Voices
in
Japan

poll

Cities around the world are taking steps to remove statues that represent cultural or racial oppression. Do you support such moves?

65 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

65 Comments
Login to comment

While it may be offensive to some, but it is a historical monument that has been there decades or probably centuries and have withstood several social movements. If governments had that mentality of removing historical landmarks due to being offensive, the world would end up destroying nearly every historical structure our ancestors have built.

-1 ( +22 / -23 )

Represent = 'seen or perceived by part of the community' to represent oppression?

Redesign the information plaque to give an accurate assessment of why the individual was seen as an important figure way back when, warts and all. Or move to a museum.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

It reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China where lots of valuable cultural properties had been destroyed alongside mass killings, although the scale of devastation is quite different.

We shouldn't rush to judge historic events or legacy in our contemporary value systems.

Even though activists have valid reason and mass support for statue removal, they still should carry it out in a civil manner through democratic process. Pulling down a statue by force is awful.

19 ( +30 / -11 )

This.

In George Orwell's “1984” he wrote that “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped.”

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, throughout the US and Great Britain, the Marxist iconoclasts are at work. Statues of Confederate generals and British slave traders have been removed, Penny Lane of Beatles fame is to be renamed as is Gladstone Hall in the University of Liverpool, Churchill's statue in Westminster has been vandalised with graffiti and London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has announced the creation of a new “Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm” which will examine all London landmarks to decide whether they should be removed or renamed according to the diktats of the commissars.

Interestingly, Hitler wanted Nelson's column removed from Trafalgar Square and taken to Berlin, had the planned Nazi invasion of Britain, Operation Sealion, succeeded, because he knew it was regarded by the British people as a symbol of the country's greatness.

In their quest for totalitarian conformity, the Marxist commissars will not stop at statues. They are going after works of art too. “Gone With the Wind” has disappeared from online circulation. They'll be banning the works of Rudyard Kipling and H.G. Wells soon. Politically incorrect plays and paintings will be next. Let us hope that it doesn't all end up in a Maoist culture war where we are all subjected to “struggle sessions” and ritual humiliation until we subscribe to the prevailing groupthink, as evidenced by the police “taking the knee” in both America and Great Britain.

These civic statues and buildings are all historical artefacts. If you erase them, then there is no history. If there is no history then the Marxist vandals can fill the void with whatever vile claptrap they decide to come up with. That is why the Endeavour models must be reinstated.

Patrick Cooper

11 ( +26 / -15 )

Destroying history is not a Human thing to do. Without history we would not learn from our past mistakes.

11 ( +22 / -11 )

Moving a statue of King Leopold of Belgium into a glass case in a museum is not equal to China's so-called Cultural Revolution. What surpasses the gore of the "Cultural Revolution" is King Leopold's genocide in the Belgian Congo: 10 million Africans slaughtered on royal order. Not just slaughtered but often tortured to death. People don't think of Leopold's crimes if his statue is in a park overlooking picnickers. The statue In a glass case with his vile history explained would draw a different response.

So it would be with all he other monsters of recent history (that the powers that be have chosen to honor) if they were removed from parks and malls and put into museums for monsters.

16 ( +23 / -7 )

nandakandamanda

Spot on! We have museums that depict Atrocities by the Nazis and other slaughters. These statues should be moved to museums and a more honest discourse about who those people were needs to take place. But they should not be left in a public square for us to immortalize as heros. That would be wrong

10 ( +17 / -7 )

Removing statues is such a 'social media response'.

Faux outrage by so many who jump on a popular bandwagon, and have absolutely no detailed knowledge of the issues at hand.

"Yeah, like Carla on Twitter said Churchill was a racist. That's well bad. I can't believe he's got a statue. #TearItdown #EvilChurchill".

Society has become so dumbed down, every complex issue must be turned into simple, binary choices. Something is good, or something is bad. If you happen to be on the side that isn't the most popular, then you are vilified no matter what justifiable reasons you might have.

