Winston Churchill

[iluvoursolskjær]

I think one conversation that gets overlooked and lost in the emotional responses from both sides, is that history shapes national and cultural identity. The history of Churchill doesn’t just belong to the Anglo-Saxon but to everyone concerned with the Empire, a multitude of peoples who originate from all over it; coming together to form the fabric of modern British society.

I don’t just ‘identify’ as British, I am British. But that can sometimes be a conflicting and painful thing when history is so easily whitewashed, dismissed even, left to feel almost like as if to be looking in from the outside. I mentioned also in another post that racism isn’t bred from a lack of education, rather a particular kind of education, one founded on ethno-nationalism and cultural-imperialism.

For these reasons when I look at that statue, I know what it actually represents because it’s backed up by how we are all educated in school. To suggest everyone should see it as simply a monument celebrating the fight against Nazism, forces upon everyone a level of wilful ignorance.

Anyways I’m not necessarily for or against its’ removal. Though being intellectually honest is important here.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

A statue of winston churchill is not like the cult-god like statues of Chairman Mao and worship in China, a man who was directly responsible for the death of 30-80 million people. I don't understand this sudden need to destroy statues.

Mao Tze-dong was a Chinese national hero who liberated the country from Imperial Japan and the maligned Western backed Kuomintang, and any death under him was a failing of both the bureaucracy and the circumstances of the time.

See how two can play at that game?

There’s nothing sudden about calling for removal of basically altars of public worship for men who were huge pieces of shit. There’s nothing eye opening or historically educational about those statues, they are there to be admired and venerated. The same people crying about the need to not erase history would still throw a hissy fit if tomorrow the protestors agree to leave the statues there with additional description of their racist past. They care about only one particular kind of history, their history.

 

[sammsky1]

I think one conversation that gets overlooked and lost in the emotional responses from both sides, is that history shapes national and cultural identity. The history of Churchill doesn’t just belong to the Anglo-Saxon but to everyone concerned with the Empire, a multitude of peoples who originate from all over it; coming together to form the fabric of modern British society.
I don’t just ‘identify’ as British, I am British. But that can sometimes be a conflicting and painful thing when history is so easily whitewashed, dismissed even, left to feel almost like as if to be looking in from the outside. I mentioned also in another post that racism isn’t bred from a lack of education, rather a particular kind of education, one founded on ethno-nationalism and cultural-imperialism.
For these reasons when I look at that statue, I know what it actually represents because it’s backed up by how we are all educated in school. To suggest everyone should see it as simply a monument celebrating the fight against Nazism, forces upon everyone a level of wilful ignorance.
Anyways I’m not necessarily for or against its’ removal. Though being intellectually honest is important here.

This is the key point. In 1945, c.98% of UK population had family lineage and heritage tied to British colonial empire. And those people's future bloodline have also grown up within a societal context of whitewashed history of colonialism, Churchill and WW2.

Since then the composition of UK population demographics has dramatically and fundamentally changed. In 2018, people born outside the UK made up an estimated 14% of the UK’s population, or 9.3 million people. Lets guess the same amount of British born people had parents born outside of the UK. 33% of Londoners are immigrants (largest nationalities being Polish, Romanian, Indian, Pakistani, Irish, German, Italy), and 40% of Londoners identify as BAME, none of whose parents or grandparents experienced WW2 in UK.

That means c.30% of current UK population has no family history or emotional attachment relating to whitewashed Churchill or Empire history, and those from former colonies have sadistic and painful memories instead. This segment will keep getting bigger, and will soon become larger than those with family or societal history that ties into British WW2 experience.

This basic lack of empathy is why many white British people cant understand why other British citizens, many of them born in UK, have very different feelings about their British history. Churchill didn't 'win the war' for them at all and their hereditary nations would have enjoyed a very different existence today had they not been subjugated by British Empire.

 

[Gehrman]

Mao Tze-dong was a Chinese national hero who liberated the country from Imperial Japan and the maligned Western backed Kuomintang, and any death under him was a failing of both the bureaucracy and the circumstances of the time.

See how two can play at that game?

