Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Jimmy Saville
Think of it this way...Jimmy Saville.
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Andy-hughes
I believe that Saville is comparable because in the same way that he is seen as reprehensible, so is Colston (to the protesters).
It matters little that slavery was legal back in the day because it’s the views of now that matter.
Saville was never convicted of anything, but it’s our view of him now that colours our perception of him.
I believe that Saville is comparable because in the same way that he is seen as reprehensible, so is Colston (to the protesters).
It matters little that slavery was legal back in the day because it’s the views of now that matter.
Saville was never convicted of anything, but it’s our view of him now that colours our perception of him.
Yes I knew sp.
I also note that at the time plod had something to say. From your link.
""North Yorkshire Police, which is investigating, warned people against defacing such signage, saying these were "criminal acts".""
They are not issuing stern warnings and condemning the defacing of Churchill's statue, for instance, or calling the self indulgent, misguided vandals criminals.
I also note that at the time plod had something to say. From your link.
""North Yorkshire Police, which is investigating, warned people against defacing such signage, saying these were "criminal acts".""
They are not issuing stern warnings and condemning the defacing of Churchill's statue, for instance, or calling the self indulgent, misguided vandals criminals.
iluvmargie
Allegedly.
And again - I'm trying to think into the minds of those who are protesting the statues.
As reprehensible as you find Saville and what he is alleged to have done, do you see how the same could be felt by those who protest the statues?
Not those who are destroying by force - but those who have an issue with them?
Allegedly.
And again - I'm trying to think into the minds of those who are protesting the statues.
As reprehensible as you find Saville and what he is alleged to have done, do you see how the same could be felt by those who protest the statues?
Not those who are destroying by force - but those who have an issue with them?
weecalf
I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with the statues.
If Mayor Khan didn't cover them up, he would be accused of failing to protect them.
But I *do* see your point, but that a bit away from what this thread is about. This is about damaging the statues, and originally I was asking whether people could understand why protesters wanted them removed.
I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with the statues.
If Mayor Khan didn't cover them up, he would be accused of failing to protect them.
But I *do* see your point, but that a bit away from what this thread is about. This is about damaging the statues, and originally I was asking whether people could understand why protesters wanted them removed.
sp - // Andy-hughes
I believe that Saville is comparable because in the same way that he is seen as reprehensible, so is Colston (to the protesters).
It matters little that slavery was legal back in the day because it’s the views of now that matter.
Saville was never convicted of anything, but it’s our view of him now that colours our perception of him. //
I think I have failed to make my point clear here -
The point about the fundamental difference between Colston and Savile is this -
Colston acted as he did within the legal and moral boundaries of the society in which he lived. Slavery was normal and no-one thought it wrong.
Savile acted outside the legal and moral boundaries of the society in which he lived. Paedophilia has never been considered normal, and no-one has ever thought it was right - practitioners aside obviously.
That is where your premise continues to fall down.
I believe that Saville is comparable because in the same way that he is seen as reprehensible, so is Colston (to the protesters).
It matters little that slavery was legal back in the day because it’s the views of now that matter.
Saville was never convicted of anything, but it’s our view of him now that colours our perception of him. //
I think I have failed to make my point clear here -
The point about the fundamental difference between Colston and Savile is this -
Colston acted as he did within the legal and moral boundaries of the society in which he lived. Slavery was normal and no-one thought it wrong.
Savile acted outside the legal and moral boundaries of the society in which he lived. Paedophilia has never been considered normal, and no-one has ever thought it was right - practitioners aside obviously.
That is where your premise continues to fall down.
sp - // As reprehensible as you find Saville and what he is alleged to have done, do you see how the same could be felt by those who protest the statues?
Not those who are destroying by force - but those who have an issue with them? //
No, I can't see that because I understand how history works.
Historically, people acted in a way that we find morally unacceptable, but I accept that that was how their world operated then, it was legal and acceptable to behave that way.
For me to put my 2020 view on their 1820 behaviour is utterly bizarre, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
A better example would be, imagine a totally vegan world in two hundred years from now.
It would be incomprehensible to people born then that we as a society bred and raised animals purely to kill and eat them, but that is what we do now, it is legal and acceptable to the vast number of people on the planet.