The BLM protests is the perfect example of this. And Sam Harris' most recent podcast perfectly explains the issues and where the masses are getting it wrong. We can all be against racism, and all forms of discrimination - as we should because it's abhorrent - but we have to use our brains to get it right, rather than just making knee jerk reactions that get it completely wrong.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

And Sam Harris' most recent podcast perfectly explains the issues and where the masses are getting it wrong. We can all be against racism, and all forms of discrimination - as we should because it's abhorrent - but we have to use our brains to get it right, rather than just making knee jerk reactions that get it completely wrong.

I listened to that. He’s a clever man who has made the point that this kind of behaviour is very useful to the right. Trump is in all kinds of trouble regarding the economy and his handling of Covid, but the excesses of some like situations like this could swing voters his way.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

A statue is a sign of honor. No one puts up statues of historical figures and then writes negative things about that person. It's not a re-writing of history but a righting of history. Why the hell should there be statues of people who started a rebel government and had a hand in slavery? Columbus never even stepped foot on the North American continent and figured he was in India. Couldn't even get a street named for any black person until the late 20th century.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Making the past disappear is what these statues are about - the celebrate victors' justice, and their right to impose the "winner's" version of events on both history and the landscape. It's really a form of reverse revisionism.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Let me say too that although I don't revere them like I did as a child, I think the Founding Fathers' statues and monuments should be untouchable, and no one should even suggest removal or move to desecrate them. They were slave owners, racists and flawed men too but they created the U.S. and that alone is good enough for me.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

A statue that was put up of a slave owner, slave trader when the general public thought there was nothing wrong with it at the time. Should be taken down when people are outraged that such time's existed. It should have been done a long time ago. Why should such monuments exist? There was a reason why monuments of Hitler were taken down as soon as he was defeated. Now is the time to end racism. And if you think keeping up a statue of a slave trader, owner is a good thing. Well you're a racist.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

I agree with some of the comments above: put the statues in museums with informative placards. History should never be forgotten, let alone intentionally erased.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And if you think keeping up a statue of a slave trader, owner is a good thing. Well you're a racist.

If a statue exists solely to celebrate someone for being a slave trader or owner, then yes I completely agree with you.

If, on the other hand, a statue exists to primarily memorialize a groundbreaking discovery, political landmark, or historical event / achievement etc. then it should stay, and the accompanying plaque amended to add any information we now understand to be unacceptable.

That doesn't make me racist.

Every single case needs to be taken on it's own merits. You can't just compare everything to not having statues of Hitler.

I know this issue is directly related to racism, so I don't mean to derail or belittle that aspect - but following a similar train of thought, do we all start campaigning to raze the Coliseum because in addition to being an architectural marvel, it memorializes murder for entertainment? As and when it becomes socially unacceptable to eat meat, do we remove all statues of meat eaters?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

It's like the Nazi book burning campaign in the 1930s. You can't simply just remove history that doesn't suit you, or that you don't like, it's still a part of our brutal history.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

It's like the Nazi book burning campaign in the 1930s. You can't simply just remove history that doesn't suit you, or that you don't like, it's still a part of our brutal history.

It's not like book burning at all, so save your equivocation fallacy.

I am from London and the centre of the city is full of statues, mostly erected in the Victorian period. Erecting statues seemed to be a bit of a Victorian fad and the standard required to getting a statue of yourself was pretty low.

I don't see why we should be forced to live with relative nonentities littering my hometown because of a relatively brief fashion for statues.

Some of these people turns out that they made their fortune through the slave trade: get rid of them. The case is Bristol is fine - we should not be celebrating a slave trader.

The demands to tear down Churchill's statue is completely different. He may have been a racist, but there good he did far outweighs his "thought crime"

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Some of these people turns out that they made their fortune through the slave trade: get rid of them. The case is Bristol is fine - we should not be celebrating a slave trader.

The demands to tear down Churchill's statue is completely different. He may have been a racist, but there good he did far outweighs his "thought crime"

Exactly. Every case is different.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So when are the pyramids coming down?

When is the Colosseum coming down?

When is the Vatican coming down?

When are the other cultural and historical items coming down?

All these things were built using slaves and are famous for the treatment of the slaves and human atrocities so why are they not coming down going on the woke agenda and argument, anyone have any answers? And will it be live screened ?

