on is clearly indicative of that.
We remember people for their great deeds, and for what that meant to us. Not for every misdeed they've ever committed. And, yes, sometimes that can be politically motivated, in which case the discussion, at least, is entirely warranted.
Let he whose ancestors are without sin tear down the first monument.
Would they allow monuments to Hitler. Reasonable then in civil society those are behind evil like slavery and colonialism are also condemned and their monuments torn down.
This comment deserves many more likes.
@@Abraham_Tsfaye It wouldn't be suited in public place probably, but they should be conserved.
The more tracks we keep about "bad" parts of History, the less chances they have to happen again.
I've grown up and lived in Louisiana my entire life. I know what these statues are for. They need to come down.
Jessery what are they for though? I dont think black folks care about this stuff man. They just want jobs
@@sstruyf89 Have you watched the video?
Jessery yeah just now , they were set up to scare black folks, but i dont think it worked! Blacks are doing fine in louisiana
I visited America once and it looked like African americans thriving! They dont care bout no dang statue
@@sstruyf89 That depends on what you mean by "doing fine". People can be doing fine in one area, but be completely disadvantaged in another. No group is a monolith. But we have ample evidence that - on average - black people face considerably more obstacles than non-PoC do. I hope I didn't come across as confrontational in my reply.
People should be educated on the good and the bad that said person did. You can’t tear down and try to erase history just because you don’t like it. History happened, yes some was brutal but it happened and looking at the past allows us to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Are you aware that nation's erect and keep statues,monuments etc as a reflection of their traditions and believe?
Monuments and public statues glorify historic characters. Hitlers statue doesent belong on the streets of Berlin but in the histoy museum. If you glorify slavemasters, go ahead and put their statues on your streets
Two black people say remove, while two white people say don't.
The removal of statues, paintings, artworks, books, etc, because they offend some people is a currently contentious issue. We live in a democracy. A vocal minority should not dictate how a society should reward it's past heroes. The decision should be democratic.
Here is a simple way of achieving this -
Any citizen should be able to start a petition on their local government website to, for example, remove a particular statue. If and when the petition achieves more than 50% of the local constituents, then it should be removed. If it does not achieve more than 50% then the statue should remain, and the petition taken down after a stated period, (let's say 3 months).
Inexpensive, fair, and democratic.
We live in a democracy where 95% of the institutions who control the narrative have the same viewpoint.
Oh my god. David and Afua's expressions when Tiffany is talking are hilarious.
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
The chap who wrote his diaries about Churchill was not a fan of Churchill, there is documented history about this. What they are not talking about is that there are more modern day slaves now than there were in the 1800's. I think the statues need to stay but adequate HONEST history should be taught in schools, not the twisted history that Britain has always had black people because it hasn't at all, the windrush generation were not invited by the government etc but getting unadulterated history needs telling to our children, that black Africans also had slaves and the African slaves were usually war captives or been convicted of a crime within the tribe and were sold by the tribe leaders, the biggest buyer of slaves were the Muslim countries and it still does go on now in some places, white people were also taken as slaves , Britain's were taken as slaves by black pirates, kidnapped from their beds or from the streets, drinks would find themselves on board too and these would be taken to African countries and sold so slavery has affected every race and country
I boiled over at the same point. Very composed though
I noticed that too! Afua tried really hard to keep her composure.
@@louisecook6483 Britons weren't taken as slaves by by blacks , thats a stretch . The pirates on the Barbary coast were not black people .
14:40 So because SOME people are overly sensitive to topics they have a hard time comprehending, and dealing with emotionally, we should change the physical landscape?
The pro removal side is a perfect representation of the modern PC, feelings-rather-than- thoughts based approach to society and history.
Lord Hephaestus Weren't they advocating for them to be placed in a context where thought and reflection is included in their viewing, rather than their current context of aesthetics, and/or emotions? That sounds more like thoughts-rather-than-feelings.
Yes by your logic, lets have giant Hitler statue in Berlin and its parliament.
I would question the whole idea of statues to begin with. The fact is, even Ghandi and Mother Teresa have had their critics, and they bring up some valid concerns. I like what Kurt Vonnegut said about those who want to install the ten commandments in public places. He suggested instead that they use the beatitudes, "blessed are the poor..." Love, tolerance, let's listen to our better angels. Being kind and respectful of others is paramount.
Must watch today after Colston pulled down.
Pulling down Edward Colston is like pulling down Bomber Harris. Really bad idea. It is like saying the dog ate your homework. It is like burning down the school to avoid lessons. It is failure to learn to walk AND chew gum. Failure to eat dinner before pudding and wash hands. Thank God for India. India may be what saves the world from China and Pakistan. What continental sized superpower might come to the rescue of our little Island’s idea of things if America is exhausted?
PRAJEESH P KUMAR ...And now, that moment in time, the film & photographs, the damaged (I don’t think they should even remove the graffiti) broken statue in the museum etc IS British History & always will be... 🤞
Britain reveres and gives their taxes to a monarchy that was involved, monopolized and made wealthy by the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. How do British folks reconcile this with removing a statue?
@@ninobk196 Much of the industrial revolution and the economic expansion of the nineteenth century was financed by the compensation payments issued as a result of the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833, as people sought to reinvest their money. How constructive is it to identify individual beneficaries, when a whole class benefitted?
We should not remove statue s but wrote their history at their feet so future generations will reflect on what their beliefs was
"...enslaving ourselves by the past" from Tiffany. Wow, that's a special turn of phrase she's chosen to use... unbelievable.
Not her past!
When the British arrived in India, the subcontinent was dominated by the Mughals when the Spaniards arrived in the New World both the Aztecs and the Incas had conquered, enslaved and subjugated lesser smaller tribes. King Kamekameha and Shaka Zulu through warfare expanded their Kingdoms. But colonialism and Empire is only condemned when it was done by an European Power. Should the Modern Nation of Mongolia be shamed and force to remove their statues of Genghis Khan.....
Legally the people(Brits) there were invaders on foreign soil.You can try and shape it however you like but Europeans arrived first and caused havoc.Be a man admit your fellow countrymen made mistakes.Stop trying to make it your battle and move on.Time to grow up and move on.If you can't move on than sit as you bitterly watch the world change in ways you won't understand. Nobody gets to be number one forever.China is now the king,tomorrow it will be somebody else.
It's the bigotry of low expectations.
Only Europeans and Americans have the wealth and social comfort to worry about mistakes of the past. There’s a reason nobody else cares about their past wrongs, they’re too busy surviving. It’s unfortunately shocking that the virtuous activity of reviewing our past has turned into an industry of lies cynically used to indoctrinate the young for various purposes, mostly divisive. Our civilization has become so prosperous we’re devolving back into tribalism and that regression is being hailed as a Great Leap Forward.