Two hundred years hence, people may think that is horrible and wrong, but it wasn't at the time, and you cannot change history, you can simply learn from it, because it makes you who you are, whatever time and society you are born into.
Not those who are destroying by force - but those who have an issue with them? //
No, I can't see that because I understand how history works.
Historically, people acted in a way that we find morally unacceptable, but I accept that that was how their world operated then, it was legal and acceptable to behave that way.
For me to put my 2020 view on their 1820 behaviour is utterly bizarre, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
A better example would be, imagine a totally vegan world in two hundred years from now.
It would be incomprehensible to people born then that we as a society bred and raised animals purely to kill and eat them, but that is what we do now, it is legal and acceptable to the vast number of people on the planet.
Two hundred years hence, people may think that is horrible and wrong, but it wasn't at the time, and you cannot change history, you can simply learn from it, because it makes you who you are, whatever time and society you are born into.
andy-hughes
History cannot be changed. But statues of those who profited from slavery or who were actively involved in it celebrate their lives.
We cannot consign them to the past, because they exist in squares and pavilions where we walk.
The Saville thing - he was never convicted of anything, so it's 100% our *opinion* of him, based on what we think of him now...what we've found out about him.
History cannot be changed. But statues of those who profited from slavery or who were actively involved in it celebrate their lives.
We cannot consign them to the past, because they exist in squares and pavilions where we walk.
The Saville thing - he was never convicted of anything, so it's 100% our *opinion* of him, based on what we think of him now...what we've found out about him.
sp - // andy-hughes
History cannot be changed. But statues of those who profited from slavery or who were actively involved in it celebrate their lives.
We cannot consign them to the past, because they exist in squares and pavilions where we walk.
The Saville thing - he was never convicted of anything, so it's 100% our *opinion* of him, based on what we think of him now...what we've found out about him. //
The point is, the statues do not commemorate slavery, or slavers, they commemorate the philanthropy instigated by the slavers with the money they made.
No-one would accept the way in which the money was obtained - but that is not why these men were revered and commemorated.
Do I have to repeat again - the way in which these men made their money was considered legally and morally acceptable, there is absolutely no comparison with Jimmy Savile, who obtained the money from his philanthropy from public donations to his charity.
There is no statue to Savile because he was a child abuser, and that is not, and never has been acceptable.
Slavery and the resultant philanthropy are connected.
Child abuse and a public profile that gave not hint of it, while creating philanthropy from the goodwill of the general public, are not connected.
History cannot be changed. But statues of those who profited from slavery or who were actively involved in it celebrate their lives.
We cannot consign them to the past, because they exist in squares and pavilions where we walk.
The Saville thing - he was never convicted of anything, so it's 100% our *opinion* of him, based on what we think of him now...what we've found out about him. //
The point is, the statues do not commemorate slavery, or slavers, they commemorate the philanthropy instigated by the slavers with the money they made.
No-one would accept the way in which the money was obtained - but that is not why these men were revered and commemorated.
Do I have to repeat again - the way in which these men made their money was considered legally and morally acceptable, there is absolutely no comparison with Jimmy Savile, who obtained the money from his philanthropy from public donations to his charity.
There is no statue to Savile because he was a child abuser, and that is not, and never has been acceptable.
Slavery and the resultant philanthropy are connected.
Child abuse and a public profile that gave not hint of it, while creating philanthropy from the goodwill of the general public, are not connected.
Child protection. 1889
Any maltreatment
Specifically child abuse 1908 the first Children Act
Humans can be vulnerable for almost as many reasons as there are humans, The wider view may one day give protection to all groups and individuals from the abuses intentional or arising from ignorance, it didn't in Colston's time, it still doesn't now, there are other victims, the mentally ill, the unattractive, the disabled, the LGBT etc, and those of differing ethnicities. Ideas change with time, sometimes incrementally but sometimes it's like an explosion with a shockwaves spreading out
How we deal with the damage will be how we are remembered a hundred years from now.
