Tearing down historical statues the European edition

[Yadryonych]

"First they came for the murderers, then they came for the rapists.... oh no, this means they might come for me!"

Yes, agitated herd can randomly lynch everyone, loot any store and topple any statue. I wonder why are you fine with this, don't remember this happening in sweden

[Dezerte]

Yes, agitated herd can randomly lynch everyone, loot any store and topple any statue. I wonder why are you fine with this, don't remember this happening in sweden

It didn't happen because it's a slippery slope.

[josykay]

Considering people talk about tearing down statues of Churchill

I think said hydra is here already.. Ave Hydra or whatever that would be.

Regardless if people want to debate the US issues then there is like a zillion threads for it

This thread is for this continent i would think

Ask Anzacs, the relatives of the sailors of the Coronels and the people of Bengal, if Churchill deserves a statue...

[NED funded]

Protestors trying to take down a statue beat up a state senator

Nazis the lot of them

https://mobile.twitter.com/TimCarpen...or-attacked%2F

News reporting on this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wiscons...-attacked/#app

[Shadowferal]

Being pro-violence is working as intended, I'm sure.

[Xarkan]

Ask Anzacs, the relatives of the sailors of the Coronels and the people of Bengal, if Churchill deserves a statue...

Ask yourself if he was not Prime minister exactly because he was a bastard and that was what Britain wanted at the time?

[NED funded]

Ask Anzacs, the relatives of the sailors of the Coronels and the people of Bengal, if Churchill deserves a statue...

Ask the people of pakistan if Ghandi deserves a statue

Dont be like this

[GreenJesus]

Well he was quite a well known white supremacist but my chief point of contention with putting up statues of the man is the 2-3 million Indian people that needlessly starved to death as a result of his policies.

As I said before, construct a memorial to the victims of the Bengal famine in its place.

Honestly, who the fuck cares about some irrelevant shit like that. He helped unite the world against the Nazi's. There would literally be no one in history that is "okay" according to these far left rioters. Get over it that some people didn't live up to your 2020 standards while sitting in your basement on a computer getting fat on cheetos. Privileged ass people that look down on people in a different time and culture. It's honestly incredibly aggravating.

It's real easy to just sit there on your computer and complain about heroes in the past that weren't perfect or made mistakes while ignoring the great achievements and strides they made for humandkind.

[josykay]

Ask the people of pakistan if Ghandi deserves a statue

Dont be like this

Ghandi was not responsible for multiple million people dying of starvation.
Churchill's politics did literally cost millions their life.
And even before that, he was responsible for some horrible losses, the british and their colonies suffered in WW1.
(And having the dishonor, of causing the first british defeat at seas for over 100 years... which ended with 2 armored cruisers sunk, 1 light cruiser damaged, and over 1600 sailors killed. Against 3 germans wounded)

[Thekri]

Honestly, who the fuck cares about some irrelevant shit like that. He helped unite the world against the Nazi's. There would literally be no one in history that is "okay" according to these far left rioters.

It isn't irrelevant to the Bengali's. But I am not in favor of Churchill's statue coming down, he is a historically significant character whose contributions are relevant to the way he is being honored.

He is also a vastly overrated hack, an aristocratic asshole that happily tossed away tens of thousands of lives to further his personal ambitions, a divisive and incompetent leader, a warmonger, and a white supremacist. That history also deserves to be taught.

Some examples of why Churchill REALLY sucked.

The Gallipoli campaign. Like the whole damn thing. Churchill proposed the attack, mostly because as the First Lord of the Admiralty, he felt the war was really hurting his career. The German High Seas fleet refused to leave port and give decisive battle, and the Royal Navy had been mediocre at best in attempting to have any impact on the fighting. So he came up with the genius idea of attacking the Ottoman empire exactly where they were strongest. His actual justification for the campaign was that he would use obsolete warships and colonial forces that "Had no significant use to the war effort", so nothing would be lost of value if it failed. Of course obsolete warships are still crewed by sailors. Long story short, unmitigated disaster, absolutely no strategic benifit, killed so many ANZACs that both nations still treat the anniversary as their version of memorial day, recalling the absolute horror that Winston Fucking Churchill put them through for no damn reason.