The Truth is coming into the light, because oppressed people who know the real truth, all of it, can no longer be suppressed. Like Maya Angelou said; "and still I rise." Truth sets us all free!
@Evan 17 you are out of your league, we dont use the word "tosser" in usa, deal with your own country!
@Evan 17 yes that is obvious moron.
I disagreed with the removal of the Colston statue because of the way that it was done. People shouldn't be allowed to destroy a statue without favour to do so. There should be a vote on the matter. it worries me to think that statues like the one of Winson Chuchill in London might be destroyed because a few people decide that is what they want to do. If a person wants to destroy a statue then they should win the right to do so with a proper vote.
By not listening to people who have been historically repressed it further solidified a feeling of continuous repression . A bit of a paradox. We can’t make everyone happy, but there are certain times we should agree to try.
It should come as a surprise to no one that world history is replete with oppression, slavery, and a whole litany of bad things. Those who are complaining about how badly " their people " [ which is code for the particular group identity which the individual choses to most closely identify ] could equally argue in favour of keeping alive the memory of the oppression, or alternatively advocate measures to wipe out any lasting reminders that it happened. There is another alternative - shut up, stop whining and start doing something positive about improving yourself which should be a good starting point for the improvement of the world in general.
@@crustyoldfart It's deeper than this though. I'm a black born brit and all I learnt in school about why I'm here is the slave trade. Just because you can't empathise with a struggle, it doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions because history evidently defines the present. Especially when history has been severely white-washed to paint Europeans as saviours and civilisers. Ironically, some Greco-Roman studied in Africa. Yet in Britain, all we see of Africa are starving children with flies in their eyes, or sometimes wildlife shows. I seriously recommend you read George Orwell or Machiavelli. I see you know a bit about social psychology. Perhaps expand on that... groupthink works in both ways... maybe you can overcome your cognitive dissonance.
@@samyoe It's really sad that all that was taught you in school was that you were [ and by implication WHO you were ] was determined by the slave trade. There is no shortage of bad teaching anywhere anytime. My rather blunt comment above I feel is good advice to anyone. Just as what or who you are as an individual has little to do with what some bad teaching would have you believe, it is the basic belief of British culture that we become more the product of our own efforts - which includes individual effort and individual thinking.
You accuse me of having ' cognitive dissonance '. I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you are accusing me of lacking empathy. If that is the case I am probably guilty as charged. As to Orwell I did read ' Animal Farm ', and also ' 1984 ' many decades ago. As to Machiavelli my knowledge of his writings is through translation, particularly ' The Prince '. I much later in life became a senior public servant in the Canadian federal system. I was much impressed by how accurate were Machiavelli's observations about Princes, and not to put our trust in them. [ Since princes no longer figure large in our current political regime, I think we can safely substitute ' politician ' here. So I identify with his views on trusting politicians ]. I think the same advice might be extrapolated to include historians, the main stream media, teachers, purveyors of religion .... and I could go on.
Since you raised the writings of Machiavelli let me try to remember one of his quotes picked up while I was trying to learn Italian. ' gli oumoni vivono in pochi, gli altri sono poccarelle ' . Apologies if I have that wrong, but I'm going on memory alone.
@@crustyoldfart and for those of us too ignorant to be able to read Italian?
@@CBfrmcardiff You could try entering the phrase in Google or some other good search engine.
Remove this dodgy so called historian Olusago.
Revisionist.. Race baiter.
He is a Historian. Im guessing you are saying hes dodgy because you dont agree with him?
@@ThepPixel He doesn't agree with history .
@@peteredwards338 he does, he just doesnt think we should look at people as all good or all bad. Very few people throughout history have been pure saviours, and we shouldn't see them as such.
A slight correction to Peter's comment regarding Lenin statues. Many of them were, indeed, pulled down, however, many stayed. Just recently, when tensions between Ukraine and Russia were beginning to grow, it's the many remaining Ukrainian Lenin statues that got the short end of it, which, in turn, was understood in Russia, only somewhat justified, as an act of russophobia. And in Russia itself there is an ongoing discussion, among other things, regarding Lenin's body in the Mausoleum and the fact that maybe it's time to bury him, or about the Dzierżyński's statue that used to be on Lubianka, and that some argue should be reinstalled, now that 'ancient' Soviet past to a large amount of people doesn't look as terrifying compared to the 90-s they actually had the misfortune of living through or to the propaganda version of what happens in the rest of the world. In countries like Belarus, Moldova, or Kazakhstan Lenin statues are still a fixture and often even occupy main squares. On rare occasions previously removed statues get reinstalled when a Communist politician becomes a mayor, for example. So it's not as clear-cut as Peter purported.
Georgia still celebrate Stalins birthday every year with a parade in his home town.
Lenin is the exception that proves the rule. By this I mean I agree with removing statues of oppressors 100% but Lenin was perhaps the greatest political figure of his century and more statues of him should be erected!
Nope he was a bigot, kicked a dog once. Remove the commie prick from history
The PEOPLE decided - plus Lenin was within living memory.
ANYONE WHO DESTROYS PROPERTY THAT ISN'T THEIR'S SPECIFICALLY. SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY, ANYONE WHO ENTICES OTHER'S TO DO THE SAME, SHOULD BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE SEVERELY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS. END OF DISCUSSION
Celebrate good people. Memorialize them. Remember bad people. But don't ever celebrate them. Teach both in schools. History does not need Statues. Schools need History. The lessons of even a few decades ago are soon lost. 17th to 19th century Bristol is not 21st century Bristol. In light of recent events, I would not condone mob action. But I shed no tears.
as the lady with pink hair said, "let the people do with the statues as they see fit.."....this debate has thus been nicely settled...
Indeed
...and so the Colston statue was dumped into the River Avon on 7th June 2020.
@@tbay101 precisely! true democracy in motion!
@MattAs with any electoral process, there are people that don't care about the issue enough to vote, people to young to vote, people ineligible to vote etc. If you you check out The Bristol Post or Bristol Live, they literally had to scour the streets to find a Bristolian who is bothered that the statue came down. People were taking their kids to the empty plinth for photos, to be a part of history and enjoy the atmosphere. This has put Bristol 'on the map'.
Toppling statues is a part of world history. Were Glasgow wrong to remove their Jimmy Savile statue? I've learnt more about Colston and Bristol in the last few days after the statue came down, than if it had stayed up with it's not very informative plaque. www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/controversial-statues-monuments-destroyed.html
Churchill and Nelson were important figures in existential wars.
I'm already aware that they aren't perfect.
