UK city council rules out removing Gandhi statue

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s definitely hard to find famous figures that aren’t considered objectionable in some way or another, especially people in major political or cultural roles. Relatively spotless people rarely become famous.
 
Last edited:
Destroying all these statues is the equivalent to book burning. If you wanted, you could find fault with nearly every book ever written because their will always be someone who finds fault. Those who destroy are acting as they were perfect in themselves. Yes, slavery was and is indeed wrong and sadly been around a long time, even mentioned in the Bible. Money off these slave owners was often bequeathed to a city or area to build a library, college or museum. Should not we bulldoze the buildings also?
 
Last edited:
His campaign to end British rule resulted in more dearhs than the entire Second World War. It isn’t at all obvious that the Indian subcontinent has benefitted from independence.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I thought maybe it was alleged sexism.

Honestly, if we only put up statues of perfect people, we will have no statues at all.
Click to expand...
Those who are coming after statues have no care for the people they represent, but instead they detest and revile the values and institutions which they stand for.

Moral faults in a hero are simply excuses for iconoclasm and damnatio memoriae.
 
While I definitely wouldn’t put Gandhi in the same group as a Confederate general, there are legitimate reasons for a black person to be unhappy seeing his statue all over the place. One person sees a peaceful civil rights leader, but an African-British or an African-American might see something very, very different.

Again, if one’s knowledge of Gandhi is based purely on the movie, then it’s a pretty one-sided knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I put myself in that category, or at least I had that one-sided perception growing up.
 
Last edited:
Gandhi was far from a perfect person, but if he didn’t push the nonviolent resistance concept and inspire Dr. King and others to do the same, we may well have had violent race war in USA.
 
I’m not a historian, I do not post this to throw stones, this is history… and there are those who explain it away, so I’m not even posting this to be critical of Churchill; but if one is talking about India back in the day, this is also said:


Some may say this is false OR they may say it was an accidental consequence to the actions of actually, feeding the homeland, the UK, during World War II.

I personally think this was a sort of consequence to World War II. Look it up for oneself, it could be totally false. I certainly still like Churchill. It’s one of those controversies of history.

In fact, here is Hillsdale College’s response from their Winston Churchill project, one needs to always be fair:

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top