There’s nothing sudden about calling for removal of basically altars of public worship for men who were huge pieces of shit. There’s nothing eye opening or historically educational about those statues, they are there to be admired and venerated. The same people crying about the need to not erase history would still throw a hissy fit if tomorrow the protestors agree to leave the statues there with additional description of their racist past. They care about only one particular kind of history, their history.

"His policies caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in China during his 27-year reign, more than any other 20th-century leader; estimates of the number of people who died under his regime range from 40 million to as many as 80 million,[253][254] done through starvation, persecution, prison labour and mass executions. "

The two are still in different categories of sheer destructiveness. Personally I don't have a problem Churcills racists views or past being described when telling the story of the man, he was. I think if Churchill statue is so offensive it should simply be kept in a museum. For me this sudden obession with destroying statues reminds me of China's cultural revolution where "everything old must go"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Historical_relics

If we want to destroy historical artifacs that are objectionable because they are viewed the lens of the present rather than the past, then there is really no end to it. Alexander the great, Julius Caesar and all the other roman emperors, Genghis Khan, Even the Pyramids were basicly just graves to Egyptian Pharoes. The Old testament has a lot of nasty stuff in it so we may burn bibles as well, so does the Koran so maybe we should burn some of those as well.

 

[Sweet Square]

Btw the Churchill statue was made in 1973 it's not even that old.

So the idea it's on the same level as the Egyptian pyramids is a bit odd.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

If we want to destroy historical artifacs that are objectionable because they are viewed the lens of the present rather than the past, then there is really no end to it. Alexander the great, Julius Caesar and all the other roman emperors, Genghis Khan, Even the Pyramids were basicly just graves to Egyptian Pharoes. The Old testament has a lot of nasty stuff in it so we may burn bibles as well, so does the Koran so maybe we should burn some of those as well.

This is a false equivalence. No one will bat an eye if you say these were all murderous maniacs, but say the same of Churchill and the pearl clutches came out in droves with ‘but but beating the Nazis’. The way you are arguing is clear proof of how they’ve successfully turned the narrative from the need to confront actual history, warts and all, with the removal of these status from public spaces being an expression of it, to how protestors are trying to ‘erase history’.

Putting these statues into museum serves no real purpose, and do nothing to historical preservation. There’s no intrinsic artistic merits or historical worth in these that can’t be found in the thousands of sculptures, newspaper clippings, recordings, public documents already in existence and well-preserved. But sure, let’s say we do that, you still won’t see any real support for it, because most of the people objecting now are only interested in preserving a comforting narrative integral to their perceived self worth and identity.

 

[Shamwow]

Not many people complained when they took down that statue of Michael Jackson.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

What you have there is a well balanced interpretation of intricate alliance that defeated Germany in Europe and Africa but the myth of Churchill ignores this. The myth of Churchill believes he won the bloody war with his speech about fighting on the beaches, etc.

The reason Churchill is deified is because him being an outstanding and heroic figure is a cornerstone of the narrative of little Britain facing down the might of Germany all alone, which is the closest thing modern Britain has to an origin myth.

In terms of proud national moments, getting beaten into a stalemate and your enemy sending their entire army a couple of thousand miles east because they know you can't do shit about it isn't a great one. Britain poised on the brink of disaster but standing brave in the face of invasion, saved at the last minute by heroics of the RAF is a far better story which kept people behind the government and made Churchill look strong, which is why the government of the time wrote it.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Btw the Churchill statue was made in 1973 it's not even that old.

So the idea it's on the same level as the Egyptian pyramids is a bit odd.

It’s like those Confederate monuments being specifically put up in the 1960s to remind the ‘uppity Negroes’ about their place in society.

 

[Silva]

The Old testament has a lot of nasty stuff in it so we may burn bibles as well, so does the Koran so maybe we should burn some of those as well.

people burn those all the time, along with flags, books and flags get burned and pissed on like all the time, quite thoroughly in the denazification of germany where we burned all their books, blew up their statues with dynamite and changed their scientists names so they could fight the commies

and it's pretty cool really, especially when it's like a massive flag, big ol flag fire goes brrrrr

 

[Gehrman]

This is a false equivalence. No one will bat an eye if you say these were all murderous maniacs, but say the same of Churchill and the pearl clutches came out in droves with ‘but but beating the Nazis’. The way you are arguing is clear proof of how they’ve successfully turned the narrative from the need to confront actual history, warts and all, with the removal of these status from public spaces being an expression of it, to how protestors are trying to ‘erase history’.