Don't care,national history is nuanced.
We have statues of Cromwell,who certainly wasn't perfect ,why us no one demanding he be taken down.
They are
'It's not that they love the poor, it's more that they hate the rich'. It's not that Olusoga and Hirsch are fighting injustice, they are feeding their own resentments. And platforms as IQSquared are providing them a place where they can express it freely.
That's what happens in a civilised debate. 1:13 They saw the irony when the Moderator mentioned that The Guardian Newspaper (who Olusoga and Hirsch write for) historically sided with the cotton traders.
Agreed.
"Weaponizing Public Spaces" - Afua Hirsch - actually it was the Victorians who came up with the idea of public spaces.
I believe Birkenhead Park, designed by Joseph Paxton , which opened in 1847, is regarded as the first public park in the world. As a result, millions of people around the world have enjoyed public parks .
That is neither here nor there. Or is the idea to highlight "imperialism was good"?
Afua Hirsch should f*** off to a country where she feels less ‘oppressed’.
@@thezemi5Imperialism was what it was. Everyone was at it for millennia. I really couldn’t care less. But I do like old attractive places, and I don’t give a SHYTE if it’s offensive to a few people whose ancestors CHOSE to come and live here in our awful country.
Only British people have a right to talk about their statues, not Africans
A great shame no one in the debate pointed this out, or defended them as part of our cultural legacy.
You people should watch “history debunked” RUclips! The old fella does a video showing how much this David lies!!
Simon Webb (History Debunked) is a pseudohistorian, hes connected with the far right and hes also interviewed far right figures and spoken at hard right conferences.
I don't even know who many of the slave traders were.
Perhaps the way of treating these objects rather than tearing them down is to add a plaque explaining who they were, good and bad.
In this way they educate rather than simply commemorate.
The likes of this panel can discuss this topic til the cows come home. At the end of the day, statues do get torn down, but not by people like this. It happens organically and depends on many factors not least the version of history the people believe (at the time) and the political situation (at the time)
Proven to be spot-on 👍
Your comment has been proven by the historical event on 7th June 2020. Any more predictions including Lottery numbers are welcome.
@@tbay101 haha i wish!
Statues mean nothing bit of public art makes a city rather than a village , villages don't have statues. If the people are so bad put up a plaque saying they are so bad . People are oppressed by statues? Grow up.. I was born Irish... Cromwell was an arsehole as far as I am concerned but who am I to say the Brits cant have their arsehole hero . It's their country. I have gazed upon his statue and I didnt feel oppressed.
I do not shy away from the appalling things that this country has done in its past but lets this into some context. Just about ever country throughout history has done something that they are not proud of be it slavery, subjugation of another race, religious persecution or genocide. But one of the interesting things I found about this debate is there was a lot of British basing over slavery but no one asked the question why don’t the Africans take ownership of their role in the trade because the trans-Atlantic slave could never of happened without Africans selling their own people into slavery. Slavery was common practice in Africa long before the white man arrived so it wasn’t something new just because the white man arrived. No Mentions the fact that between the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries African pirates raided our shores and took hundreds of men, women and children into slavery in Africa. Slavery in Africa continues to this day but the silence is deafening about that.
Can you please list these African slave traders? Any genocide or slavery relies on the cooperation of a certain amount of the indingenous population. For instance the Holocaust would not have been possible without Jewish collaboration with the Nazis. My last point is that it was ARABS who enslaved Europeans not AFRICANS
Two wrongs don’t make a right
Contrary to what the Oxford mouth says, it is very important to look back at your past and evaluate it critically. He just doesn't want his historical idols scrutinised!
At the moment, a statue just means that *someone, sometime* admired another man's achievement enough that they wanted to preserve his memory, or celebrate the achievement. A statue represents an opinion.
But if we start adding 'context', choosing which ones to keep, then each statue becomes a battleground over how we are to see that person and related historical events (and sometimes more - sometimes how we are to see aspects of society).
The surviving statue, by its survival, becomes a statement about what "we" as a society supposedly think about someone. Everybody who disagrees with a standing statue is being actively marginalised, and everyone who wants to keep a statue which is being removed is also being actively marginalised.
A problem avoided if statues are just accepted as historical objects in public places, which you can like or dislike as you wish.
There's no problem with critical evaluations of our past. Historians are good at this. Any historian who believes in the concept of 'progress' is tempted to see the past as inferior, and that sort of historian is considered to have a conservative approach.
There's a difference, though, between people critically assessing their past and people being forced, essentially, to endorse a critical perspective on that past.
If we look at Colston (a relatively unknown figure outside Bristol) when we take his statue down, we are saying, "we *must* see his engagement in the slave trade as
I. Bad, shameful, and immoral
II. More important than anything else about him.
III. More important than all the stories and myths and culture that had been built up around this man after his death (these implicitly have to be abandoned)."
We're not allowing people to critically evaluate history. In fact we're going to lose a lot of historical detail and heritage (all the stories about Colston humbly helping the poor, the "Colston Day" public holiday, a part of a tradition about the wealthy in Bristol providing charity for the poor - these will all be forgotten) and we're telling people what to value.
It's as if society were to make a declaration of approval/ disapproval for each historical figure.
It bothers me.
@@CBfrmcardiff Removing history is usually done by people who the history negatively affects.
Elizabeth the first removed Mary's statues because of her Protestantism that was a majority at the time in england, to which elizabeth the first was a hardcore old style catholic.
Hitler removed Libertarian statues and historical accounts of jews who helped the country so he could blame the jews for the countries problems more easily to divert attention from his Nazi regime.
Communist china removed China's old history entirely so people didn't question the dogshit communist agenda, and straight up lied saying that china was always this way.
Considering Antifa, the majority in people who want to tear down the statues, wave communist hammer and sickle flags, and communisms large-scale history with Slavery, I have no reason to assume that they don't want people to forget how bad slavery is so that they can re-introduce it.
At 31-32 minutes I think that that lady made some mistakes. She said 'that you played a part in', referring to white people having had slaves in the past. In the context of the rest of her sentence she's using identity politics. She also judges Churchill solely by his racism and not by the fact that he saved the UK. In addition, she didn't judge Gandhi solely by his racism, hence she is prejudiced towards Churchill.
I agree
"You" is an accepted pronoun for people in general. Three of the panel use it around 29 mins, with the lady in red saying "You" for acknowledging both sides of the debate. Also, the panel should be judged for what they said, not what they didn't. They are answering questions posed to a time limit.
Churchill saved UK and Gandhi saved India. So what? Should we stop criticizing them for their abhorrent display of racism? We in India, criticize Gandhi from time to time for his problematic stances whereas the UK just never seems to acknowledge the outright racist, dehumanizing ways with which Churchill treated his colonies.