There is absolutely no difference bring em down if they are for bringing down anything to do with slaves and racism bring em down ! Or is their argument flawed ?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

@nishikat

America has an estimated 17,500 foreign nationals and 400,000 Americans being trafficked into and within the United States every year with 80% of those being women and children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery_in_the_United_States

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't agree destroying, instead put a placate that says "this dude is a racist"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In some ways, if society's biggest problem is statues and street names, we might think we have moved along quite a way. Sadly, I don't think that's the case. Whether prejudicial division by race or religion or whatever, those divisions are most obvious among the poorer sections of society. And the division between rich and poor seems to be getting wider again. It's time for some bigger social changes that increase wealth and opportunities for the poorest. And if someone can bring that about, we probably won't mind another statue.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Whether one likes it or not, it’s part and parcel of most cultures ... good, bad or indifferent.

Revisionism does not change the past.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I think the statues should be removed but not destroyed - rather, placed in museums where they can stand as exemplars of the colonial/slave era mentality and where their history can be recorded.

Similarly to the retention of some Nazi Concentration Camps - they are monuments to how badly Human beings can behave towards on another when a madman takes control of a country.

We need to be reminded of these events so that we can try to ensure they do not happen again.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In "1984", you get arrested for mentioning anything erased from history. This isn't happening here, so it is not "Orwellian".

Statues are supposed to celebrate or symbolize something. If we no longer want to celebrate or symbolize that thing, of course they should be taken down. Modern equivalents of these statues would be ones to Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg etc., people who've done all sorts to avoid tax and abuse a market position, destroying lots of competing tax-paying businesses in the process, but have also given a small part of their fortune to charity and hence have "earned" a statue. I think you would have to be bat droppings crazy to think Richard Branson deserves a statue for all eternity.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bjorn TomentionJune 16  03:17 pm JST

So when are the pyramids coming down?

When is the Colosseum coming down?

When is the Vatican coming down?

When are the other cultural and historical items coming down?

YOUR argument is flawed. The argument is about BLM, slavery in the U.S.' history and having statues of Confederates, who were traitors and members of another country, in these United States.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

You show me one country that hasn't experienced slavery at some point in history and i'll show you ten that has.

Stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago. Those people sacrificed and survived so you can have the life you live today. Those statues are there so we can remember that. Not to mention that it's not up to another race or nationality to remove the monuments of another culture which they find "offensive". Offence is subjective, not objective. If the statues actually shot lasers out their eyes and killed people of a different race then yeah, we'd have to do something about that, but they don't; all they do is tell a history that we should all be aware of.

Also, in the UK, racism isn't as rife and systemic as the BLM movement likes to make out. In fact, those people are living in the least racist, most tolerant and affluent time in human history. And here is another hard truth for you to suck up: that small amount of discrimination we see now and then ... it ain't going anywhere, because it's built into human biology. We evolved to be tribalistic by nature. That doesn't mean we can't have a world where descrimination is at a minimum, but forget about this typical radical leftist utopian delusion of a descriminatory free world, because it ain't happening.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Removing, relocating, adding explanatory plaques or even "complementary" equivalents (of opposite POV/groups) are all fine ways to deal with this.

Simply leaving them under the guise of "history" is naive, at best.

For example, the "historic" statues of the Confederate South are not that old, and were installed around the South, as part of a false history (or "fake news" as many of their ilk like to describe such things):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

However, in the UK, the debate has been rather interesting, with some black historians advocating keeping some statues as a "warts and all" approach:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bgMVI8GDp2k

One thing that (thankfully) isn't being done is simply ignoring the situation and allowing the status quo to continue.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Simply leaving them under the guise of "history" is naive, at best.

In what way is it naive? The reality of taking your approach is that you don't know where to stop. If we start removing everything that people find offensive then we'll simply wash out history and start rewriting it as we see fit. That's Orwellian to say the least.

You don't get to tear down a British statue in Britain just because YOU find it offensive. Should we stop making documentaries about Nazi Germany because people might find it offensive? Should we rip down the Burma-Siam Railway because it was built by Allied POWs?

Your logic is based around "offence" and offence is nothing but subjective. It's weak and immature.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Also, in the UK, racism isn't as rife and systemic as the BLM movement likes to make out. In fact, those people are living in the least racist, most tolerant and affluent time in human history.

that is far from the truth. Why have there been more than ten government commissions and reports on racism and discrimination in recent times.

