Oliver Cromwell
In TOK class, we were looking at the study of History. In particular, we talked about the Statue of Liberty and the history behind the Statue has changed due to Trump being president. History is defined as “the branch of knowledge that deals with past events; the formal records or study of past events, especially human affairs,” (Cambridge English Dictionary). I find the erection of statues very fascinating because how does one have the ability to change the history of the statue or remove it after many years of the statue being there. For this blog post, I will be discussing the erection of Oliver Cromwell Statue. Statues symbolize many things within our society. Besides power, statues, and significance, status solidifies the values between individuals by strengthening both collective and national identities.
The Oliver Cromwell statues is located outside the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in Westminster, London. The Cromwell statue was designed by Hamo Thornycroft in 1899. Hamo Thornycroft was an English Sculptor famous for some of the most important statues in London. Thornycroft was one of the leading exponents of the New Sculpture, a movement in British sculpture reacting against the neo-classicism of mid-Victorian sculpture. Before the Cromwell Statue was erected the Cromwell statue was believed to be a source of controversy, “the Irish Nationalists voted against its installation because of the ghastly activities of Cromwell’s troops on innocent folk during the invasion of Ireland in AD 1649.” The removal of the statue had a huge discussion since “the iconoclasm of the English civil wars was neither ordered or carried out by Cromwell,” said Mr. Goldsmith. Many of the royalists thought that Oliver Cromwell was a traitor for overthrowing the monarchy. The Irish believed that Cromwell was a murder.
Oliver Cromwell was a fanatical puritan who enforced the abolition of Christmas. Cromwell is considered to be one of the most significant figures in British History, therefore he deserves to be remembered even if it is negative or positive. Many historians say that Cromwell should be commemorated outside the parliament, however the values which both symbolize differently. The parliament is referred to Britons as the beacon of both democracy and equality, however, Cromwell was seen as a controversial figure in Ireland due to his legacy. Oliver Cromwell is considered to be one of the most controversial figures in the history of the British Isles. However, Cromwell was a notable historic figure who deserved the statue outside Westminster. The removal of this statue was outrageous because there are other statues that should have been erected, such as Lord Protector because he upset many however not the Irish. The Cromwell statue shouldn’t have been erected because now a part of history is lost because the future generations won’t understand what’s happening with the statue.
The changing historiography of Cromwell also contributes to his statue’s merit. The fact that controversy surrounding the statue is not a recent issue. The statue was shown in 1899 and received a lot from the house of lords. The whole point of having a statue is not to strengthen a status, however, it is up to the public. I think Cromwell's statue shouldn’t have been erected because he was uniting public opinion.
The Statue of Oliver Cromwell is holding a bible in his left arm. In his right hand, Cromwell is holding a sword. The Cromwell statue was dressed in his military office, without his hat.
Speech:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/libya-war-zone-eu-refugees-tripoli-fighting
Libya is a war zone. Why is the EU still sending refugees back there?
Explain this situation:
The situation that is happening in Libya is that it is unconsidered as a ‘safe’ country, but in Tripoli, refugees are starving and desperate. “ The world is arguing that human rights are outdated, that national interest can justify the suppression of individual and collective rights,” said by Federica Mogherini. The people in Abu Salim Detention Centre have been threatened by unknown men with guns, they haven’t eaten food in 5 days, and there was a woman who gave birth in the Abu Salim Detention Centre. The EU doesn’t understand the harsh conditions that they are facing and they keep sending in more refugees. The refugees have no say in this, and the EU think that their human rights can just be used. The world feels that UN is helping the refugees to evacuate the premises, but ‘in a statement on 30 August, the hundreds who were moved were abandoned in a battleground days later, and starved for even longer than before.’ The refugees were abandoned on a battlefield, the refugees keep trying to escape, but they all eventually end up dead or have disappeared.
Explain the interests of the two sides of the argument
One side, the EU think it is completely fine by keep on sending in refugees into Libya. The EU doesn’t care that they are violating the refugee's human rights, “The EU has been effectively treating Libya as a safe country, despite consistent reports of rapes, torture, exploitation, forced labor and physical abuse of returnees.” The UN says that they are helping to evacuate the refugees but that's not happening, “hundreds who were moved were abandoned in a battleground days later, and starved for even longer than before.” The UN doesn’t care about whether the refugees are safe or not, they want to show the world that they are tiring to help warzone in Libya and be called heroes. The EU and UN have violated the refugee's human rights, and there must be a change before this gets more out hands.
The other side, EU keeps sending the refugees into Libya. The EU doesn’t care about the refugee's human rights because in the end they are refugees and they must be treated differently to other people. The EU sends migrants and refugees into Libya because the EU wants the Libyan Coast Guard to contain people since they don't want them in their own country.
Analyze your example and identify at least one logical fallacy that occurs in it:
Overall, migrants and refugees should have the right to their human rights because they are human at the end of the day and they shouldn’t be treated differently from anyone else. The EU needs to stop sending them into Libya because the EU is violating the refugee's human rights. The logical fallacy that goes with this the appeal of ignorance, because the world thinks that the UN is helping the refugees, but the UN just left the refugee’s on a battlefield. Also, who is going to believe what the refugees compared to the UN, so that’s why I think the logical fallacies is the appeal to ignorance.