This is in no way to say you have to HATE him. You can very well like the diplomatic politician that he was AND acknowledge he wasn't the best human being. Like we like Gandhi AND criticize him for a lot of his fuck ups. It isn't that difficult to do.
@@manjarishukla6677 I'm no expert on Indian perceptions of Ghandi. But you have a very cartoonish idea about both discourse in Britain (there is plenty of criticism of Churchill here) and also the character of Churchill himself (read his books and read about his time in government and how he behaved and why, and you will see that he wasn't a one dimensional curse).
I would wager that there is much more self-criticism of the UK, in the UK, than within most countries around the world. Societal self criticism has both strengths and weaknesses, and who's to say what level of self- criticism is optimal?
But India's certainly appears to be sub-optimal; look at the worship of nationalist figures, including Bose (was that the name of the Axis collaborator?), the assertion that complicated events such as the Indian Mutiny can only be interpreted according to one fixed narrative (as a nationalistic war for independence), the refusal to compromise over Kashmir and the persecution of Muslims... India needs more healthy self-criticism.
@@CBfrmcardiff no i think she is right about talking about Churchill in the UK, and Afua has directly experienced that when she brings facts about churchill into the debate she is shut down for saying something bad about him. we are also only taught a very one sided view of him.
in response to what OP said, i have also seen afua criticise gandi before, very much acknowledging his racist views
David, you said it was 19,000 deaths Colston was responsible for in the Guardian recently. Have the rest been found alive and well? I'm confused.
Sounds as if he makes it up, depending on how Anti-White he feels when wakes up each day.
David is right when he says that statues are erected to memorialise and venerate individuals. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to continue to perform this role. For example, the presence of the Colson statue has sparked debate in Bristol about the part the city played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Removal of the statue would only remove a significant spark for this continued debate, so why not reinterpret the statue in a manner which places Colson in context by referencing his role in the slave trade? There are many forms of physical reinterpretation of the statue which could be undertaken to do this, but it would surely have more educational value than leaving the statue in place uninterpreted, or removing it from public display and once again seeking to hide Bristol's past.
I think David said the debate around statue and having an updated plaque to reflect the full history had been going on for years. Hopefully something will be done if the statue gets dragged out of the River Avon.
I agree, but what is often glossed over is that the process of the statue's removal occurred in protest which is itself a form of grappling with the nation's history. Surely it only adds to the history of the object that it was engaged with in such a way. Now the story is told with the history of Colston (the "real" or "full" history, not the sanitised version previously offered in his original memorialisation) firmly rooted not only in the public conscience but also through the object, since it is now in a museum displaying the scars of the day it was toppled. I would add that a lot of these comments see the literal toppling of these statues as 'erasing history' despite a broader story of Britain's imperialism and major participation in the slave trade now being told and recognised.
I just love how Afua Hirsh talks so much about the pain felt by people whose ancestors suffered as slaves and then makes so impassioned a statement on the pain felt by her own Ashanti people for the loss of their treasures - but conveniently fails to mention that the wealth of the incredibly aggressive and militaristic Ashanti was almost entirely built on the profits of - slavery. That's right - the Ashanti were one of the most active tribes in capturing and selling other people.
When she says that slavery was about the oppression of Black people by white people she is deliberately and consciously lying.
The Ashanti were also in the habit of starting wars on the thinnest of reasons, including on one occasion over an Ashanti man who had stolen a gold nugget the size of a thumbnail from King Kofi's treasury and fled in terror into the Fanta area in the south. The fourth Ashanti war, which put paid to the kingdom, happened because of the three previous Ashanti invasions of Fanta territory, their continuing sabre rattling and their refusal to stop making slaves out of other people. Don't be fooled into thinking that Africans were all victims.
i.m not, but i want her happy if not here then anywhere soon please,
Did the Ashanti build imperial strength and glorify thier past with statues?
You are deluded if you are trying to make simplistic equivalence between the Ashanti and their colonisers.
You created the hierarchy and now you are trying to do away with it. Take responsibility for once and stop shifting the blame.
Elijah Hezekiah - The Ashanti created a kingdom which was incredibly wealthy and they did that almost entirely on the profits of slavery. They were a very aggressive and powerful state. They enslaved their neighbours and were cruel beyond your imaginings in the way they did it. They created their own hierarchy and from the way you write, I have to conclude that you know absolutely nothing about West African history. No - the Ashanti did not put up western style statues, but so what? That isn't the West African way of doing things, as you should know, so why would they? My fiancee is Igbo, from Nigeria, by the way.
In your naive comment about colonisers also betrays your lack of knowledge. You clearly think all colonisers were the same - they weren't. The British were invited in by a number of peoples and were generally benign, normally leaving local tribal power structures in place and working with the tribal chiefs to create and safeguard trade. In some cases that wasn't the case and invasions and annexations did take place, but the management style was generally as described once that had happened. Unlike the French and especially the Belgians, the British did not normally have tribal hierarchies dismantled and usually encouraged a great deal of local participation in the running of a colony. Unlike French colonies (some of which still exist) locals were not excluded from authority and the British colonial staff was normal tiny.
If you want to blame anyone, aim your guns at the French, who are still running colonies in the Pacific in exactly the way they did in Africa, and the Belgians, who burned, murdered and raped their way across the Congo in order to terrorise the population and extract the maximum possible profit. During World War I several tribes in the Congo were actively aiding the German War effort, in the hope that the Germans (who had run a model colony in Togo [although certainly not in what is now Namibia]) would beat the Belgians and bot them out of Africa. When a small British expedition made it through to Lake Tanganyika, the tribes which had been supporting the Germans switched their allegance overnight as soon as they heard the British were there.
In what is now Ghana, the British were invited in by the Fanta, after the navy had destroyed the coastal slave trade. The Fanta had been suffering from the predations of the Ashanti for generations. The Fanta did not regret inviting the British in and in fact most of the British troops which took part in the last two Ashanti campaigns were Fanta, fighting in the Gold Coast Regiment, alongside Jamaican soldiers of the West India Regiment. Fanta people who I know are well aware of the record of the Ashanti and do not generally bear any animosity towards the British.
From the late nineteenth century the British also encouraged local elites to form political parties and get involved in governmental activity. This was the case in almost every colony and the intention was to gradually extend dominion status to all colonies once they were ready. Before you say that the 'white' colonies got that status long before any of the African colonies, the timescale was generally about the same, given that most African colonies were established many decades later than NZ, Australia, South Africa or Canada. By the time decolonisation came about, most African colonies had well established political parties organised along Westminster lines and the majority of officers in their armies were African.