Putting these statues into museum serves no real purpose, and do nothing to historical preservation. There’s no intrinsic artistic merits or historical worth in these that can’t be found in the thousands of sculptures, newspaper clippings, recordings, public documents already in existence and well-preserved. But sure, let’s say we do that, you still won’t see any real support for it, because most of the people objecting now are only interested in preserving a comforting narrative integral to their perceived self worth and identity.

Actually try and go to Greece and Macedonia and try an incentivise them destroy statues of legacies of Alexander the great and I promise you will be met with great hostility I have been there and he is a hero there and claimed by them both.

 

[Gehrman]

people burn those all the time, along with flags, books and flags get burned and pissed on like all the time, quite thoroughly in the denazification of germany where we burned all their books, blew up their statues with dynamite and changed their scientists names so they could fight the commies

and it's pretty cool really, especially when it's like a massive flag, big ol flag fire goes brrrrr

Yeah but the Nazi regime is like the most evil and dangerous regime of all time and the greatest threat to humanity, they were on their way to developing nukes as well and who knows how that might have turned out if we didn't defeat them in time.

 

[SilentWitness]

Why is it that whenever there is a movement the response to people that are against it to deflect onto other things instead of just talking about the matter at hand.

Black lives matter - no not just black lives, all lives do!
If someone wants to identify as a woman then they should be able to - fine then i'm going to identify as an iphone 5 penguin!!
Gay marriage should be legal - yeah but what about people that want to marry a chicken and their sister at the same time, should that be okay too???
The Churchill statue should be taken down - yeah okay but we may aswell just destroy everything in the world then!!

 

[Synco]

A lot of tibetans are forced to prostrate to staues or images of Mao And Xi, which would be like forcing jews to prostrate to images of Hitler.

For me this sudden obession with destroying statues reminds me of China's cultural revolution where "everything old must go"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Historical_relics

If we want to destroy historical artifacs that are objectionable because they are viewed the lens of the present rather than the past, then there is really no end to it. Alexander the great, Julius Caesar and all the other roman emperors, Genghis Khan, Even the Pyramids were basicly just graves to Egyptian Pharoes. The Old testament has a lot of nasty stuff in it so we may burn bibles as well, so does the Koran so maybe we should burn some of those as well.

Good lord. You don't do things by halves, do you?

 

[oates]

Why is it that whenever there is a movement the response to people that are against it to deflect onto other things instead of just talking about the matter at hand.

Black lives matter - no not just black lives, all lives do!
If someone wants to identify as a woman then they should be able to - fine then i'm going to identify as an iphone 5 penguin!!
Gay marriage should be legal - yeah but what about people that want to marry a chicken and their sister at the same time, should that be okay too???
The Churchill statue should be taken down - yeah okay but we may aswell just destroy everything in the world then!!

And sometimes they say

Black Lives Matter - Yes they do, it is vitally important that the World gets this as soon as possible.
If someone wants to identify as a woman then they should be able to - but some women see issues with the practicality of just being able to say you are a woman and then sharing changing rooms with them etc etc etc.
Gay marriage should be legal - Yes, now which bakery can we take to court or can we just get a cake at another bakery meanwhile and show everyone that needs to change why they should as a different topic? Maybe/Maybe not. Bit iffy.
The Churchill statue should be taken down - yeah but let's start another racial Inquiry headed up by someone that has stated before that they don't believe in systemic racism in the UK and meanwhile we have recommendations from other inquiries that we can continue to ignore.

You say Tom-ah-to

 

[Green_Red]

I'm really confused. We watched as James McClean was abused up and down the country for refusing to wear a poppy, now we're trying to tear down statues of Winston Churchill because he was a racist? Honestly, what do people from former colonies that come to live in the UK expect? To see statues of people like Michael Collins, Pazhassi Raja and George Washington?