Any maltreatment
Specifically child abuse 1908 the first Children Act
Humans can be vulnerable for almost as many reasons as there are humans, The wider view may one day give protection to all groups and individuals from the abuses intentional or arising from ignorance, it didn't in Colston's time, it still doesn't now, there are other victims, the mentally ill, the unattractive, the disabled, the LGBT etc, and those of differing ethnicities. Ideas change with time, sometimes incrementally but sometimes it's like an explosion with a shockwaves spreading out
How we deal with the damage will be how we are remembered a hundred years from now.
sp1814 - I absolutely understand what you are trying to say (and so do all those pretending not to), however, choosing Savile to illustrate your point has handed them the opportunity to leap upon your question and drag it off in a different direction from the one I imagine you were hoping it would take.
Colston was a man of his time and a very many of his contemporaries saw no problem with him having overseen the trading of 80,000 human beings.
175 years after his death, the good-Fathers of Bristol were persuaded that his subsequent (to slave-trading) philanthropy was reason enough to erect a statue in his honour - "Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895" (although he constituted his charities to support only those who shared his religious and political views).
125 years after the statue was erected it was torn down by the current citzens of Bristol who have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this statue and have been campaigning since the 1990s for its' removal.
Placing it in a museum where it can be displayed 'in context' will be of more future educational value for 'all' Bristolians, black and white.
Colston was a man of his time and a very many of his contemporaries saw no problem with him having overseen the trading of 80,000 human beings.
175 years after his death, the good-Fathers of Bristol were persuaded that his subsequent (to slave-trading) philanthropy was reason enough to erect a statue in his honour - "Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895" (although he constituted his charities to support only those who shared his religious and political views).
125 years after the statue was erected it was torn down by the current citzens of Bristol who have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this statue and have been campaigning since the 1990s for its' removal.
Placing it in a museum where it can be displayed 'in context' will be of more future educational value for 'all' Bristolians, black and white.
allenlondon - // //What makes Savile not comparable to Colston/Guy? //
The first was a criminal, the others never.
Colston, the slave trader, not a criminal?
What planet do you inhabit, naomi? //
The same one as I do allenlondon, where we accept that in Colston's time, his activities as a slaver were considered neither legally or morally wrong - which is why he was not a criminal.
The first was a criminal, the others never.
Colston, the slave trader, not a criminal?
What planet do you inhabit, naomi? //
The same one as I do allenlondon, where we accept that in Colston's time, his activities as a slaver were considered neither legally or morally wrong - which is why he was not a criminal.
andy-hughes
You wrote:
//the way in which these men made their money was considered legally and morally acceptable//
Yes...in the 18th century - which is why its a problem now.
//There is no statue to Savile because he was a child abuser, and that is not, and never has been acceptable.//
Alleged.
//Slavery and the resultant philanthropy are connected.//
Yes, which is why it's difficult for people to separate the two.
Thank you for your points, I absolutely need to sign off now though as I'm about to host a virtual Sunday night online drinking up, so this will have to be an 'agree to disagree' point.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
You wrote:
//the way in which these men made their money was considered legally and morally acceptable//
Yes...in the 18th century - which is why its a problem now.
//There is no statue to Savile because he was a child abuser, and that is not, and never has been acceptable.//
Alleged.
//Slavery and the resultant philanthropy are connected.//
Yes, which is why it's difficult for people to separate the two.
Thank you for your points, I absolutely need to sign off now though as I'm about to host a virtual Sunday night online drinking up, so this will have to be an 'agree to disagree' point.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
jack - // … however, choosing Savile to illustrate your point has handed them the opportunity to leap upon your question and drag it off in a different direction from the one I imagine you were hoping it would take. //
The problem with using Savile is that his situation is absolutely current, and therefore legal and moral attitudes apply right here and now.
Colston on the other hand enjoys the luxury of the passage of two hundred years of time, during which time attitudes to his behaviour have changed considerably.
This is part of the reason why I believe sp's comparisons to be invalid, and I have tried (and it seems failed) to reason that out with him
The problem with using Savile is that his situation is absolutely current, and therefore legal and moral attitudes apply right here and now.
Colston on the other hand enjoys the luxury of the passage of two hundred years of time, during which time attitudes to his behaviour have changed considerably.
This is part of the reason why I believe sp's comparisons to be invalid, and I have tried (and it seems failed) to reason that out with him
Latest Posts
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Starmer Said Diane Abbot Can Run...
News22 mins ago
ChatterBank33 mins ago
Crosswords72 mins ago