Have you ever wondered why so may Yorubas are so pro-British, at the same time as being so very traditional? It is because the British were beneficial to Nigeria encouraging local people to involve themselves in business and left it with political and military structures which worked properly. The Nigerian civil service, so dominated by Yorubas, was created for Nigeria by its colonial government, which always intended to make itself obsolete. No such thing happened in France's colonies which had to fight wars for their freedom and were often left with power vacuums. The Belgians wrecked Congo and then pulled out suddenly, leaving a power vacuum which has led to an almost continual state of warfare there ever since.
Which would you rather have had? The system which produced Badmus or the one which create Mobutu?
@@Crispvs1 loool of course the good ole psyhchosis. The alustric benevolent colonisers who had to civilise the everly needing African who suffered from its animalistic ways and needed the British so bad that the brits had to get involved.
Unfortunately for you, I am well versed in my history and you trying to obscure complexity with simplistic view of history is your business it is the way the system and ideology your bought into runs.
The children of your never ending benevolent act to the world have come to collect from their investment in your system integrate them into your imperial project and look after them or have you run out of your kindness?
Talk about deluded. Lool you stole power from the Yorubas. They asked you guys to solve one problem and you almagamted a completely group of people then financed the genocide of Igbos.
You are the baddies.
You know Elijah, I am not that badly versed in your history either. My Igbo fiancee and her family have never mentioned any 'genocide' of them by the British. They do talk frequently about the Yorubas and especially the Hausas in the 1960s of course, when they took up arms and declared their independence as their neighbouring tribes tried to sideline them and keep them out of any power.
Yes - there was warfare in what became Nigeria - no-one denies that, but it was no 'genocide'. It was also mainly against tribal groups (who admittedly were mostly Igbo) who were involved with the slave trade. Yes there was the integration of different tribes into first three, then two and then one colony, but if the tribes didn't like that, after 1961 they could have changed it if they had wanted, but the one example of a tribe doing that was violently opposed by the other tribes. Yes - history is complicated, but don't simplify it the other way either.
As for 'stealing power from the Yorubas', who dominates government and civil service in Nigeria today and always has? The Yorubas. The British didn't steal power from the Yorubas - they shared power and then left it largely in the hands of the Yorubas. No-one denies that some things weren't done fairly, but there was no way that the British would ever have damaged the tribal hierarchies in the way the French and Belgians did. The British also left a system which Nigerians already knew how to use. The French and Belgians left nothing and destroyed the tribal hierarchies along the way.
Many of the 'stars' of Nigerian politics and military have been Hausas - but the wheels of government are controlled by the Yorubas and you know that.
The principle 'baddie' my intended talks about, by the way, is General Gowan, not any British man or woman.
Bla, bla, bla. Please start with what was the intent of the statue in the first place. No one or no single point is perfect. Even 'Good' is bad if that is all you have. One needs to compare, reflect, understand etc. So 'good' vs 'bad' or 'good' vs 'better'. It seems we are simply using the removal of statues as a rally point to demonize or control another section of society. But I don't agree that the installation of the statue is always to show power over a group or person. Use of the words confront, denial, dominate, white power, or a woman was killed because of a statue, all show that the discussion is accepting the only frame that was presented. Why not put a statue of Marx across from a statue of Aristotle or Cleisthenes. I am sure they were not perfect, saints or that someone can not find offense to the idea but that is a choice that is made by the community not the 'one'.
Well the Middle Class prefer to pull down dumb statues of the Bourgeoisie but not join the Working Class to remove the Class that put them up!
@Tinita Bondi True. Sad but true.
@Tinita Bondi oh your down with the what other ism. A bit like a mother protesting to the council for the lack of safe pedestrian crossings near her local school after her child is killed trying to cross the road. Your answer is to say in India there are 100 times more pedestrians killed every day on the roads than in Britain I don't see you going over to India and fighting for more pedestrian crossings, and when are you going over to India to fight for them .
That is the pathetic argument you are using its called deflecting or alternative facts? A fav right wing debating tool .
It came to light in a recent documentary that one of Ms Hirsch's ancestors was a slave trader in Africa don't think we should be putting a statue up of her pretty soon and should be commenting on this subject with her family background anyway.
Afua Hirsch is very typical of a blinkered left wing activist. Lets just throw away all the good history about Nelson and Churchill because one or two people in their times criticised them. Firstly why should we trust or believe the opinions of people from decades ago, and what is the point? It's this constant looking backwards in time picking away at history and historic figures that achieves nothing positive, and causes division.
We all need to look forward and work on improving things in the future, not keep creating upset and division by arguing about people who are long dead.
So the moderator Johnathan Freeland is a columnist for the Guardian and he wrote a book called
" Bring Home the Revolution: The Case For a British Republic "
So he wrote a book advocating to remove Britain's Monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England
.
... and now Johnathan Freeland is moderating a debate whether to tear down part of Britain's heritage.
Did anyone ever notice that everyone of these statues is a Protestant ?
It seems Johnathan Freeland 's opinions are quite clear .
.
Seem to recall that the ashanti wars were about slavery. One of the major slaving nations in Africa.
Its immoral to promote or attempt to remove the Heritage of People and their Country.
Doing so removes the Cultural Identity of People and makes them far more vulnerable.
This applies throughout history and this certainly applies today.
.
Agree with David Olusoga 's argument that statues of slave traders , like Coltson , should be removed.
However, removing statues of Churchill, Cook or Nelson
is clearly an attempt to de - legitimatize a Heritage and remove the Cultural identity of People .
.
When there is an attempt to de - legitimize Robert Baden - Powell and Alexander Graham Bell
that spells it out loud and clear this is really about removing a Cultural Identity.
.
A prescient debate at the time, but we did not progress the issue.
I would love to hear a discission of why Charles Gordon's statue was taken down from Trafalgar Square.
what a fanastic panel, different perspectives and opinions but able to challenge each other civilly and uncynically
The second speaker referred to the Glasgow statue of the "Earl of Wellington". If you're going to debate the historical, get the basics right.
Asks for statues of woman... How about Margaret Thatcher... No not her! Wonder why?
@@lancer4709 Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister... for the love! What woman has climbed higher than that in this world?
Just because someone has hurt feelings does not mean we need to initiate societal change.
I am glad this statue of a slave trader is gone
Very good body
yes..maybe it will mean that before long, people won't remember there was a slave trade in Bristol, and then we can repeat all our mistakes all over again
I will be also glad when all the ,mosques are gone....a place where people revere a slave trader of Africans, and a religion that enslaved Africans for 1400 years of tears!