 

[Sweet Square]

I'm really confused. We watched as James McClean was abused up and down the country for refusing to wear a poppy, now we're trying to tear down statues of Winston Churchill because he was a racist? Honestly, what do people from former colonies that come to live in the UK expect? To see statues of people like Michael Collins, Pazhassi Raja and George Washington?

Trafalgar Square London.

Also the majority of those who rightful have an issue with the celebration of Churchill are British citizens(Although wanting Britain to be less of a reactionary dump hole shouldn't be exclusively left to British people imo).

 

[Rams]

Do these future generations include immigrants? because they might want to have a say in how the past or Churchill should be portrayed as.

Yes of course. I’m just saying in general I personally am against getting rid of landmarks because I think it’s denial of history and is detrimental in the long term. I think it would be more constructive to use said landmarks to teach future generations our history including for example about the atrocities committed in our colonial past.

 

[Rams]

I just want to point out that although Churchill may be considered in Britain as a symbol of nationalism for good or bad, in most countries he’s ironically seen as a symbol of standing up to tyranny. At the end of the day that’s the thing he’s most remembered for globally. To dismiss Churchill’s role in defeating the Nazis is just as ridiculous as believing he single handedly defeated the Nazis.

 

[sammsky1]

I just want to point out that although Churchill may be considered in Britain as a symbol of nationalism for good or bad, in most countries he’s ironically seen as a symbol of standing up to tyranny. At the end of the day that’s the thing he’s most remembered for globally. To dismiss Churchill’s role in defeating the Nazis is just as ridiculous as believing he single handedly defeated the Nazis.

Not sure that ‘most’ is true.

When it is true I suspect it’s because of the whitewashed and partial history that has been propogated by English language cultural mediums for 70+ years.

 

[neverdie]

Why is it that whenever there is a movement the response to people that are against it to deflect onto other things instead of just talking about the matter at hand.

Black lives matter - no not just black lives, all lives do!
If someone wants to identify as a woman then they should be able to - fine then i'm going to identify as an iphone 5 penguin!!
Gay marriage should be legal - yeah but what about people that want to marry a chicken and their sister at the same time, should that be okay too???
The Churchill statue should be taken down - yeah okay but we may aswell just destroy everything in the world then!!

This is sort of the point. There was/is one primary topic and conversations like this are themselves deflections. This thread has one 7th of the posts in the George Floyd thread. And for what? It's a distraction and has been from the start.

 

[Rams]

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.

This is why it’s so dangerous to jump to conclusions based upon such soundbites without knowing all the facts. He was actually referring to tear gas... What is more to the point here is his phrase “uncivilized tribes” to describe the local population. But then again, my ancestors at the time all thought the same. That was the general view at the time in the UK. And so further I can dismantle a dozen or so statements in this thread. Hence why I think it’s important to preserve historical landmarks in order to teach future generations the facts of our past.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

This is why it’s so dangerous to jump to conclusions based upon such soundbites without knowing all the facts. He was actually referring to tear gas... What is more to the point here is his phrase “uncivilized tribes” to describe the local population. But then again, my ancestors at the time all thought the same. That was the general view at the time in the UK. And so further I can dismantle a dozen or so statements in this thread. Hence why I think it’s important to preserve historical landmarks in order to teach future generations the facts of our past.

What do statues teach? How does it encourage education, rather than propaganda.

 

[Rams]

What do statues teach? How does it encourage education, rather than propaganda.

There’s always a negative of course. Just as Auschwitz is also seen as a symbol by neo Nazis.
Churchill is one of the most important figures in Britain’s history and statues are an important reminders of our history.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

There’s always a negative of course. Just as Auschwitz is also seen as a symbol by neo Nazis.
Churchill is one of the most important figures in Britain’s history and statues are an important reminders of our history.

You didn't answer the question, mate.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

But then again, my ancestors at the time all thought the same.

That's also incredibly annoying to still read in 2020, when I grew up in the 90s still facing those same racist attitudes. My dad coming home from work with blood on his white shirt cos he had to fight a gang of thugs attacking his restaurant. Or my home being vandalised with graffiti saying go back home pakki.

I don't cry about what I went through on here, but when I read some of the shit, I think to my self well ain't it easy from where you're sitting.