The Brexit highlighted the divisions of the nation including groups like the EDL.

Certainly, racism in the UK is nothing like in America but it’s still there.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Certainly, racism in the UK is nothing like in America but it’s still there.

I often hear that, but I don't see much difference between the two. In any case, 2 different cultures with very different histories regarding races, so not that easy to compare.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

CrazyGaijinToday  06:58 pm JST

You show me one country that hasn't experienced slavery at some point in history and i'll show you ten that has.

Countries don't experience slavery but people do, and to the last part of your statement, I say: What does that have to do with anything? "What? You guys had slavery? We didn't." You may not be aware nor care but slavery was a HUGE part of European, North American, South American and African history during the better part of the last 400 years. Those are continents, by the way, not a country.

Stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago. 

Don't think George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and a whole lot more died 'hundreds of years ago' but if you mean slavery in the U.S., it supposedly ended in 1865 but it did not end in practice nor in principle. Why did MLK have to march for basic civil rights back in the 1960s? Why did Rosa Parks have to take a stand just to get a seat? Why did LBJ need to sign the Civil Rights Act in 1965? Why is the Klan still active and not just in the Southern states? Why is it OK for some to say this guy who died 500 years ago is a hero and put up statues and holidays in his honor but not OK for other people who are descendants of the people who he helped to oppress to say he wasn't a hero? Anyway, with these statues coming down, it sounds like the 'whining' you wrote about is coming from the other side to me.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Countries don't experience slavery but people do, and to the last part of your statement, I say: What does that have to do with anything? "What? You guys had slavery? We didn't." You may not be aware nor care but slavery was a HUGE part of European, North American, South American and African history during the better part of the last 400 years. Those are continents, by the way, not a country.

And that proves what exactly? That you distinguished people experience slavery, not countries? The people OF A COUNTRY experience slavery. Your comment is pointless and irrelevant.

Don't think George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and a whole lot more died 'hundreds of years ago' but if you mean slavery in the U.S., it supposedly ended in 1865 but it did not end in practice nor in principle. Why did MLK have to march for basic civil rights back in the 1960s? Why did Rosa Parks have to take a stand just to get a seat? Why did LBJ need to sign the Civil Rights Act in 1965? Why is the Klan still active and not just in the Southern states? Why is it OK for some to say this guy who died 500 years ago is a hero and put up statues and holidays in his honor but not OK for other people who are descendants of the people who he helped to oppress to say he wasn't a hero? Anyway, with these statues coming down, it sounds like the 'whining' you wrote about is coming from the other side to me.

You mean the Goerge Floyd that was a meth head, who was jacked up on methd when he was arrested? The George Floyd that was a petty criminal who pointed a gun at a pregnant womens stomach? The George Floyd who had a previous beef with the actual cop who killed him? That whole situation, as time has shown, was barely about racism at all, yet they all jumped on that bangwagon very quickly. That's indicative of the lack of rational thinking by the radical left.

The statues in Britain were put up by the British people, and it's their choice whether to bring them down. Not the choice of a ignorant mob with superficial and subjective views. Do you see people going to Rome and tearing down statues because they colonized most of Europe at one point? Tearing down history is no better than burning books, just because they offend you. If you get offended by a statue in the priviledged societies you live in today, then you need to grow up. And do you think somehow that all white people were living a life of luxury hundreds of years ago? Think again! 99% of them were poverty-stricken, dying of exposure or infection, and working till their fingers bled just so they could afford basic shelter and some bread.

Racism, like all descrimination, is part of life, and it's not going anywhere. If I go to an Asian or African country, I'm subject to racism. But you ignore it because it's the work of an ignorant few, not the oppressive nature of a whole society. Not to mention that experiencing such things toughens you up as an individual. The world that the radical left is striving for creates fragile people. I can't stress enough how detrimental and dangerous that is on a psychological level.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

What a lot of commenters here who are opposed to their removal don’t seem to understand is that the statues are in places of honor in governmental building like legislature buildings and courthouses. The statues are being removed and taken to museums and cemeteries or memorial locations which puts them in the proper context. No one wants to erase the history, but imagine if you were black and you had to walk between racist, slave owners in order to talk to your representative or if you were Jewish and you had to pass Hitler or Mengele to enter the courthouse. It’s unconscionable and a complete lack of empathy to expect people to have to do that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You mean the Goerge Floyd that was a meth head, who was jacked up on methd when he was arrested? The George Floyd that was a petty criminal who pointed a gun at a pregnant womens stomach? The George Floyd who had a previous beef with the actual cop who killed him? That whole situation, as time has shown, was barely about racism at all, yet they all jumped on that bangwagon very quickly. That's indicative of the lack of rational thinking by the radical left.