@@jamesharris4687 we learn about history in books not in the statues meant to revere individuals
Statues are not there to be revered but rather put in place to mark a point in history related to an event or location. You do not have to support or decry the person represented but they serve as an historic record.
David and Afua as ever miss any context. Bristol was already the second city in England from about 1550, and a major trading centre in Europe. And will we ever hear either of them mention the 3 million white European slaves taken by the North Africans, Ottomans and Arabs?
are there statues anywhere in africa commemorating enslavers of europeans? trying to compare separate incidents over history to centuries of systematic enslavement of over 12 million people, affecting countless others and forming the racist basis of our society today is whiny and ignorant
Quick, quick, let’s re-write history and (try and) make White British people feel guilty because they have the audacity to be proud of being British and of authentic British history.
David Olusoga and Afua Hirsch were brilliant in this debate and blew their opponents away. Afua was right. Statutes are symbols of reverence. You have to crank your head to see it. Evil figures like Colston and Rhodes don't deserve that reverence.
What business does a Mr. Tsfaye(!) have in telling the British who they should revere?
Please don't believe a word Olusoga says. His book 'Black and British' is basically full of lies. I wouldn't mind a public debate on that.
I am curious about this guy. He seems well balanced I think. What do you think he has lied about?
Change your perspective not your statues....or can't you do that?
A year ago I mentioned the Chatham House and someone joked that the Guardian always has someone on standby there.
So have to wonder, does Jonathan Freedland have a connection to the Chatham House ?
This conversation, at its heart, is about white supremacy. The statues are not monuments to a person, but to the ideology of white supremacy. The erecting of these statues in the United States were 100% about celebrating white supremacy and intimidating and humiliating the people that they were oppressing through apartheid. To intellectually argue that these statues are benign, are simply bookmarks in the living book of history, or small problems in light of bigger ones are always spoken from positions of privilege and with a complete lack of empathy for the people who are descendants of the victims of these brutal ppl and who wish to be recognized as equals in the societies they belong to.
Absolutely spot on!
But they don't, do they, belong to this society, which isn't the United States. It is Great Britain. If you insist on thinking of things from an American perspective, this is our 'Indian Reservation', and 'colonials' are now settling in it and complaining about statues to tribal chiefs who did a bit too much rough work with their antecedents.
why give the floor to this liar?
I have a suggestion: statues can be put up as long as the plinth lists all of their deeds - both good and bad. Then everyone who sees it can make up their own mind.
If you actually think these communists are interested in truth then you are mistaken!
@@ironfelix2963 Omg the cold war is over GET OVER IT!! You're just saying that cos it's a truth you don't like.
Well, not surprisingly, your stellar panel is all on one side. This is not a debate. A debate requires two sides.
This comment is true in terms of the title. The debate should have been more accurately titled 'Remove or Leave in Place'. None of the panellists argue for 'Revere'. Obviously they couldn't find any academics in favour of revering slave-traders and racists. Did they expect to? In view of this, the title seems a bit facetious.
I'm pretty conservative but I gotta agree with relegating statues that David mentions to the museum and replacing them with thoughtful, intelligent people ahead of their time but equally historic (in america think Joshua Chamberlain or William Lloyd Garrison or whatever)
in Britain William Wilberforce, Edmund Burke, David Livingstone, idk
Perhaps some great African dictators too.
@@spudpud-T67 Equally if not more degenerate and evil people. Your point is well taken.
But they don’t end up in museums. That’s a lie. They always end up being melted down and destroyed or toppled over and pushed into the Bristol harbour like what happened to the Edward Colston statue. Don’t believe their lies.
But empire wasn't the most important aspect of modern British history.
The industrial revolution (fuelled by tutors mercantilist policy and loom innovations) was
Quite Fascinating and paramount, the ethical nature of confronting morality. We can only recover from the PAST if we confront it in open Civil dialogue. Thank you for such a wonderful panel.
but... they're actually pulling statues down?
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
What do you mean recover from the past?
I don't need to recover from the past lol
" We can only recover from the PAST if we confront it in open Civil dialogue. "
.
Actually we have more human rights , children's rights , animal rights , democratic rights, socialized healthcare , schools and universities than any other civilization in history.
The origins of this came from the Age of Enlightenment and the struggle of 19th Century Labour class during the Industrial Revolution.
Want to run a corporate globalist agenda ?
Simple , attack our heritage, history , culture and art to discredit our common bond and national identity .
.
In science, opinions don’t really matter: the world and Universe really do behave in a particular fashion. Either your conception of how the world works agrees with reality, in which case it’s valid, or it doesn’t, in which case it isn’t. Yet scientific arguments and debates happen all the time, even though they never settle anything. The only solution that’s scientifically valid is to obtain the critical evidence: a lesson we all need to be reminded of. The most important rule in any scientific debate is this: it doesn’t matter who wins the debate. It doesn’t matter who makes the better argument; it doesn’t matter who convinces more people; it doesn’t matter who votes with you. What matters is that you identify the key points of evidence that could definitively settle the contentious issues, and then you do your best to go out and find that evidence. Once you do, you follow it wherever it leads.
I think to spend you life in the past to divide the present has no future.
As a historical figure, you should know lots about history
Why were the opposing sides separated by race? Where are the rest of modern day Britons in this debate?
Yeah it's weird, there's tons of native anglo that oppose those statues.. why wouldn't they find a few to not make it so racially segregated.
I listened with intense interest to this debate and would like to comment with a non scientific comment. In my twenties, I taught in the Middle East where there were a lot of Palestinians and Palestinian students who became my students at university level. These students were high achievers and extremely diligent so I was surprised when one of them challenged me about the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and my country was responsible for the diaspora that had followed. Whilst I had studied history this aspect of early twentieth century was not foregrounded. For these polite and extremely hardworking students, I was probably the only British person they had met and although protocols of classroom dynamics might have deterred them for making me lose face in the classroom with this challenge, I nevertheless understood that who else had they to turn to for an explanation as to why their parents and grandparents had subsequently left their homes taking heir front door keys hoping to return in 1948. How were they to come to terms with their lose of heritage and political and economic rights. To say the past does not matter is quite clear if you not disadvantaged by it
They were weak and got conquered. The conqueror takes the spoils. That's how it's been throughout human history. We only go on about the British Empire because it was recent and hugely successful. And because of the British Empire we are in a position to make moral judgements about empires and human rights THAT WERE NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE THE BRITISH EMPIRE EXISTED. You're welcome.
For me the problem with Peter's argument is that it trivializes the importance of statues as historical objects that have repercussions in the present,that say something about our society and its culture. They aren't simple pieces of copper,bronze, etc. As society, at some point in time we decided that an individual did something important and therefore worthy of respect, reverence and most importantly remembrance.