 

[Rams]

You didn't answer the question, mate.

Historical landmarks are symbols of the past that tell a story. I presume they did teach you art or history at school???

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Historical landmarks are symbols of the past that tell a story. I presume they did teach you art or history at school???

But that's just it. If you bothered reading the thread, well, let me just quote myself.

I think one conversation that gets overlooked and lost in the emotional responses from both sides, is that history shapes national and cultural identity. The history of Churchill doesn’t just belong to the Anglo-Saxon but to everyone concerned with the Empire, a multitude of peoples who originate from all over it; coming together to form the fabric of modern British society.

I don’t just ‘identify’ as British, I am British. But that can sometimes be a conflicting and painful thing when history is so easily whitewashed, dismissed even, left to feel almost like as if to be looking in from the outside. I mentioned also in another post that racism isn’t bred from a lack of education, rather a particular kind of education, one founded on ethno-nationalism and cultural-imperialism.

For these reasons when I look at that statue, I know what it actually represents because it’s backed up by how we are all educated in school. To suggest everyone should see it as simply a monument celebrating the fight against Nazism, forces upon everyone a level of wilful ignorance.

Anyways I’m not necessarily for or against its’ removal. Though being intellectually honest is important here.

The education accompanying these monuments are not on point, to say it nicely.

 

[Rams]

That's also incredibly annoying to still read in 2020, when I grew up in the 90s still facing those same racist attitudes. My dad coming home from work with blood on his white shirt cos he had to fight a gang of thugs attacking his restaurant. Or my home being vandalised with graffiti saying go back home pakki.

I don't cry about what I went through on here, but when I read some of the shit, I think to my self well ain't it easy from where you're sitting.

To be fair Churchill was already dead by the 1990’s and since we were talking about Churchill... but again in my opinion your example described above is even more reason not to tear down historical landmarks.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

To be fair Churchill was already dead by the 1990’s and since we were talking about Churchill... but again in my opinion your example described above is even more reason not to tear down historical landmarks.

Dude.

You're right, Salaam.

 

[Rams]

But that's just it. If you bothered reading the thread, well, let me just quote myself.



The education accompanying these monuments are not on point, to say it nicely.

The problem isn’t the statue, but the education given. Getting rid of the statue will make that even worse.

 

[Rams]

Dude.

You're right, Salaam.

I’m not asking you to agree with me, just giving my 2 cents worth. However, I feel I’m being forced to defend myself because I don’t think my point is being understood. Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion whether or not it’s right to tear down Churchill’s statue for example.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Actually try and go to Greece and Macedonia and try an incentivise them destroy statues of legacies of Alexander the great and I promise you will be met with great hostility I have been there and he is a hero there and claimed by them both.

There’s a big feck off statue of Genghis in Mongolia’s capital. Your point being? Do you think the average Mongol would deny Genghis made his trade murdering and raping?

All nations glossed over their darker moments and portrayed themselves as the righteous and bereaved. America has been at peace for a grand total of 21 years in their 300+ years on this Earth, yet it’s all about Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Britain raped, pillaged and conquered a quarter of the world for about the same time but officially it’s all Dunkirk and Battle of Britain. Heck, my country of birth reveled in beating China numerous times, the French and the Yanks, yet never bothered to mention the century long campaign on a genocidal scale to wipe Champa out of existence, or the fact that one of our biggest national hero banged and married his aunt. Accepting the comforting official narrative is the actual erasure of history,
commemorating those men for their grandeur but explaining away their atrocities with ‘it was a sign of the time’ is the actual erasure if history.Fixating on the removal of one or some statues is missing the bigger point here. A not insignificant part of the British population who have roots in former colonies are now pushing back on the sterilised, glorified official history of the Empire and men like Churchill, and that endeavor is the opposite of historical erasure.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Yes... yes it does matter. Especially if you're going to suggest it's one of the focuses. Don't you think?

Not really. It's one of the focuses because through the actions of the protestors. It's semantics but it's completely pointless to light a fire and pretend that everybody should just ignore it. In any country if you target their reknown leaders to make a statement it will become a big focus. If you or any of the protestors want to ignore reality and how the world works then be my guest.

