• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

More erasing of history...


c032745y said:
The folk that love lobbing the snowflake grenade at everybody & everything completely melted by long held practice of replacing imagery on banknotes!!!
Click to expand...
Someone who cares to claim about British history - and I’m sure in their way they do - behaving in way that is not British.
 
Pantomime Mackem said:
What an un-British reply. A key British value is Mutual Respect, which promotes the idea of treating others with dignity and understanding, regardless of differences in background or beliefs. There are plenty of resources available to help with understanding British values. This is a good starting point:

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
No1 Democracy (so voting for shit which this was)
No2 Rule of Law (rules are rules... after 10 years we swap them out)

Tsk tsk tsk looks like the OP isn't British... evidently from some muggy gaff where they don't have quite the same standards as here.
 
As always this becomes a culture war slanging match. Let’s take the op’s argument at face value that this is a reaction to controversial historical figures on bank notes (could be true). In the case of Churchill, it would be foolish to deny his pivotal role in helping galvanise the country against the biggest existential threat the West has seen; equally, he was an imperialist who lauded the Empire and espoused views of racial superiority that influenced policy. It’s not hard to imagine why people feel pride, gratitude, shame, resentment - whereas animals is pretty neutral.
 
Zen Den said:
As always this becomes a culture war slanging match. Let’s take the op’s argument at face value that this is a reaction to controversial historical figures on bank notes (could be true). In the case of Churchill, it would be foolish to deny his pivotal role in helping galvanise the country against the biggest existential threat the West has seen; equally, he was an imperialist who lauded the Empire and espoused views of racial superiority that influenced policy. It’s not hard to imagine why people feel pride, gratitude, shame, resentment - whereas animals is pretty neutral.
Click to expand...
Animals aren't neutral. A squirrel called me fat once.
 
Zen Den said:
It’s not hard to imagine why people feel pride, gratitude, shame, resentment - whereas animals is pretty neutral.
Click to expand...

Na, animals aren't neutral. We're talking about people deciding what represents us. We know for a fact that there are loads of "progressives" who want to see historical figures removed because they have a certain political view.

Personally, I'd rather have the animals on the notes but if it's just a gimmick: "look at us, we're so special and progressive, removing the historical imperialists" and it makes no difference to Britain's biodiversity issue, then why bother, it's just virtue signalling.
 
Zen Den said:
As always this becomes a culture war slanging match. Let’s take the op’s argument at face value that this is a reaction to controversial historical figures on bank notes (could be true). In the case of Churchill, it would be foolish to deny his pivotal role in helping galvanise the country against the biggest existential threat the West has seen; equally, he was an imperialist who lauded the Empire and espoused views of racial superiority that influenced policy. It’s not hard to imagine why people feel pride, gratitude, shame, resentment - whereas animals is pretty neutral.
Click to expand...
It's not though, it's about folk getting animated & agitated over standard practice to change the imagery on banknotes, that's it. Nobody gave a toss in 2016 when it was advocated, no tears, no meltdowns, just BoE changing their pictures...
 
Locke's SAFC said:
Na, animals aren't neutral. We're talking about people deciding what represents us. We know for a fact that there are loads of "progressives" who want to see historical figures removed because they have a certain political view.

Personally, I'd rather have the animals on the notes but if it's just a gimmick: "look at us, we're so special and progressive, removing the historical imperialists" and it makes no difference to Britain's biodiversity issue, then why bother, it's just virtue signalling.
Click to expand...
The animals themselves are neutral, at least in the history books I’ve read. I see what you mean though that what they symbolise might not be, but if the historical figures are controversial then it seems sensible to have something that isn’t that nobody can be triggered by.
 
Zen Den said:
The animals themselves are neutral, at least in the history books I’ve read. I see what you mean though that what they symbolise might not be, but if the historical figures are controversial then it seems sensible to have something that isn’t that nobody can be triggered by.
Click to expand...

Its the triggered people that are the problem. Yes I know what reponses will follow this.
 
Zen Den said:
As always this becomes a culture war slanging match. Let’s take the op’s argument at face value that this is a reaction to controversial historical figures on bank notes (could be true). In the case of Churchill, it would be foolish to deny his pivotal role in helping galvanise the country against the biggest existential threat the West has seen; equally, he was an imperialist who lauded the Empire and espoused views of racial superiority that influenced policy. It’s not hard to imagine why people feel pride, gratitude, shame, resentment - whereas animals is pretty neutral.
Click to expand...
It's moot, they change every 10 years with a vote
 
c032745y said:
It's not though, it's about folk getting animated & agitated over standard practice to change the imagery on banknotes, that's it. Nobody gave a toss in 2016 when it was advocated, no tears, no meltdowns, just BoE changing their pictures...
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it is a political decision but I don’t think it’s madness for the op to bring it up. The decision to put to a public vote and to give the option of moving away from potentially controversial figures might have been a motivating factor.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
Na, animals aren't neutral. We're talking about people deciding what represents us. We know for a fact that there are loads of "progressives" who want to see historical figures removed because they have a certain political view.

Personally, I'd rather have the animals on the notes but if it's just a gimmick: "look at us, we're so special and progressive, removing the historical imperialists" and it makes no difference to Britain's biodiversity issue, then why bother, it's just virtue signalling.
Click to expand...
Nobody gives a feck except the permanently offended.
 
Zen Den said:
The animals themselves are neutral
Click to expand...

Aye, but the animals aren't deciding who goes on the notes. It is disingenuous and dishonest to suggest that it's neutral. There is a whole political backdrop underpinning this.

Zen Den said:
if the historical figures are controversial then it seems sensible to have something that isn’t that nobody can be triggered by.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't agree at all. It's a part of the ongoing political to and fro, e.g. statues and the like. There are a lot of people "triggered" by this and that includes the left-wing who parade around the streets. They want their ideas to be dominant and that includes denigrating public figures who do not align with their politics.

Personally, I had no idea who was on our bank notes and don't care, but anyone suggesting this doesn't matter to the left-wing and is not something they'll celebrate, is a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top