Who we chose to make part of our collective historical memory isn't a trivial and unimportant matter, it is in fact one of the most important things that we do as society.
Who we believe to be as a country/nation depends on whom we decide to remember and how we remember them.
After all, how many of the important historical figures that we have built statues for aren't also an important part of the educational curriculum. We keep teaching new generations why they are important and what they did .Therefore we keep shaping our historical memory as a nation.
Statues are but a sign of who is considered worthy enough to be part of our national conversation. It's a matter of a national sense of historical identity, and is an essential part of the way a nation builds its future.
And If statues aren't important then why are some people angry,bothered or concerned when they are removed. Why are we even having this conversation if they are nothing but a piece of copper? If so was the case then they would be no different than a bench,table etc . After all, how many times do we notice when a bench in a public space has been removed?When was the last time the removal of a bench created a national conversation?.
How can any historian be oblivious to this is beyond my understanding. Isn't after all their job to learn and analyze not only the past but also the way the past shapes our future. Aren't statues historical objects and therefore of profound importance to historians.
7:54 - “there are far more Important things we could be doing”. Not good. Remove them all. I’m off to learn about The Monstrous Royal African Company.
Im off to read about how Africans were enslaved for 1400 years under Islamic rule and then Im off to deface a place of prayer!!! You idiots dont know what youre unleashing!
What about next month when the next group is offended by something else. The woman was exactly right. We do not weaponize emotions. We say grow up. Removing the statue does not erase history. This is ludicrous! Most of the panel (4 of the same peoe fars as I could tell) said they didn't even care and don't pay attention to them.
If only the amassing of statue pullers sat down in the same room with the institutions of imperialism and hacked away at themselves, their responsibilities and aspirations in the newest days of history. History is written down, it’s remembered but it sadly just not taught. It’s politicised with only the juiciest of facts and sandwiched in a warm bun of social media and click bait. History means different things to different people but my love of it comes from the story. Real characters that reveal the complexity of the fight, the right to live and how a civilisation is built around that. Great discussion, an unfinished discussion and motivation indeed to stop burning ourselves out with anger and live on a diet of concrete, facts, nuance and wisdom.
Remove the multi cultural people instead! Leave our precious public images alone.
Man, imagine living in a world where people value statues more than living human beings
watchedastimeranout don’t feed the troll
@@watchedastimeranout8850 Our statuary is part of our cultural heritage; those foreign elements in society agitating for its removal are functionally termites.
This guy. D. Olysogua is not a real historian. He’s just a diversity propogandist.I have seen some of his documentaries and he talks a lots of nonsense . His intention is not to teach history but to create imaginary historical realities. Especially when he says that blacks have been present in British isles since Roman Empire. That’s totally not true and beyond nonsense
33:37 "This is why we need to fund historians at universities." Preach on, brother!
@Sofie Dunbar If you study the Danelaw/Anglo-Saxon period, you will study this. You don't read 'History' at University, you read a specific era. I strongly refute the idea that there is a counter-whitewashing taking place. It's a study of context - we need to appreciate the perception of our achievements from the outside world.
true historians don't preach , that's for priests but you rightly recognise him as a preaching propagandist , cheers 🥃
Eejut
If Citizens of African descent in Bristol are offending by statues, they should then LEAVE
OFFENDED....
GO David go! you tell them! Get rid of the statues.
By the same token, killing 30,000 slaves, Lincoln also, by declaring war, not compromising, northern aggression it's called by some, when only 1% of southerners were even slaveowners, yet more men died in that Civil War than all wars fought since, combined! So, by that logic, the slavery issue introduced as the primary reason for fighting, only later by Lincoln, shouldn't his status come down?
They’re taking down his statues.
This woman's take on colonisation at 52.07 is absolutely condescending and steeped in imperial apologetics .Basically telling Black &Brown people to 'get over it' in long winded academic
She sure is! So embarrassing for her...
Agreed - this person really hasn't got a clue. Highly embarrassing.
people (BLM) are judging modern day values and overlaying them over centuries old values. IF YOU VISIT HMS VICTORY ( a historical 18th century warship in portsmouth England) YOU ARE TOLD THERE ARE 2 LIFE BOATS. 1 IS FOR THE SHIPS OFFICERS, THE SECOND IS FOR THE OFFICERS LUGGAGE. THE SAILORS WERE ON THEIR OWN NO LIFE BOATS. THEY HAD TO SWIM FOR IT UNTIL THEY DROWN, Today there are lifeboats for everyone. That is todays values.
I found this interesting. The German concept of removing statues that could serve as antisocial focus points was attractive to me.
It's not a German concept, it's a Maoist precept: Attacking the statues is all part of the Maoist agenda: ruclips.net/video/JkfRG18ruXg/видео.html
@@JoesWebPresence I guess whitewashing history is also a Maoist agenda then?
@@samyoe "washing" history is a a socialist agenda,
Marxist russia under Lenin,
Communist Russia under Stalin,
Communist China under mao, Fascist italy under mussolini and Nazi germany under hitler. They all did it.
If you have to revise history to be correct then your objectively wrong.
Everything and anything could serve as an antisocial focus. A Starbucks, a park bench, a wall. Perhaps people should learn to grow a backbone and realise it's not all about them, history is what it is and you learn from it. Also old statues are works of art in themselves. I've walked past Colston state a hundred times and never gave it a moment's attention, it's just part of the historical splendour of Bristol - something we have a lot of in Britain and what makes it different to USA, Australia and New Zealand which have only modern buildings. Where would you stop? Pull down the Pyramids that were built by slaves? Tear down the Colisseum in Rome because slaves built it and Christians were eaten by lions for entertainment?
Grow up.
What an idiotic idea. If radical right wing extremists gather at certain statues then you know exactly where they are and you can easily identify and surveil them and put some extra cops nearby in case of violence or terrorism.
If i was in charge id go even further. I would place a huge golden memorial decoy statue of Hitler in a commemorative temple in the middle of Berlin, with a trap door leading to a gas chamber that opens up when neo Nazis go to pay their respects. lol
How can you decolonization the curriculum? Who were we colonised by?
The Romans , Vikings, Normans and now the Corporate Globalists.
The Taliban would have felt moral and justified in destroying the Buddhas of Bamyan.
The Taliban weren't suppressed or oppressed by Buddha. But an idiot like you probably doesn't comprehend the point i've just made.
Haha stay classy RUclips.
I would’ve hoped an IQ2 debate may have had a higher standard of comments...apparently not.