So Floyd has no rights because of his past? There was a beef so the guy killed him and you see nothing wrong with that? By that reckoning, a lot of Hollywood stars who have a long record of drug use, like Robert Downey Jr., should have had someone kneel on their necks for almost nine minutes too. It's all about racism and the systemic violation of basic human rights and I understand people with your attitude because I can see your hood through the Internet and that is precisely the reason why these protests are continuing and those statues are coming down. Nothing you can do about it either.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What a lot of commenters here who are opposed to their removal don’t seem to understand is that the statues are in places of honor in governmental building like legislature buildings and courthouses. The statues are being removed and taken to museums and cemeteries or memorial locations which puts them in the proper context. No one wants to erase the history, but imagine if you were black and you had to walk between racist, slave owners in order to talk to your representative or if you were Jewish and you had to pass Hitler or Mengele to enter the courthouse. It’s unconscionable and a complete lack of empathy to expect people to have to do that.

You see them simply as tyrannical slavers, British people see them as those who built and contributed towards British societies. There is more to their legacy than simply being associated with the slave trade. The slave trade was a different time. Black people don't have to endure those kinds of attrocities anymore because their ancestors fight for the liberties they have today -- AND THEY HAVE THEM!

What I don't understand about the BLM movement is what they're actually trying to achieve? What is it they think will change? It's like I said in another post: racism is the product of a ignorant remnants in society; it's not as systemic as people make out. I can understand it being quite bad in the US, but in Britain and Europe ... no chance. It's like a memory stick blowing up in your computer and then throwing your whole rig out of the window and replacing it with a new one. That's lazy thinking and unnecessary. In fact, it's quite indicative of an emotionally driven agenda. The limbic system overriding the prefrontal cortex, which is normal with anger and anxiety. They're letting emotions drive their actions rather than logic. Society doesn't need a revamp.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

British people see them as those who built and contributed towards British societies.

Has a Brit, I don't so you don't speak for everyone. They are usually erected by governments not the people themselves. We don't have any say in the matters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The statues in Britain were put up by the British people, and it's their choice whether to bring them down. Not the choice of a ignorant mob with superficial and subjective views.

Just who are the 'British people?' Seems to me the British people are the ones who took them down. The 'mob'aren't British to you because they did something you are against or they weren't white enough. More news for you: Everyone's view is subjective. Even those judges on the Supreme Court. That's why you usually see voting right along party lines. The only thing you are proving is my point: There are still millions like you who don't care about seeing the rights of (mostly) minorities constantly being violated but cry bloody murder about a hunk of metal statue being rightfully taken down. The struggle continues.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just who are the 'British people?' Seems to me the British people are the ones who took them down. The 'mob'aren't British to you because they did something you are against or they weren't white enough. More news for you: Everyone's view is subjective. Even those judges on the Supreme Court. That's why you usually see voting right along party lines. The only thing you are proving is my point: There are still millions like you who don't care about seeing the rights of (mostly) minorities constantly being violated but cry bloody murder about a hunk of metal statue being rightfully taken down. The struggle continues.

Who are the British people? Those whose ancestors built it. Make no mistake, Britain is a predominantly white nation and has been for thousands of years. It's actually only in the last twenty years that it has become a much more multicultural society, and the majority of that is seen in London and other city centers. Largely in part due to the mass migration of refugees from the Middle East and Africa.

Unfortunately your "news" sucks. Subjective is the opposite of objective, so no, not everyones view is subjective. I build arguments on qualitative and sometimes quantitative points of view which means they have a logical foundation. Judges in the Supreme Court pass judgements dictated by law, which, sadly to say, some laws are actually poorly determined.