He totally failed the British navy as first lord of the Admiralty, emphasizing "Good order and discipline" over combat performance. This led to such charming practices as painting entire warships as often as twice a month, without stripping the previous paint first. So solid steel plate wound up covered with dozens of layers of thick, flammable, paint. When German shells hit British ships, they burned like candles. The budget being spent on paint, polish and parades meant little emphasis was given to gunnery drills, so in order to maintain adequate rates of fire, turret crews took to leaving the blast doors open between rounds. With nothing to stop a flames from a hit on deck going straight to the armory, this tended to result in British ships exploding spectacularly, killing their entire crew of more than a thousand. This did not happen to any other navy (At least not with that cause), it was a solely British phenomena, directly resulting from Winston Fucking Churchill's political ambitions.

The aforementioned Bengali famines were a particularly horrific example of a planned famine, with death tolls in the millions. Following the Japanese invasion of Burma, the British Government anticipated an invasion of India. The plan Churchill's government came up with to stop this, was a premptive scorched earth tactic, to destroy Bengal and the rest of eastern India, to prevent Japanese soldiers from foraging food while they moved. The "Denial Policies" were a deliberate seizure and destruction and removal of rice and other food stuffs. Allegedly this was supposed to apply to "excess rice", but the catastrophic loss of food and starvation that followed obviously contradict that. Two to Three Million Bengalis starved to death, victims of an invasion that never happened. Because Winston Fucking Churchill felt that Indian life was expendable as a defensive tactic, and starved 3 million people to death.

When someone leaves deep national trauma on at least 4 nations (Australia, New Zealand, India, and Bangladesh) that is vividly remembered and memorialized even today, he probably isn't a great person. But he is significant, and he is part of history. He is a "Great Man" but definitely not a "Good Man".

[GreenJesus]

You keep referring to Niemöller's poems, but you're doing it wrong.

A slippery slope is saying one thing will lead to a completely different kind of thing. Gay marriage today, dog marriage tomorrow! But there's no logical connection between gay marriage and dog marriage unless you've been hit in the head.

In Niemöller's poem, first they came for the communists. He's referring to an objectively bad action by the Nazis to remove the communists and their belief - and I'm actually quoting Hitler here - that "all men are equal," because "equality is a sin against nature." You may only know of communism from what it is today and what rabid right wing media says about it, which is neither here nor there, but in the 1920s and 30s it was seen as promoting basic civil liberties. This poem is not about Hitler eradicating a bad thing and then it led to them eradicating good things because no one stood up for the bad thing. It's about the Nazis doing an objectively bad thing and then more bad things happened because no one stood up against the other bad things.

This is what makes your thing a slippery slope. Removing racist statues is a good thing. Gay marriage does not naturally lead to dog marriage. Removing racist statues does not naturally lead to removing you.

Slippery slope has actually been pretty accurate in recent times. "Lol.. what will they do next? Tear down Thomas Jefferson or George Washington?" And look. They are trying to do that now.

Unemployment checks of $600 a week during corona? "Give us this unemployment check forever so we never have to work again!"

Once you give an inch, they'll try to steal a mile.

[Zan15]

Slippery slope has actually been pretty accurate in recent times. "Lol.. what will they do next? Tear down Thomas Jefferson or George Washington?" And look. They are trying to do that now.

Unemployment checks of $600 a week during corona? "Give us this unemployment check forever so we never have to work again!"

Once you give an inch, they'll try to steal a mile.

600 sure sounds great but by the time you pay for health insurance, offset the lost earnings on unemployment, offset the loss on retirement/pension employer contributions and other lost benefits... the 600 becomes a lot less impressive when the tally comes due at the end of the month.

[GreenJesus]

600 sure sounds great but by the time you pay for health insurance, offset the lost earnings on unemployment, offset the loss on retirement/pension employer contributions and other lost benefits... the 600 becomes a lot less impressive when the tally comes due at the end of the month.

Oh wait. I was mistaken. I only put $600. It is an ADDITIONAL $600. So they are actually making $1200 a week. 40% of workers are currently making more from unemployment than they would by working. It's insane.

[Elegiac]

Oh wait. I was mistaken. I only put $600. It is an ADDITIONAL $600. So they are actually making $1200 a week. 40% of workers are currently making more from unemployment than they would by working. It's insane.

Indeed, it's insane that wages are that low.

[Zan15]

Oh wait. I was mistaken. I only put $600. It is an ADDITIONAL $600. So they are actually making $1200 a week. 40% of workers are currently making more from unemployment than they would by working. It's insane.

