Should the English withdraw Admiral Nelson's column on Trafalgar square for his pro-slavery position

[Dalia]

There, the English are following the lefties American way.

British author Afua Hirsch argues in an article published in "The Guardian" that Admiral Nelson "vigorously defended slavery" in the West Indies, and aroused debate.

The Column of Admiral Nelson, on Trafalgar Square, London, photographed on October 21, 2005. (KIERAN DOHERTY / REUTERS)

The tourists who visited London inevitably observed it, immense and glorious, in the middle of Trafalgar square: the statue of Admiral Nelson, the same man who with the Royal Navy defeated the Napoleonic army in 1805. But since Thursday, August 24, many Britons are wondering if it should not be dismantled.
The British author and journalist, Afua Hirsch, published a panel in The Guardian denouncing the pro-slavery positions of the Admiral. For her, this statue must be dismantled, just as certain monuments erected to the glory of General Robert E. Lee, head of the army of the southern states and pro-slavery during the Civil War, are dismantled in the United States.
Today, he would be "a white supremacist"
"I immediately thought of personalities like Nelson when I learned that statues of Confederates were dismantled in the United States," wrote Afua Hirsch. For her, the British should collectively question their colonial past as well as the Americans confront the issues of slavery and racial segregation.
"While many denounced slavery, Nelson vigorously defended it," she wrote, "using her seat in the House of Lords and her influential position to perpetuate tyranny, serial rapes and exploitation organized by the landlords Plantations in the West Indies ". Thus, "today, we would call him without hesitation a white supremacist".
According to The Independent, this forum was welcomed by a variety of reactions, with some people considering, as in this micro-pavement of the Sky News channel, that it would be enough to give more information on these racist positions at the foot of the monument.
Is Nelson's Column in London's Trafalgar Square a reminder of history or a symbol of oppression? pic.twitter.com/PciflvWNyz
- Sky News (@SkyNews) August 22, 2017

Les Anglais doivent-il retirer la colonne de l'amiral Nelson, sur Trafalgar square, pour ses positions pro-esclavage ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yeah,why not. Nobody is actually talking about this you know.

 

[Pogo]

There, the English are following the lefties American way.

British author Afua Hirsch argues in an article published in "The Guardian" that Admiral Nelson "vigorously defended slavery" in the West Indies, and aroused debate.

The Column of Admiral Nelson, on Trafalgar Square, London, photographed on October 21, 2005. (KIERAN DOHERTY / REUTERS)

The tourists who visited London inevitably observed it, immense and glorious, in the middle of Trafalgar square: the statue of Admiral Nelson, the same man who with the Royal Navy defeated the Napoleonic army in 1805. But since Thursday, August 24, many Britons are wondering if it should not be dismantled.
The British author and journalist, Afua Hirsch, published a panel in The Guardian denouncing the pro-slavery positions of the Admiral. For her, this statue must be dismantled, just as certain monuments erected to the glory of General Robert E. Lee, head of the army of the southern states and pro-slavery during the Civil War, are dismantled in the United States.
Today, he would be "a white supremacist"
"I immediately thought of personalities like Nelson when I learned that statues of Confederates were dismantled in the United States," wrote Afua Hirsch. For her, the British should collectively question their colonial past as well as the Americans confront the issues of slavery and racial segregation.
"While many denounced slavery, Nelson vigorously defended it," she wrote, "using her seat in the House of Lords and her influential position to perpetuate tyranny, serial rapes and exploitation organized by the landlords Plantations in the West Indies ". Thus, "today, we would call him without hesitation a white supremacist".
According to The Independent, this forum was welcomed by a variety of reactions, with some people considering, as in this micro-pavement of the Sky News channel, that it would be enough to give more information on these racist positions at the foot of the monument.
Is Nelson's Column in London's Trafalgar Square a reminder of history or a symbol of oppression? pic.twitter.com/PciflvWNyz
- Sky News (@SkyNews) August 22, 2017

Les Anglais doivent-il retirer la colonne de l'amiral Nelson, sur Trafalgar square, pour ses positions pro-esclavage ?

Many people of the time defended slavery, sometimes using Christianism to do it. It was a social model of the time.

That's not what the Confederate removal trend is about. It isn't about the subjects of those statues and monuments (many if not most are not of specific people at all) --- it's about the propaganda purpose of their being put there, specifically by the Lost Cause movement of approximately one hundred years ago (at its peak) which is where these monuments came from. That's why they're there, to rewrite the history of a half-century prior, long after that War was already over.

I doubt Britain has such a history.

 

[Political Junky]

Did Admiral Nelson declare war on England?

 

[Pogo]

There, the English are following the lefties American way.

British author Afua Hirsch argues in an article published in "The Guardian" that Admiral Nelson "vigorously defended slavery" in the West Indies, and aroused debate.