Don't care about seeing the rights of minorities being violated? You mean, if they are actually being violated to begin with? What exactly is it I'm missing here? They can't get jobs? They can't go to schools? Buy things in shops? Get welfare? Healthcare? Go to universities? Be chairs on company boards? Become lawyers? Politicians? Work as scientists? Doctors?

The reality is minorities have the same rights as anyone else. The difference is, in this day and age, as typical with a superficial radical left movement, they expect it all to be handed to them on a platter.

Next time give good reason why those statues should be torn down, rather than the typical excuse of "some people find them offensive".

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Who are the British people? Those whose ancestors built it. Make no mistake, Britain is a predominantly white nation and has been for thousands of years. It's actually only in the last twenty years that it has become a much more multicultural society, and the majority of that is seen in London and other city centers. Largely in part due to the mass migration of refugees from the Middle East and Africa.

British people all all the people regardless of their skin color who have full British citizenship. My own family are celts, predating Anglo Saxons.

Certainly, from the 1940's there have been non white peoples. 13% of the population are non white.

Racism has existed for decades. Just ask your black relatives.

What I don't understand about the BLM movement is what they're actually trying to achieve?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

British people all all the people regardless of their skin color who have full British citizenship. My own family are celts, predating Anglo Saxons.

Certainly, from the 1940's there have been non white peoples. 13% of the population are non white.

Racism has existed for decades. Just ask your black relatives.

The majority of other ethnicities who came to Britain was due to British colonization and the slave routes. Largely those from Hong Kong or India. Funny how we don't get any of them protesting, eh. There is new legislation that makes it easier for those from Hong Kong to emigrate to Britain, which I'm all for to be honest. A lot of Asians and Indians who came here did very well for themselves and are respected figures in society. If racism was so rife, why aren't they kicking up a fuss about it? The reason is actually simple: because they weren't thin skinned. They identified racism to be that of an ignorant few and got on with life -- a good life!

Racism hasn't existed for decades, it has existed since the dawn of man, and it's here to stay unfortunately.

Also, a passport doesn't make you British, lineage does.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Also, a passport doesn't make you British, lineage does.

British citizenship make you fully British. Nothing to do with linage.

Chinese in UK report 'shocking' levels of racism after coronavirus outbreak

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/09/chinese-in-uk-report-shocking-levels-of-racism-after-coronavirus-outbreak

The extent of racial bias faced by black, Asian and minority ethnic citizens in 21st-century Britain has been laid bare in an unprecedented study showing a gulf in how people of different ethnicities are treated in their daily lives.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/02/revealed-the-stark-evidence-of-everyday-racial-bias-in-britain

There is new legislation that makes it easier for those from Hong Kong to emigrate to Britain, which I'm all for to be honest.

One year visa and right to work. Not many will come.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

English football is back. Players wearing Black Lives Matter shirts and kneeling before the kick off.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No one is born racist.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Those people sacrificed and survived so you can have the life you live today. Those statues are there so we can remember that.

Cecil Rhodes did not sacrifice anything for my life. People who became incredibly rich trafficking slaves sacrificed nothing and contributed little to me. So why should I gloss over their activities and let them have statues everywhere?

Contrary to what many seem to believe, removing statues has absolutely nothing to do with erasing people or history. It's about acknowledging that people behaving in immoral, criminal or brutal ways. You'll still find King Leopold of the Belgians in history books, whether his statues are taken down or not. After all, statues of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin have been taken down in large numbers in the past; were they 'erased'?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

crazygaijin appears to be justifying George Floyd's smurder based on his personal history from a decade ago, as well as sheer speculation based on no knowledge whatsoever.

Based on this, can we expect Brock Turner - for example - to be shot and killed soon? Seems fair.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

What we have today is the "tyranny of the mob". Perhaps a mass extinction event is the best solution. Come, Massive Asteroid, Come!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China

Exactly. Why does our media not notice that?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

British people all all the people regardless of their skin color who have full British citizenship.