40% of workers are making more than their current salary....but how many are making more than their total compensation including the benefits they lost.

I bet that number drops substantially.

then how many of those making more than their current salary will not be back at work come july 31st and those people who earned more than they did while working will quickly drop given the fact that unemployment max is what at best 50% of just your salary.


So for a little while these people have some extra money.

An additional 600 is not needed for most everyone, I think its a good number as it is given all the extra benefits lost.



for example my cook neighbor would only get 239 dollars a week unemployment vs 525 salary.
So he is making 839 right now instead of 525.

His boss said there is a good chance they might only bring back 6 of the 10 whom were laid off in the kitchen.



16 payments of 839 = 13,424 - Total salary $8400 = $5024 extra (if you don't assume the health insurance he used to pay 50% for)

16 payments of 839 = 13424 - 8400 salary - (86 dollars a week insurance) 1376 = $3648 extra

August unemployment 239 - salary 525 = -286 a week. So in the same time frame 16 weeks he will lose the extra $5024 he made.

Now that is assuming he does not buy health insurance his employer used to pay half for. Include now the 100% he has to pay for insurance he would be Even after just 12 weeks.

Of course depending on what state he is in he could once he drops to 239 qualify for Medicaid or subsidized ACA. But a large percentage of people can't.


This is just one example of how the $600 is really not all that substantial of a windfall. Maybe for the people get right back to work July 31st but anyone after that point not really

[Fincayra]

I will say this. Whether the statues are of positive role models or of negative role models from history, the public square isn't the right place for them. We have places for remembering history. It's called museums. I have no issues with having sections of museums related to the preservation of knowledge of the darker sides of history in America. I 100% understand the motives of the people knocking down these statues. I just feel destroying them isn't the way to go. A compromise would be to move them to a museum.

[Themius]

I will say this. Whether the statues are of positive role models or of negative role models from history, the public square isn't the right place for them. We have places for remembering history. It's called museums. I have no issues with having sections of museums related to the preservation of knowledge of the darker sides of history in America. I 100% understand the motives of the people knocking down these statues. I just feel destroying them isn't the way to go. A compromise would be to move them to a museum.

Consider that many of them were put up by white nationalists or kkk members or kkk affiliate groups durrng the civil rights era and other times when major laws for black Americans were passed.

- - - Updated - - -

40% of workers are making more than their current salary....but how many are making more than their total compensation including the benefits they lost.

I bet that number drops substantially.

Stopped here because I do not agree with this conclusion, being that the jobs lost were mostly lower paid jobs, while unemployment for higher tier jobs was quite low. Service type jobs and customer facing jobs were those that went.

These people often do not have benefits, or substantial benefits. Many people within this tier forgo benefits because they can't actually afford even the partial payments required of them.

[Zan15]

Stopped here because I do not agree with this conclusion, being that the jobs lost were mostly lower paid jobs, while unemployment for higher tier jobs was quite low. Service type jobs and customer facing jobs were those that went.

These people often do not have benefits, or substantial benefits. Many people within this tier forgo benefits because they can't actually afford even the partial payments required of them.

https://www.census.gov/library/publi...o/p60-267.html

In 2018, 85.1 percent of full-time, year-round workers and 68.5 percent of people who worked less than full-time, year-round had private coverage.


24.7 percent of people in households with incomes below $25,000, the lowest income category, had private coverage in 2018
47.9 percent of people in households with household income of $25,000 to $49,999, had private coverage in 2018.
65.9 percent of people in households with household income of $50,00 to $74,999, had private coverage in 2018.


a substantial amount of those people who are getting the 600 dollars had to replace the private coverage they had. This does not include public coverage (Medicaid) since most of that is cost free.

From a poverty tracking:

Total, poverty universe = 67.3% had private coverage.

Below 100 percent of  poverty 22%
Below 138 percent of  poverty 24.7%
Between 100 to 199  percent of poverty 41.6%

[Fincayra]

Consider that many of them were put up by white nationalists or kkk members or kkk affiliate groups durrng the civil rights era and other times when major laws for black Americans were passed.

That's why I don't think they should be on display. Clearly people who were involved in the slave trade shouldn't have statues in the town square honoring them.

[Yadryonych]

Ask Anzacs, the relatives of the sailors of the Coronels and the people of Bengal, if Churchill deserves a statue...

Why don't ask Britons? Oh wait they have already been asked