The Column of Admiral Nelson, on Trafalgar Square, London, photographed on October 21, 2005. (KIERAN DOHERTY / REUTERS)

The tourists who visited London inevitably observed it, immense and glorious, in the middle of Trafalgar square: the statue of Admiral Nelson, the same man who with the Royal Navy defeated the Napoleonic army in 1805. But since Thursday, August 24, many Britons are wondering if it should not be dismantled.
The British author and journalist, Afua Hirsch, published a panel in The Guardian denouncing the pro-slavery positions of the Admiral. For her, this statue must be dismantled, just as certain monuments erected to the glory of General Robert E. Lee, head of the army of the southern states and pro-slavery during the Civil War, are dismantled in the United States.
Today, he would be "a white supremacist"
"I immediately thought of personalities like Nelson when I learned that statues of Confederates were dismantled in the United States," wrote Afua Hirsch. For her, the British should collectively question their colonial past as well as the Americans confront the issues of slavery and racial segregation.
"While many denounced slavery, Nelson vigorously defended it," she wrote, "using her seat in the House of Lords and her influential position to perpetuate tyranny, serial rapes and exploitation organized by the landlords Plantations in the West Indies ". Thus, "today, we would call him without hesitation a white supremacist".
According to The Independent, this forum was welcomed by a variety of reactions, with some people considering, as in this micro-pavement of the Sky News channel, that it would be enough to give more information on these racist positions at the foot of the monument.
Is Nelson's Column in London's Trafalgar Square a reminder of history or a symbol of oppression? pic.twitter.com/PciflvWNyz
- Sky News (@SkyNews) August 22, 2017

Les Anglais doivent-il retirer la colonne de l'amiral Nelson, sur Trafalgar square, pour ses positions pro-esclavage ?

Many people of the time defended slavery, sometimes using Christianism to do it. It was a social model of the time.

That's not what the Confederate removal trend is about. It isn't about the subjects of those statues and monuments (many if not most are not of specific people at all) --- it's about the propaganda purpose of their being put there, specifically by the Lost Cause movement of approximately one hundred years ago (at its peak) which is where these monuments came from. That's why they're there, to rewrite the history of a half-century prior, long after that War was already over.

I doubt Britain has such a history.

>> The South may have lost the war but in the 50 years after Reconstruction was undone in 1877, it won the second battle: an ideological struggle in which Southern apologists imposed on the national consciousness a revisionist narrative of the conflict, its causes and its consequences. Central to this enterprise, as the historian David Blight writes in his masterly Race and Reunion, was the construction of monuments that, from the mid-1880s to the mid-1920s, memorialized the myth of the “Lost Cause.” Their erection was not to memorialize, but to polemicize.

They were weapons in a campaign of revisionism to erase from memory the reality of slavery as the cornerstone of the Confederacy, its expansion as the reason for secession, its enforcement as coercion, and its maintenance as the bedrock of white supremacy. The monuments were part of a successful campaign to promote the Confederate portrayal of history in the nation’s schoolbooks and to impose the Southern version as the true one. Thus, the War of the Rebellion, as it was known at the time, became the War Between the States, a conflict between two sovereign entities, such as Athens and Sparta, thereby removing the taint of treason. Most important, the strategy was used to impose and codify the Jim Crow laws that subjugated black Americans for another 75 years.

The cause of Southern revisionism was a political movement that manipulated the past to justify a present that deprived blacks of civil and political rights through terror and intimidation. It is ironic that the appeal to “preserve heritage” is now being used to justify memorials built to erase historical memory.

.... Confederate apologists and Southern historians, abetted by kindred academic spirits in the North, controlled a racialist narrative that perpetuated the Lost Cause myth in revisionist histories, polemics, tracts, texts and films, from Birth of a Nation to Gone With the Wind. The appearance of D.W. Griffith’s wildly popular Nation in 1915 celebrated the reunion of an expedient North and a supremacist South at the expense of America’s blacks who would have to wait half a century before the nation began to redress their grievances, still a work in progress.

The demons of racism that animated the antebellum South as well as the North with its black codes, that betrayed Reconstruction, that terrorized blacks in the Gilded Age and segregated them in the Jim Crow era, have never disappeared but assumed different morphologies, most recently the form of white victimization. << -- It's Time for the Lost Cause to Get Lost

 

[irosie91]

AFUA? there is a human named AFUA? I will google

 

[irosie91]

Afua is a girl-------it may mean--'born on friday'

 

[ph3iron]

At least they outlawed it 100 years before we did.
Course they paid off 900 Brits who owned slaves

 

[ph3iron]

Did Admiral Nelson declare war on England?

Ah the truth hurts.
I thought 2 of the confed generals went to West Point and took the vow to protect the country.
Perfect def of treason?

 

[irosie91]

At least they outlawed it 100 years before we did.
Course they paid off 900 Brits who owned slaves

very british of them-------they compensated people who were already rich anyway-----whilst
orphaned kids starved in the gutters of London