dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
Well that depends a bit on how you see it, but that's the same with Churchill, Colston and many many others.
While some might have been ar$eholes it seems the norm today to concentrate on how they did wrong, how 28th generations further apparently people are still victim of it and so further and so forth.
But if gansta rap suited his dirty money, why is it ok to kill statues of poeple who might/have/etc. traded slaves, why is someone who encourages a death cult like most gangs and gansters are than some kind of a cult hero?
That was exactly my point, put the now politically correct hero up only to be killed again when they realise it isn't correct anymore.. keeps em busy right?
But there's also a pointlessness in it all i mean, with removing an statue killing it or otherwise, it changes nothing about the memory of said person, it changes nothing about the memory of those who want to see that person in a certain way.
And you don't need to remove the statue if you want others to learn the other side of said person...
or to translate it for those who say something like ''word soup'' because my opinion doesn't really suits theirs..
Why should the past action or one person be worse than the past action of a other person if the end result is the same? This being deaths, pain and suffering.
And if we accept that, why do we accept the killing of statues, while we know it does absolutely nothing?
Different timeframe almost the same result, many deaths or suffering people due to their actions..