Pretty people get to say the dumbest s*** without being called on it
The man in the far right ( surprise) sounds incredibly unprepared. The points he is raising in the beginning are just so trivial and weak that I am surprised he would feel comfortable being in a public debate tlike this. ( about how no one cares about statues and then about how other cities have lots of buildings and places built by slaves, etc)
I agree. It was more surprising to learn that he is a historian.
RUclips: History Debunked - Statue of Nigerian Slave Owner.
That guy is a fruitcake.
And the 'solution' to this issue in 2020 Britain? Let the mob destroy them while the police stand by.
I love the different perspectives that Prof Frankopan brings to any topic and discussion.
I love it when the British say that they decolonized their former colonies but truthfully speaking my ancestors had to literally fight, die and get tortured so that someone like me and my mother could grow up and live in a country where we were not inferiors. To give context I'm from Nairobi, Kenya where the MauMau fighters fought for our collective freedom we weren't given our freedom truthfully speaking no European country ever willingly gave any of their colonies their freedom people had to DIE!!!! that is not an opinion it is a fact and I would have loved for slavery to have never existed but it happened its part of me and other African and also the entire world. Don't tell us to forget about history because we cant my grandmother still remembers how life was in during colonialism she remembers how her father was killed in front of her and it still hurt's her, we still live with the consequences of your boundless greed we are not poor because we were lazy because if we were you would have never had any use for us to be your labor, we are poor because our wealth, our resources, our time and everything we did went into building your wealth and your economies. You have those amazing buildings and estates because you literally stole from others. You can't call someone poor while you were the same same person who stole from them, you cant call us third world country's while the reason we are not developed is because we weren't given a chance to develop. we didn't have a chance to grow into our potential coz that was struggled with no remorse
so whenever you call African countries or other nations in the world poor, undeveloped, third world nations remember that the reason we are in our positions right now is because you couldn't keep you GREED inorder not because were lazy.
@stop immigration it's funny you say that genocide is an African sport when you were the one's who went around the world slaughtering hundreds of millions of human beings whose only mistake was that they didn't look like you and we're stupid enough to welcome you're ancestors to their home's instead of killing them when they landed on our beaches, And yes African empires, kingdom's, chiefdoms and tribes used to fight and have conflicts with each other that I'm not denying in the same way France, England, Scotland, Italy, Spain and Prussia all used to fight with each other so please get of your high horse it's not like Europe was a beautiful paradise that had no conflicts or wars 🤣🤣🤣, And as for developing the world NO ONE asked you to do so and i understand the concept of minding your own business and sovereignty was lost to you people a long time ago but doesn't mean it stopped existing. And seriously just because we didn't live like you doesn't mean we weren't civilized we had our own economic systems or how do you think goods travelled all the way from the East and south of Africa to the North and West of Africa huh! We traded with each other, we also had our own social and political systems and hierarchy and just because it was different from yours doesn't mean it was wrong. And as for you not owing us anything unless you're illiterate you know that isn't true i don't even have to put up an argument on that just sit down and read a book instead of talking about things you know nothing of it's just sad
Anyway to sum it up the World would have been so much better of if you had just stayed in your little continent instead of going around the world STEALING, RAPING, TORTURING, ENSLAVING AND COMMITTING MASS GENOCIDE cause that's your history and legacy in the rest of the world no matter what you think or what you put in your history books to make yourselves feel better we still remember everything and some of us may have forgiven but none of us have forgotten what your people did to the rest of solely because they're greed.
This is the first Intelligence Squared debate I haven't enjoyed. Likely because to much of it was absurdity coached in modern terminology. First, the concept of reparations; Really? You're going to tax the working class of today, fighting to make a living for themselves, and whose grandparents were normally in dire straits as well, to pay for "Reparations", (despite the idea that these people are not victims) for what some rich people did 400 years ago? Sure, that'll work - what could possibly go wrong? Secondly slavery did not begin 400 years ago - it has been a human constant for thousands of years - so you want to punish to people who put an end to it? People might want to think that through a bit. Third, if you want to "fix" history, why start with the UK? The Blacks that were sold on the slave blocks were often from tribes other blacks and tribes had attacked. They had been captured and sold by their own culture and race, should you not be looking for compensation from the people who actually enslaved them? I think Black American Academic Thomas Sowell put his finger on it when he pointed out that
"Have we not reached the height of absurdity, when some people are held accountable for things done hundreds of years before they were born, while others are not held accountable for what they are doing today."
And of course, it would have added to the debate if Peter Frankopan had been able to stop shilling for more funding for history and other countries, and stayed on topic for more than a minute or two. That would have helped as well. All told, I wasn't impressed with the debate or the lack of intellect put into it.
Great discussion on about our shared connected histories, but as the famous quote states " History is written on behalf of the winner"
Generally true, but that doesn't explain all of the statues erected for Confederate figures, and especially in the context of when they were placed, in the 1960's. They were clearly a message to the blacks during the civil rights movement, a means of passive aggressive intimidation. If history is revised to be truthful and inclusive, to give the disenfranchised some measure of justice, that's a step in the right direction. Only the privileged and powerful would resist moving towards a more equal society. US history textbooks are also very untruthful in their portrayal of the genocide of Native Americans.
@@michaeljenner1795 And yet society moved on regardless. How many people gave the statues a second thought as they walked past? The only people who care are race obsessed far left activists who don't just want to pull confederate statues down they want to pull the West down and replace it with some egalitarian utopia that will end up like communist China. No thanks. I'd rather keep the mildly offensive statues.
Reckoning with our past does not mean destroy it. Common sense means learn from it which is what our academics supposedly leading our young people to their future are employed to do. David Olusoga made sure this statue was dragged down in Bristol in advance with his own own unsupported estimate of deaths at his hands. David is Nigerian and cannot honestly say his own historic family were not involved in local slavery.
Professor Olusoga needs to go help in Africa where he is needed instead of trying to force his opinions on people who know that he has a chip on his shoulder.
Dawn, don't be such an embarrassment. David Olusoga has every right to make the points he does. As a British person I am delighted that people such as Olusoga and Hirsh are making very justified criticisms. Every country needs free debate to improve.
@@ianmanners5963 He can make them just as well in Africa. If he wants to make them in Britain, he can do so from a position of - yes! - *reverence* for our land, amenities, and people. Your taxes were spent to build a bronze memorial in statuary to the Mau Mau. This 'nuanced debate' is no more than a tool to undo your instinctive defences of your cultural heritage. There is no 'moral line' on which the Mau Mau fall on the 'right' side and Colston and Rhodes on the 'wrong'. Or did poor old Rhodes not cut enough animal tendons and child throats with the panga to merit his statue staying?
False dichotomy. We don't have to revere or remove.
We need to educate. Unfortunately, history has been severely white-washed.