There are those who insist argue that there's no
such thing as "objective history". Some call for
uncompromising indictments of all deemed guilty,
while others if not denying the guilt of the
"defendant," may argue extenuating circumstances
ranging from - those were the times they lived in.

As I've stated many times in the past - a historian
can establish that an act took place on a certain
day, but this, by historical standards, constitutes
only chronology, or "factology".

The moment the historian begins to look critically at
motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for one
or another camp of readers.

I think it was Paul who stated on this thread that -
history is written by the victors. And most countries
prefer to think their leaders, explorers, were men
of good character and worthy of being memorialized.
And to demean any of them you do so at your own peril.

In our country - it is time that the entire truth be told
regarding the treatment of our Indigenous People.
But not to the extent of defacing our historical statues.
Simply adding additional information to them - for the
telling of the entire stories.

Not asking for much.

Foxy,

The left whinge activists are following the example of Germany. In the 1930s the Nazis used to burn the books etc of those whose viewpoints they found offensive.

yes, are they any better than other extremists.

Even symbolic change, such as destroying a select few statues, will annoy many people, thus worsening race relations.

but we know what it is like. one day, someone gets up and decides they want their home rebuilt or repainted in different colours.

For a while, they are happy. But then start whinging again.

Yes, point out past atrocities, but no need to destroy the past, all of which helps us understand how Australia did progress.

All that is needed is an additional plaque underneath that may help enlighten readers about the true story.

Paul & Foxy,

We should never forget our history. We can't reverse it, but we also shouldn't ignore it, or think that we can purge it.

Why not put detailed plaques on any offending statue ? e.g. on that statue in Otahuhu:

"Nixon was the commander in charge of colonial cavalry forces which stormed the Waikato village of Rangiawhia during the Maori Wars, killing women, children and the elderly.

"He had the town church torched which killed the people who were hiding inside.

"He was a total bastard."

That sort of thing. Or

"Cook sailed along the eastern coast of the Australian mainland, commanding the first ship ever to do so. He noticed in his Journal that he was never out of sight of Aboriginal camp-fire smoke."

Or

"Arthur Phillip was the first administrator in history to proclaim that there never would be slavery in any domain that he was responsible for."

Of course, we can dig up Phillip's bones (in Bath, I think ?) and kick them around the graveyard for what happened long after he was gone, that can be so satisfying.

Plaques would be effective ways to teach the young what happened instead of their being completely oblivious, which they would be if the statues and plaques weren't there at all, don't you think ?

For example, "On this site, here in South Australia in the nineteenth century, the Aborigines Department had its one-man office, from where he sent out a vast array of rations to up to seventy ration depots across the colony."

That sort of thing. Active truth-telling, not burying or forgetting the truth, or pretending that something didn't happen at all ?

Joe

As for that bastard Colston in Bristol: why not a small museum or little exhibition room, staffed by highly-experienced librarians, with a diorama and explanations all around the walls about slavery, about Colston and the atrocities that were committed in the slave trade - from capture, overland transport to coastal depots, then across the Atlantic, and people worked to death in the Americas ?

I think I had a gr-gr-gr-grandfather born in a dockland suburb of Bristol: Bedminster, across the River Avon from Colston's statue. So says Ancestry.com. I was happy to see him hit the drink, but maybe they could put him back up, perhaps trouser-less, a la Mussolini, with a series of plaques or as above.

Never forget history, even if it can't be reversed. BECAUSE it can't be reversed.

Joe

Joe, I think it is even more than that.

History should tell us that the deeds of the past were often done in a belief of progress.

you have to tell the entire story, so a detailed plaques can inform the viewer.

Destroying great works of art are just silly.

as for Howard and Abbot, who knows what plaques should be.

I believe both are very decent people, but people who were willing to air concerns in the name of debate. They both shifted their views in time