Jump to content

James Hampton

Regulars
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James Hampton

  1. I posted the photo of the Ronaldo bust because it’s a well known example of a piece that was considered to be a poor likeness - funny for that reason. However it does raise another good point. Ronaldo is well known for his philanthropy, but was accused of rape a few years ago wasn’t he? Would / should the bust have remained in place (in an Airport I think) if he had been found guilty? It’s effectively a present day version of the slave trader question. Does philanthropy and or great skill in a particular field erase what we would presently consider morally questionable actions (if they had been proven)?
  2. My guess would be that anyone who really did want to make a positive impact would be horrified at the thought of wasting resources on something so pointless, but that’s just my thoughts. If Ramsey town ever commission one of you I will be lobbying hard to have them use the guy who did this...
  3. I think that’s pretty much exactly my thoughts. Good to know I’m not the only numpity numpty. To me statues (and portraits hanging in Tynwald if you like) are a clear representation of the divide that exists within society - and probably always will. Those who want to be lead, who want to glorify leadership or ‘personal greatness’ and those who don’t - those who understand that there is no such thing as ‘personal greatness’ in almost any case - nobody acts alone to achieve their supposed great feats. That is how they are portrayed because that is how the people who want to glorify them wish to see it. This isn’t an issue most of the time, because outside periods of political stress they are almost entirely ignored or forgotten - because most people understand it’s not worth worrying about and are happy enough if some people wish to idolize a historical figure, in the same way most people are happy for people to practice whatever religion they like (statues are pretty close to religious artifacts in that sense) so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rest of us. Their simplicity of purpose or message (just ‘greatness’ rather than a monument to what this person and the people they relied upon actually did), is what allows them to become totemic - and so antagonistic. Should they be removed, probably not, for the same reason we wouldn’t remove a religious symbol. The problem would seem to be a political system which promotes antagonism. A political system based on the individual of course. :-)
  4. I agree, the current situation is politically driven, and anti-democratic. I suspect that even if the majority were not in favor of statues there wouldn’t be strong enough feelings to actually have them removed or prevented - because as you say, most people can understand live and let live. What we are seeing right now is the ends of the spectrum as is always the case when things become that polarized. It is interesting though that the concept of the statue can become such a flash point. That in itself says something about the idea of glorifying the individual doesn’t it?
  5. I agree the same applies to Brunel, Newton, pretty much anyone who has a statue where they are portrayed in that context - where their greatness is assumed / implied rather than directly relayed (which is why the Formby sculpture is just that, and not a statue). So a statue is a permanent instruction or reminder of the ‘greatness’ of the individual. But as you quite rightly point out, you won’t know what that greatness was (probably won’t know who they are at all in most cases) unless you actually receive the details of their actions. At which point (depending upon which source you receive), you will either accept what you are told or critically asses and make your own mind up as to their relative worth. So, as a tool for conveying ‘greatness’ the statue is not a particularly good device is it? I don’t know what you’re referring to, but I don’t agree with criminally damaging anything. The point is merely the purpose or logic of statues.
  6. Perhaps you’re right though, we’re not too big on statues locally are we. More fond of a portrait hanging in Tynwald I guess. Same logic though isn’t it? What are your thoughts on those? We pay for them don’t we, so you must have an opinion on them surely? There’s one of Goldie Taubman if memory serves me right, so that’s topical isn’t it?
  7. I thought statues were big news at the moment. Apologies.
  8. So that brings us back to the original question. What purpose does the statue of the individual serve, if (as you’ve just clarified) the reason they are represented is based mostly on the sacrifice of others (which seems to be a common theme)?
  9. Ah, but that’s completely different isn’t it, it’s not a statue of an individual person. It’s a statue to represent countless people. If there was a suggestion to replace Nelson with something representing the people who gave their lives under his command would that be a bad idea?
  10. What purpose does the statue serve?
  11. I think I know what a numpty is. But a numpity numpty? Is that MF specific, and does it apply to anyone who starts a thread, or only those who’re thinking about statues?
  12. How gracious. I realise that, but the question concerns the thinking behind statues of individuals - and so is to illustrate the point only. The mindset that wants to edify the individual rather than the action is the second point.
  13. If you met someone, and they told you they wanted there to be a statue of them, what would you think?
  14. Am I being overly cynical... my first thought being that now is a very good time to step away from this particular vessel, which may be about to face a very difficult run into the election that is on the horizon?
