Oh for goodness sake

Don't tell me you've never heard of Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Do you live in a yurt?

In another thread, the recent documentary on the way people like Savile, Harris, Gadd and Hall were regarded 40/50 years ago, and how it has changed so much since, was discussed.

Here we have a thread about "cancel culture", and the removal of statues to slavers, and others, who are now disapproved of. People believe that our history should not be tampered with, just because our attitudes have changed

Savile had several public monuments erected in his honour, a street in Scarborough was named Savile’s View. There was a Savile’s Hall in Leeds and a wooden statue of Savile stood outside the Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow. Savile was buried in a grave with a £4,000 headstone set above it bearing his image and listing his charitable works, and a gold plaque was put up on his former home.

They were all removed, or changed. Or, if preferred, cancelled. No-one objected. People were so appalled at what was revealed about him that it was accepted without question.

Does anyone now think that was wrong, and it should have been objected to? Savile did do charitable work, as a cover for his other activities. Much as the slavers acquired public approval via acting as benefactors. Savile was a man of his era and part of our history, whether we like it, or not.

I make no comment either way. I am just wondering if there is an element of hypocrisy here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Clearly, it is difficult to retain a commemoration to a man who was found guilty of child abuse during our lifetime.

If he had been around 300 years ago and his sins only came to light now, then time might have allowed us to balance his crimes against his good deeds.
In Saville's case, it could be argued that his charity work was at least to some degree a front to facilitate access to his victims.
Another key factor is that Saville broke the law, whereas historical slave traders didn't.

[

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 10.48am)

Yes, I meant to say the victorians then picked up the outrage post abolition

[Link]

Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light.

So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds?

That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical?

If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

True.
We have just accepted en masse that he was guilty.

And no, it is not a reversible attitude. The battle has already been won. Slavery was abolished. Before that, it was legal.

One day, someone with an attitude like yours might want to retrospectively vilify someone for eating meat or using a petrol car. It is ridiculous and you know it.

All discussion about it now is entirely about political and social power. It is in some cases a feeble minded attempt to get compensation.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 11.02am)