Actually, that is absolutely not true, even though other minorities that were born in the UK had British citizenship, doesn’t mean that they excepted, because racism is huge and the big problem in Europe as well

Racism has existed for decades. Just ask your black relatives

And it will never be eradicated.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You can't change history by destroying lumps of sandstone, marble or bronze. You do that you might as well destroy statues of Romans and Greeks - they all had slaves, and Rome enslaved most of their known world.

Slavery happened, we all know it was wrong... now. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries people were different... I don't think it's always sensible to look at the past through 21st century eyes. If we were to do that we should expunge the 1970s, for example.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We are seeing a nonsensical attempt to destroy entire nations in order to save them. Injustice to achieve justice. It’s not going to go as the rebels think it will.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Where does it all end? Muhammad was a slaver, will the BLM activists tear down mosques next?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I have complex feelings about it. For example, in the southern states, there were many songs made about "Dixie", Elvis sang about it, then in the 2nd part of the song, he sang the battle hymn of the Republic. It means they were dealing with it, "it" being the struggle of post war reconstruction, differences in culture in the North and South, civil rights and coming from dirt poor roots. Actually things in the south were getting better. It takes time, and they own the struggle, not an outsider. The rebel flag was moved from state capitols to private grounds. That flag should not of been on the capitols. But when people start removing all memorials etc, what happens is people start flying that flag on private property, because it cant be touched there. I have seen a drastic increase in that movement. you have to understand the culture, struggle and people of the area before you start trying an ethnic cleansing, mocking peoples accent or their background and molding them in some image you want them to be.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This all stems from what's going on in the US.

The Confederacy lasted FOUR YEARS. It's hardly some grand ol' time that bears the amount of pearl clutching it's receiving at the moment.

And the Confederate flag that some people are getting bent out of shape about it being banned in places? IT'S NOT EVEN THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

The Confederate flag is a circle of white stars upper left on a blue square, with 3 bars on the main field (red/white/red).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Jim Harper

Contrary to what many seem to believe, removing statues has absolutely nothing to do with erasing people or history. It's about acknowledging that people behaving in immoral, criminal or brutal ways. You'll still find King Leopold of the Belgians in history books, whether his statues are taken down or not. After all, statues of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin have been taken down in large numbers in the past; were they 'erased'?

Precisely. Allowing statues of bad people to stand without acknowledgement of what they did is glossing over the reality of their history. Remove 'em, move them (if they are in a place of civic importance), or plaque them accurately.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If we tear down everything that offends the minority we'll have nothing left.

Rather than waging a negative campaign of division and destruction, how about we strive to build unity based on mutual love and respect?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Wonder how long it will be before some idiot radical anarchist blows up Mt. Rushmore? This is insane. So if someone says MLK cheated on his wife or that Malcom X was and encouraged violence and death on white people or that Mandela was part of the ANC or how about Walt Disney? He was an mildly Anti-Semite, so will those statues be removed as well?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Also, a passport doesn't make you British, lineage does.

@ Crazy Gaijin - care to clarify this? Because on face value, it almost seems to suggest you believe those whose ancestors have immigrated to the UK from the Caribbean, Sub-continent, Asia and so on, are somehow not as "British" as white Anglo-saxons.

Im sure you didnt mean this, because that would be very offensive and incorrect.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some states are using a flag design based on St Andrews cross from Scotland, Im waiting on that to be removed/changed next.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

they belong in a museum, not in a public square.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Have a think about why nearly all these statues of racists were put up in prominent places. They were erected to intimidate the black people. A lot of them were only put up in the 50s and 60s because of the civil rights movement. Same reason people started flying confederate flags at that time.

Make a special museum for them all but call the what they are in them. They are all going to be removed from public places one by one. It is as inevitable as the right to vote. Hopefully there will be some work on voting rights done in the USA before November 3.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We should tear down Michaelangelo’s statue of David. King David was a genocidal slave owner.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fine, Fine. Just lovin’ it.

Once all the offending statues are down, let’s start with renaming universities starting with Yale (that slave owner and slave trader).

Oh, can’t touch Yale? It’ll hurt the job market value of the diploma? I weep for you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Maybe move a few names from Yasukuni Jinja to another shrine. Now could be the perfect time to do this, when 99% of people support it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Think about the Native Americans, oppressed people of colour and Slaves and how they feel/felt!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites