Are people in the UK interested in the American Civil War?
 

In light of the recent riots in Virginia, I am curious about this.

Like, if I walked up to a random person in the UK would they know who Abraham Lincoln was (or U.S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis)? Would they have heard of Gettysburg? Are there Civil War buffs?

In the South their Civil War leaders' monuments are being removed because of political correctness which led to the riots yesterday in Virginia.

I've seen you spouting racist and homophobic views on here before so i won't be clicking to watch any BS you're trying to sell.

That's fine. Everyone else will click on it and see how ridiculous this comment is. :hee:

I've seen the whole film so why would i want to watch specifically cherry-picked scenes, cherry-picked by a bigot none the less ?

Man, are you trolling or are you really this dimwitted? It's the opening scene of the movie, wise guy.

I'm not a civil war buff but I know of Abraham Lincoln and the others you mentioned.:wavey:

I have heard of all of this but don't know much about it.I do need to learn more about the Civil war

Isn't the Gettysburg Address where the president lives?

Probably the best source to learn about it is the highly rated PBS documentary the Civil War (from 1991ish).

I'm interested in history so yes if you asked me about the American civil war I'd be able to have a conversation with you. I would have thought many people would know the basics and who LIncoln was.

No the UK aren't interested.

One of the first books I read as a child was Little Women, set in the civil war. I'd say a majority of Brits have a smattering of US history... although quite a lot of it would have been gained by watching the Hollywood version, which doesn't always bear any resemblance to actual fact. All that said, I'd be willing to bet that most Brits know quite a lot more about American history than Americans know about European history.

I don't believe in removing statues. It's like trying to rewrite history. I'd rather statues were left, with a plaque explaining who the person was and what they did at the time. Most thinking people will know that the world was a different place in the past. Pretending bad things didn't happen doesn't help. We need to remember.

I agree re statues. I don't think denial of the past is the best way to educate. What would have been better than trying to delete history would have been to add some statues or memorials to people who suffered due to the war or were heroic in some way from the slaves perspective. This would have created more of a balance.

Isn't that what history books are for to remember events? You can't learn anything from much from a novel or a statue.

If they really must hang on to these shame trinkets perhaps they could do something similar to that place in Russia where all the old Stalin and Lenin statues ended up. Pretty sure Trumpski probably knows the guy that owns it!:laugh:

This place;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/d...pg?imwidth=480 http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X8...jpg?imgmax=800

They serve as a visual reminder.

No different to other pieces of art that serve the same purpose.

I agree with that; I also think it's important to realise that the painful living memories will only exist for a brief period. A blink of an eye in historical terms, really. In 500 years time, any such statue simply becomes an important piece of history, and it's important NOT to view history through rose-tinted glasses, or only know what's written in modern history books. The more primary sources the better, really... I'd rather read what the people of the time had to say about a historical figure than an analysis by a historian centuries later...

In relation to the progression of a nation or civilisation in general we are constantly reevaluating who or what has an influence in our personal era. The idols of the past can be remembered we don't necessarily have to pay homage to their effigy.

Art imo is different, it's admired for it's composition rather than the subject matter.

Art can be both.

I'm not talking about a child's paint splodges but art with actual history and historical significance.

I suppose whether you agree with statues and regard them as "effigies" is by the by when I think we need to consider why these things are being destroyed /removed now in the first place. An attempt to remove their meaning from public consciousness most likely. Whatever next, close the museums and the history books in libraries put in a restricted area? :worry:


Also, in regard to what influences our "personal era" I find to be a slippery slope. There are a vast number of things from history that no longer have relevance to modern life or the way the world is today but still hold historical importance. That's no excuse to forget (or in this case attempt to remove all reminders from public consciousness).

I dunno, there are "effigies" and statues of historical figures from thousands of years ago - people who did absolutely horrific things to people in their time - that are today considered absolutely priceless artworks for museums and collectors. It's hard to appreciate that with today's "monsters" because we, or recent generations, have personally witnessed and been affected by the things these people have done. But we can get a little caught up in our own timeframe... in centuries to come, that emotional connection won't be the same.

There are countless emperors / kings / warlords throughout history who are guilty of barbaric crimes against innocent people, and genocide, but if an archaeologist today digs up a statue of a violent Roman emperor... they don't shout "YUCK! Vile man!" and smash it to pieces. They make every effort to preserve it by any means possible.

They are an effigy.. that's a given an effigy is an artistic representation of something/one.
I haven't advocated moving anything from a museum have I? :/

Yes I agree they are still historically relevant I haven't disputed that at all, whether these are removed from public consciousness is subjective. Should nations have to live in the shadow of past dictators as their tyranny dominated a shared past?

That is due to their historical significance, they'd put it in a museum not in the centre of a town as a person of significant social or political importance would they?

I never said you did. I'm discussing the topic of the thread and this story. :shrug:

As for living in the shadow of the past. Personally I don't see it that way. But a counter argument would be the present is an amalgamation of the past that should not be forgotten and in some cases humanity has learned from.

It's a very interesting historical period. The best book I ever read about the civil war is 'Andersonville' by Mackinley Kantor.

You inferred I would want items removed from a museum due to my opinion on statues, that has nothing to do with the topic or the story :shrug:

The past should be learned from that's a given, that said those who have struggled under malevolent leaders might prefer them consigned to the history books rather than their city squares?