 

[afrocentricity]

Not really. It's one of the focuses because through the actions of the protestors. It's semantics but it's completely pointless to light a fire and pretend that everybody should just ignore it. In any country if you target their reknown leaders to make a statement it will become a big focus. If you or any of the protestors want to ignore reality and how the world works then be my guest.

Make up your mind or be consistent. Earlier you claimed that this one of BLMs focuses, you were corrected but now you want to say that it doesn't matter. So all it takes in your eyes for some offshoot of the protest to start randomly beating up police and you'd then start claiming that BLM had changed focus to beating up cops?

 

[11101]

There’s a big feck off statue of Genghis in Mongolia’s capital. Your point being? Do you think the average Mongol would deny Genghis made his trade murdering and raping?

Yes, largely so, and certainly no less than the UK with our own historic figures. His face is on their banknotes and is celebrated all across the country, far more so than Churchill is in the UK. The only reason anybody is aware of his other past is because the Soviet Union spent a few decades trying to suppress his image so it wouldn't inspire an uprising. Since their fall he has gone back to being a hero.

 

[Gehrman]

There’s a big feck off statue of Genghis in Mongolia’s capital. Your point being? Do you think the average Mongol would deny Genghis made his trade murdering and raping?

All nations glossed over their darker moments and portrayed themselves as the righteous and bereaved. America has been at peace for a grand total of 21 years in their 300+ years on this Earth, yet it’s all about Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Britain raped, pillaged and conquered a quarter of the world for about the same time but officially it’s all Dunkirk and Battle of Britain. Heck, my country of birth reveled in beating China numerous times, the French and the Yanks, yet never bothered to mention the century long campaign on a genocidal scale to wipe Champa out of existence, or the fact that one of our biggest national hero banged and married his aunt. Accepting the comforting official narrative is the actual erasure of history,
commemorating those men for their grandeur but explaining away their atrocities with ‘it was a sign of the time’ is the actual erasure if history.Fixating on the removal of one or some statues is missing the bigger point here. A not insignificant part of the British population who have roots in former colonies are now pushing back on the sterilised, glorified official history of the Empire and men like Churchill, and that endeavor is the opposite of historical erasure.

No, I don't think informed mongolians would deny that, but even still I think they consider him a historical and cultural hero for making the mongolian empire the largest in the world at the time and the 2nd largest in history. In human history expanding the borders of your country and your countries prestige has made you "great". We live in a different time now. Even so I don't think mongolians would want to eridicate statues og Genghis Khan depite knowing that his conquests including klilling, pillaging and raping.

It's about letting history be history, but let us by all means know all of that history. It would be interesting to see how many british who lived through the war times would be in favour of eradicating his statue, because he is mainly remembered for the role he played in WW2 and not for being a racist. It's easy to say that anyone would have done what Churchill did or would have done it better but his contemporaries were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Charles de gaulle. Mao, Eisenhower, Truman and the emperor of Japan.

 

[The Boy]

Btw the Churchill statue was made in 1973 it's not even that old.

That's why we need statues for educational reasons, no one knew who Churchill was before that statue went up in 73. Just like the lack of statues of Hitler explains why no one knows who he is either.

 

[Synco]

Yes, largely so, and certainly no less than the UK with our own historic figures.

So for/against what is "but others do it too" an argument then, in this context?

----------

It's about letting history be history, but let us by all means know all of that history.

(...) he is mainly remembered for the role he played in WW2 and not for being a racist.

Isn't the contradiction between these two statements obvious?*

As has already been said:

commemorating those men for their grandeur but explaining away their atrocities with ‘it was a sign of the time’ is the actual erasure if history. (...) A not insignificant part of the British population who have roots in former colonies are now pushing back on the sterilised, glorified official history of the Empire and men like Churchill, and that endeavor is the opposite of historical erasure.

* (Seeing Churchill's individual racism as merely an expression of the negative legacy of British imperialism as a whole.)

 

[Gehrman]

So for/against what is "but others do it too" an argument then, in this context?

----------


Isn't the contradiction between these two statements obvious?

As has already been said:

Ok you have won me over. Lets go feck up some statues.