  15. Revolution in the form I expect most people would think of it doesn’t generally change the way power is authorized. You still have a very small group of people relying on violence (potential or actual) or apathy in order to wield power exclusively. That’s not much different to what we have now, you’re just removing what some would say is the illusion of choice. If nothing really changes for the population in either scenario - from one revolution to another, or from one election to another - then the idea that choice is an illusion becomes more valid. Much was made of the fact that the 2016 election was the biggest turn over of faces in Tynwald in a generation. This was sure to bring big changes that people clearly wanted. Has that happened? The only way to change it is for people to change their relationship with the power they lend. Only the electorate can do it. It is not in the interest of the political class or the vested interests to change it. Apathy has been the biggest obstacle, but maybe that’s about to be one of the things changed by corona. Who knows.
  16. How do vested interests achieve their ends? By applying pressure to those who have the power to influence decisions - directly or indirectly, with carrot or stick. The vested interests part of the problem cannot be removed or neutralized, it will always be there. The only solution to the problem is to change the way power is authorized. There is no other logical solution I can think of, and this solution works (at least a lot better than any other) where it is used.
  17. For the record I think Juan has done a reasonable job during the covid period. Government has got some things right and some things wrong. I think no matter what we may think of them as politicians they have done the best they could under circumstances I would guess none of them ever thought they’d face. Hindsight is always 2020 but it is not unreasonable to discuss any of it. Glossing over the entire situation isn’t going to help improve the outcome or our future response to anything similar.
  18. You don’t really need to think about it as an abstract idea. You can look at the places where a strong party system is the norm - plenty to choose from. In almost all vested interests usually have a stronger influence - for obvious reasons. The interest of ‘the party’ as an entity can easily overtake the interest of the majority populace, and be controlled by the use of economic influence. This is the case pretty much anywhere you look at such a format. If you don’t see it you’re probably politically aligned with the same vested interests or believe you are. There is only one way to challenge vested interests, but nobody wants to hear that drum.
  19. I have business doing grocery rounds, I can bring eggs and other basics if you need. I know advertising is frowned here but if you’re struggling and it helps you stay home I hope the admins will allow you to pm me if you want.
  20. Used cheap local labour. That is going to be a steep and painful learning curve. I loved picking neeps and tats in the winter, but it’s way outside most people’s comfort zone round these parts now. Needs must.
  21. Don’t know if we crossed wires there. I wasn’t suggesting it was a good comparison to the IOM, however an acre of land is an acre of land, a tank of diesel, a ton of fert wherever you are. New Zealand is a fairly expensive place to do business but competes very well in the global food markets despite the fact that it’s up against countries that literally pour money in to agriculture. The point was that there is a flaw in the arms race logic of agri subsidies, and New Zealand proves that.
  22. It’s good to know there are experts on hand. Pm me your number and I’ll send it over to the UN next time they’re dealing with a famine, I’m sure you’ll sort them right out. :-) I agree there is a reasonable chance it will come to nothing. Global food production capacity is still quite far above current population demand. However the UN have stated that the cumulative effect of Coronavirus could squeeze huge swathes of that capacity. Even if that’s only a very small possibility, if it does come to fruition it will break this society in a way that will make Coronavirus look like a picnic. At the moment people are holed up in their homes if they’ve got any sense, with a reasonable degree of concern for their own safety and that of their community, but still plenty of food in the shops and stores. The prospect of food shortage would lead to entirely different scenario, one which most people in this part of the world have no capacity to imagine, and don’t want to, for good reason. Even if it’s only a very small possibility, the potential consequences would lead me to want some sort of attempt at a plan at the very least. We don’t have one now. There is spare capacity on the IOM right now. There’s only a few weeks to try and make any use of it for minimal investment. Worth it I’d say.
  23. All correct. But I guess such issues are inversely proportional to how much food there actually is. If food is short folks will eat whatever they can get. It’s been very long time since that was a reality here, but the cold fact is there is no plan in place if it does arise.
  24. Apologies. You’re right. https://www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/agriculture/agricultural-development-scheme/active-farmer-definition/ I’m a bit blurry at the moment.
  25. I'm pretty sure they changed the scheme a few years ago to include what they called an ‘active farmer’ clause. So you cannot just claim for doing nothing. It’s probably not 100% water tight, as with the fact that apparently sometimes the person working the land doesn’t see the CCS money.
×
×
  • Create New...