It seems that the cherry-picking isn't restricted to the picking of witnesses, is it? I also read the summary to the McCracken book on this subject, which by the way confirms my original point that these things are healthy as they stimulate debate and evaluation.

Yes, 19 of the 62 witnesses were African, but none were actually involved in the uprising. They were all either dead (30 being executed) or in prison. I quote "Some of those were relatively elite Africans– ministers in the Church of Scotland, interpreters for the government, some chiefs, and people who worked on the Magomero estate". That's cherry-picking!

It also says, "The whole thing was over in a matter of days. Very few people were killed on the colonial side" and "some individuals – such as Alexander Hetherwick, the leader of the Blantyre Mission – were very dismissive, regarding it as a small-scale affair whose significance was grossly exaggerated by the colonial authorities".

There's more, but that's enough. The guy who led the enquiry was also the guy who sentenced the 30 participants to death.

The context seems to have been to exploit a relatively minor incident in order to boost the defence forces.

I have never suggested there wasn't an incident, that's obvious, but that to interpret it needs much more than a reliance on ancient accounts from one side. There is no evidence at all that Chilembwe was a murderer, which is the central accusation that you and others have made. He led a small uprising in which a few people lost their lives, but 30 were executed as a consequence. Did he himself kill? Did he order others to kill? How did the people die? It's just not known, so no judgement can be made.

TBF WE has said it was not appropriate to have the statue in the UK

You don't need me to tell you what bs is! You are an expert.

Putting up a statue to someone who has no direct connection to us, when there are many other candidates whose contributions to our country have established merit, seems strange.

If he deserves to be recognised, and I pass no comment on that, then it would be appropriate in his home country

OK.
He has spent a lot of time pontificating over something that he dissaproves of.
Maybe he can just clear it up for us with one simple sentence.

They weren't all executed, were they, but none were called. If you pass the death sentence on 30 people and then investigate the incident, it rather indicates you have already made up your mind and your purpose has more to do with how to avoid a reoccurrence than investigating grievances.

Hearing sycophantic Uncle Toms is no substitute for hearing genuine witnesses to motivation and background.

There is no more evidence that Chilembwe incited murder than that he committed it. Nor that he was racist. He led an uprising of the oppressed against their oppressors. Whether being of another ethnicity was involved isn't clear. Nor is there any evidence that he called for a beheading. Or that the head was carried out in front of the wife and children. You are making assumptions, some based on untrustworthy reporting.

Whether he was a terrorist will depend on your viewpoint, but if the reports are accurate, he was a great deal more than that.

I am not trivialising such actions in any way. If true, they would be extremely unpleasant, albeit not really uncommon during such incidents. What I am challenging is the assumption that they must be true because someone, a long time ago when very different standards of objectivity applied, reported them as happening.

To do that is no better than mob justice.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether raising a statue is appropriate, and to try to introduce that into the argument is ridiculous. This is a side issue to the original thread.

So even though this statue is being raised no one thinks it’s a good idea.
Some tourists might notice it. Big deal.