Nelson and his Column

[Not Andy Naylor]

I tend to agree, tearing down statues is tantamount to brushing stuff under the carpet. Leave the statues and lets talk about the way things were done. Rightly or wrongly things were done and done for a reason.

How can we learn from the past if we airbrush out the nasty bits?

I agree. A group of students in Oxford decided that they were offended by a statue of Cecil Rhodes outside Oriel College and campaigned for its removal. Now Rhodes was a white supremacist and exploited black people, no question, but he also did some good things, such as endowing Rhodes Scholarships that enable students from other countries to study at Oxford - including, ironically, the person leading the battle against the statue.

What was strange was that very few people had even noticed the statue before all this blew up as it was very high up on the High Street frontage of the college, but Oriel College agreed to remove it and put it somewhere less prominent. What nobody seemed to think of was the Latin inscription that remains, next to where the statue once was, which explains who Rhodes was and celebrates his life. But I imagine that's because Oxford scholarship isn't what it was and their Latin wasn't up to translating it.

Be that as it may, many then criticised Oriel for surrendering to a few shouty students rather than standing up for the view that history is history and if reminders of inconvenient truths are hidden away then what happened is forgotten. I think I agree with that. Maybe the answer is to keep the statues, but put them in a place where they can be observed but not celebrated - rather like what happened in former communist countries when statues of Lenin and co were removed from plinths in city centres and moved to 'sculpture parks' like one in Moscow, which is full of nothing but images of Marx, Trotsky and the rest of the gang.

 

[jakarta]

I'm curious as to why so many people are quite so outraged by the suggestion that we ought to have a debate over it.

Because it is completely irrelevant to the real issues that are happening in the World at the moment?

You may not have noticed that at the moment there are a lot of lunatics running around Europe murdering people en masse in the name of their Faith.

I would submit that this is a rather more important issue than whether someone who died 200 years ago held similar views to almost everyone else in his society at the time?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Like the vast majority of historically significant figures, and indeed people in general, Nelson had a complex mix of attributes, some good, some less so. My view is that the statue should be left, but that when he's talked about in history classes in school, a balanced viewpoint of the man is taught: yes, he was a naval genius and was viewed as a hero as a consequence of winning many important battles, and he also had values that are unacceptable today (and were starting to be unacceptable even at the time).

This puzzles me because Horatio was a supporter of William Pitt, who in turn supported William Wilberforce. I'd like a bit more evidence that Lord Nelson was actively supporting slavery, or more than any other personage of that time.

 

[Simster]

Because it is completely irrelevant to the real issues that are happening in the World at the moment?

You may not have noticed that at the moment there are a lot of lunatics running around Europe murdering people en masse in the name of their Faith.

I would submit that this is a rather more important issue than whether someone who died 200 years ago held similar views to almost everyone else in his society at the time?

Yes, thanks for telling me - I wasn't aware of the pan-European terrorist threat until you just told me. Thank the Lord for you.

Meanwhile, you might not be capable of thinking about two issues at once. Others are. I suggest you just jog on and out of this thread if it's too much for your small brain to cope with.

 

[The Clamp]

Because it is completely irrelevant to the real issues that are happening in the World at the moment?

You may not have noticed that at the moment there are a lot of lunatics running around Europe murdering people en masse in the name of their Faith.

I would submit that this is a rather more important issue than whether someone who died 200 years ago held similar views to almost everyone else in his society at the time?

So we only get to deal with one issue at a time? Blimey, it's gonna take a long time to get things sorted by that logic!

 

[jakarta]

Yes, thanks for telling me - I wasn't aware of the pan-European terrorist threat until you just told me. Thank the Lord for you.

Meanwhile, you might not be capable of thinking about two issues at once. Others are. I suggest you just jog on and out of this thread if it's too much for your small brain to cope with.

I can prioritise issues, some of which are important and some of which are frankly unimportant.

Lefty twats who get off writing rubbish in the Grauniad for their mates is fairly low on my list.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm curious as to why so many people are quite so outraged by the suggestion that we ought to have a debate over it.

I'm not saying it should be pulled down on the whim of a yoghurt knitter, but change is usually a good thing. Isn't it about time women were recognised? We've lived with statues that are almost exclusively men for centuries - why are women so invisible? It's not healthy is it? And what about the fact that this country is made up of a large number of people who might well have been slaves back then - again, hard for them to respect a man who was hell bent on keeping the slavery industry running.

Finally, this whinge at "left wingers" seems wide of the mark, but par-for-the-course for some of NSC's biggest thickies. I'd bet there are many other people who would least like to discuss the subject without hastily being labelled something they're not.

This with bells on. The thread is a straw man. I started on the first page and, without any by your leave, a poster hears the 'alt.right' dog whistle and launches into the left, with infant school level mockery. This is the 'alt.right' equivalent of 'Are you reading the Mail Online this morning? The Mail supported Hitler in the 30s. How can you defend that, you facist?'. Come off it! A whole thread started just for the purpose of blowing raspberries at 'lefties'. What a bunch of clowns.

