Photek wrote:Moggy wrote:Photek wrote:Oliver Cromwell has a statue at westminster amongst many others throughout England and is referred to as Lord Protector at Arms.
I wonder why the guy that fought against the monarchy for parliament gets a statue at parliament...
He was a child murderer...You'll not see a monument to a person like that in many countries.
Really? Take a look at any country in the world with a long history and you will see statues and monuments to Kings, Queens, Emperors and leaders that were just as bad as Cromwell.
The EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT argument again! fuckinghell
sorry, im done...
Alright, would you like me to give you a different spin on it?
I personally have no idea why Oliver Cromwell has a statue at parliament and I'd have no part in erecting one if the choice were up to me. But likewise I personally wouldn't advocate statues of any member of the royal family, or of particular political figures in England's past.
The fact that there are advocates of Cromwell in our country, or art celebrating him, does not signify that we as a nation approve of his actions or celebrate his life. Just as the monuments to kings and emperors of ages past in other countries do not provide evidence that those nations and their peoples believe the persons depicted are worthy of praise, or immune to criticism.
Cromwell's son, Richard, had his "reign" ended by the "restoration" - that is, the political forces within England at the time sought the removal of the system Cromwell had put in place and its replacement with the former monarchy. That monarchy then had its power reduced again less than thirty years later, in an event
still known today as the "Glorious Revolution", a move which forever reduced the power of a monarch or similar head of state figure in Britain when compared with a democratically elected parliament.
It isn't just in modern times that Cromwell divides opinion - it was true in the seventeenth century too!
There is
no such thing as Oliver Cromwell Day, and the fact that you essentially invented a public holiday and then accused us all for celebrating it isn't the kind of thing that we should forget if we're being fair
It might have 500, a thousand, hell it could have ten thousand advocates for all I care. I'm sure change . org could get a few thousand people to sign on their advocation of a Mr Bean national holiday but again, this doesn't reflect the official stance of a nation, or the feelings of its people.
Regardless of the atrocities committed elsewhere by others, England's record has very poor periods. We have analysed and evaluated these atrocities, we aren't interested in denial. England's literary and university circles are some of the best-renowned in the world when it comes to history and historiography. Not to blow our trumpet (heaven forbid in a thread about England's "national day") but my point is that it's hard to take your accusations of, well, English
denial of the worst parts of its past seriously when a) no-one has done such a thing in this thread and b) no-one would do such a thing in the academic or political community if pressed on the point. We don't forget. We regret the actions of some of our ancestors; we celebrate the achievements of others. We study history so we know which should be which, and why.
If it makes you feel better: we English are also extremely good at being self-deprecating. The word 'sorry' is used regularly in conversation by every English person, as a conversational filler for anything from accidentally brushing another person in the street, to not having exact change for a purchase. Next time you hear a flustered Englishman mouth a typically-English and probably-unnecessary "sorry!" when he lets you out at a Give Way sign but didn't wave you by quick enough, just pretend that he's doing so to atone for centuries of imperial activity.