As for my views, of course I don't want Nelson replaced by Bob Crow. But to defend the retention of provocative symbols of slavery in parts of the US is pathetic. And to do so by equating it with Nelson and Churchill statues is asinine. How can a racist statue in the US be the thin end of the wedge (that leads inevitably to the denigration of Churchill) as the thickies imply? Its the age old logic of the 'alt.right'. Taking the exception to the rule, adding some 'what ifs', and using this to justify an attitude, usually one of hatred. Back in the 70s it was 'Making poofery legal? It will be compulsory, next'. Really? Presumably the 'alt.right' think that if they keep on and on in this way they will attract followers. Good luck, guys.

My message to NSC's bed-wetting 'alt.right' is you will never exterminate everyone who has a different view from you no matter how many dog whistle threads you start.

 

[Simster]

I can prioritise issues, some of which are important and some of which are frankly unimportant.

Maybe you can, but clearly you're not very good at it.

And if it's not important to you, why are you even on this thread?

 

[The Clamp]

I actually quite like Hirsch and while I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, she has a new book coming out on the subject of British Identity and I can only take the view that she is doing a bit of self promotion with this rather weak opinion piece. Yeah, maybe Nelson was in favour of slavery, maybe he wasn't I doubt she cares to be honest, she's got copies to shift.

 

[BadFish]

Quote Originally Posted by jakarta
Because it is completely irrelevant to the real issues that are happening in the World at the moment?

You may not have noticed that at the moment there are a lot of lunatics running around Europe murdering people en masse in the name of their Faith.

I would submit that this is a rather more important issue than whether someone who died 200 years ago held similar views to almost everyone else in his society at the time?

I agree, I think we should limit The Big Board to one thread at a time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

I can prioritise issues, some of which are important and some of which are frankly unimportant.

Lefty twats who get off writing rubbish in the Grauniad for their mates is fairly low on my list.

.... And yet here you are wasting your time discussing it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Goldstone1976]

This puzzles me because Horatio was a supporter of William Pitt, who in turn supported William Wilberforce. I'd like a bit more evidence that Lord Nelson was actively supporting slavery, or more than any other personage of that time.

I'm not sure why you addressed the question to me, since I didn't mention slavery in my post - that was deliberate.

Nelson's unpleasant characteristics, upon which most biographers and scholars agree, were that he treated his womenfolk very badly, both his wife & Emma, he was cruel (particularly in stuff related to the Nile), and he was self-promoting to the point of deception. His record on slavery is more nuanced, which is why I didn't (and won't) refer to it. Sugden, Knight, and Hibbert are probably the best places to start.

 

[Coxovi]

Interesting one. I voted "no" despite being a bit of a lefty. I fully support removing the southern US monuments, as these people were only famous for their actions in fighting to defend a society reliant on, and fighting to protect, slavery. Of course the civil war was much more complicated than that, but the fact of salvery is what it was mainly based on and has come to represent to most people.

Nelson on the other hand is celebrated for his miltary accomplishments in defeating an enemy, thus his personal opinions and politics are not celebrated in the statues.

If we stop venerating the accomplishments of all the people who had opinions or traits we find repugnant, the world will be a sadder place. It would be no different than not celebrating someone if one objected to their being LGBT or for that matter of a different skin color.

 

[jcdenton08]

Absolutely ****ing not.

 

[jakarta]

And if it's not important to you, why are you even on this thread?

To remind self-righteous Grauniad Readers that this man lived in a very different era and that his main purpose was to defend the country using his talents as a Naval Commander against a Country which wished to invade and conquer us.

His views about slavery would have been no different than the majority of the UK populace at the time and are clearly irrelevant as to why his statue was erected.

In short I despise the rewriting of history to suit what is fashionable today.

 

[papajaff]

Keep your eye on the ball Nelson has been gone for years. Gary that is.

Pedant alert...........................Garry

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I expect this writer picked on Nelson because if they'd gone after the statues of Monarchs who were far worse than Nelson they'd get obliterated.

 

[jcdenton08]

Pedant alert...........................Garry

you keep your hands off my kids

 

[Simster]

To remind self-righteous Grauniad Readers that this man lived in a very different era and that his main purpose was to defend the country using his talents as a Naval Commander against a Country which wished to invade and conquer us.

His views about slavery would have been no different than the majority of the UK populace at the time and are clearly irrelevant as to why his statue was erected.

In short I despise the rewriting of history to suit what is fashionable today.

So it is important to you and you've given a perfectly good reason as to why. I don't know why you didn't just engage sensibly like that from the start as it was a far better response than your original glib nonsense - rubbishing those who choose to raise the issue in that annoying 'alt-right' manner is well beneath you, IMO.

As for my opinion, well I think I agree with you. Nelson is probably not the first statue we should consider pulling down, as he is not synonymous with slavery in any way. As you say, his views have to be taken into context of the prevailing views at the time. In the same way that Martin Luther King had some dodgy views on homosexuals, does that mean all his statues should be removed too, seeing as that is also incompatible with modern day tolerance? Of course not.

But, I do believe some statues need to be replaced with women. I feel quite strongly about the fact that we just don't have enough prominent women in society. That kerfuffle with Clarkes shoes really is the thin end of that particular wedge.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Pedant alert...........................Garry

Pedant alert, ellipsis points require only three...