Black Lives Matter

[Chef Raekwon 289]

8 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Rightly or wrongly though it is still part of history. Museums also may contain portraits, statues of those may not have deserved such status. Where does it stop. You could look at these statues as a way of reminding you how evil these people may have been.

I think there's a massive difference between a portrait in a museum (or a statue in a museum for that matter) compared to a statue in a public place.

[Chef Raekwon 289]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

Pull the grand buildings down in all of the cities that were built on the backs of exploitation of foreigners. Not much left. Work out all of the riches that accrued to the country in the same way, plus interest. Send it out to the starving around the globe. As you say. Where does it stop?

This is just whataboutery.  No one with a brain would also suggest pulling buildings down as they serve an entirely different purpose to a statue.  If necessary a building or street could be renamed, as is the case quite often.

Really fed up of people exaggerating and obfuscating points to discredit things.  It's just daft Daily Mail style hysteria.

[Chef Raekwon 289]

4 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

The benefit of who's hindsight exactly?

Well in the case of Slavers, I'd say the hindsight of society generally.

I mean maybe you think that society doesn't think that the slave trade was horrific and it's architects should continue to be celebrated.  That's the only reason I can think of why you'd take issue with the statues that have been taken down in the last few days.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits 1,709]

7 minutes ago, woolley said:

Pull the grand buildings down in all of the cities that were built on the backs of exploitation of foreigners. Not much left. Work out all of the riches that accrued to the country in the same way, plus interest. Send it out to the starving around the globe. As you say. Where does it stop?

It doesn't.   Unless they run out of bandwagons to jump on.  Tossers.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits 1,709]

3 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

This is just whataboutery.  No one with a brain would also suggest pulling buildings down as they serve an entirely different purpose to a statue.  If necessary a building or street could be renamed, as is the case quite often.

Really fed up of people exaggerating and obfuscating points to discredit things.  It's just daft Daily Mail style hysteria.

It isn't really.

 

[P.K. 5,089]

5 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

I think there's a massive difference between a portrait in a museum (or a statue in a museum for that matter) compared to a statue in a public place.

A museum is a public place.

[Roger Mexico 9,252]

57 minutes ago, woolley said:

I think it's pretty narrow minded to attack statues and monuments.  They are all tokens of times past that remind us of where we came from. Change for the future is here and now.

So you'll be objecting to them demolishing any buildings whatsoever will you?

Things change all the time.  Statues are removed or re-sited all the time.  As I pointed out last night, the Colston statue wasn't some ancient relic from his time, but late Victorian.  The Daily Mail is making a fuss today about removal of a statue in Docklands that had been there all the way back to 1997 (it had been in storage since the Docks were bombed in the War).  If you find certain things so significant that they are untouchable you need to  explain why they are so much more important than everything else.

[Manximus Aururaneus 1,172]

7 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

Well in the case of Slavers, I'd say the hindsight of society generally.

I mean maybe you think that society doesn't think that the slave trade was horrific and it's architects should continue to be celebrated.  That's the only reason I can think of why you'd take issue with the statues that have been taken down in the last few days.

And I think that you are deliberately avoiding the question of who, in a democracy, decides. I say that it should be a democratic process involving all concerned. You seem content that it should be a small group who are not only anonymous but who wear masks. 

There are statues to recognise the achievements of both the Jarrow marchers and the Tolpuddle martyrs - would you be ok with it if a small gang of anonymous masked individuals destroyed both statues this weekend whilst the police looked on?

Edited June 10, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[Chef Raekwon 289]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

A museum is a public place.

Right, fair enough.

But I'm guessing you're clever enough to get the point that a statue in a museum is different to a statue being displayed in a town square for example?  

[Declan 7,172]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Pull the grand buildings down in all of the cities that were built on the backs of exploitation of foreigners. Not much left. Work out all of the riches that accrued to the country in the same way, plus interest. Send it out to the starving around the globe. As you say. Where does it stop?

That would be an absurdity. There's a clear distinction between removing a statue meant to glorify and honour an individual and tearing down a building that is still in use.

But then that's what people have been doing throughout this discussion. Taking a reasonable argument like removing slave owners statues and saying that's the same as razing Liverpool to the ground ... then producing a absurd example that isn't the same. People say George Floyd shouldn't have been killed and you say "what about..." and name some unrelated death; people say "you shouldn't say coloured" and you say "ahh what about people of colour". People say "the protest yesterday was peaceful" and people say "what about social distancing" so they say "we were socially distanced" and it's "what about people who can't go to funerals".  It's like people want to kill off anti-racist action by a thousand nitpicks and whatabouts. Who would want to do that?

[Declan 7,172]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

A museum is a public place.

But you can contextualise in a museum.

[Chef Raekwon 289]

2 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

And I think that you are deliberately avoiding the question of who, in a democracy, decides. I say that it should be a democratic process involving all concerned. You seem content that it should be a small group who are not only anonymous but who wear masks. 

There are statues to recognise the achievements of both the Jarrow marchers and the Tolpuddle martyrs - would you be ok with it if a small gang of anonymous masked individuals destroyed both statues this weekend whilst the police looked on?

I don't think pulling down as part of a protest is the right thing to do either, I'd agree it should be done through proper democratic channels.  I'm certainly not going to lose my shit over it though either.

[Roger Mexico 9,252]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

A museum is a public place.

I think there's a difference between a public place, such as a museum (to which the public are admitted normally, but only at certain times and under certain conditions) and a public space (which is freely available at all times).

[Manximus Aururaneus 1,172]

10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

So you'll be objecting to them demolishing any buildings whatsoever will you?

Things change all the time.  Statues are removed or re-sited all the time.  As I pointed out last night, the Colston statue wasn't some ancient relic from his time, but late Victorian.  The Daily Mail is making a fuss today about removal of a statue in Docklands that had been there all the way back to 1997 (it had been in storage since the Docks were bombed in the War).  If you find certain things so significant that they are untouchable you need to  explain why they are so much more important than everything else.

The Jarrow marchers statue goes all the way back to 2001 - happy for it to be destroyed at the whim of a few masked individuals without a fuss? It's in a public space.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[woolley 19,198]

15 minutes ago, Chef Raekwon said:

This is just whataboutery.  No one with a brain would also suggest pulling buildings down as they serve an entirely different purpose to a statue.  If necessary a building or street could be renamed, as is the case quite often.

Really fed up of people exaggerating and obfuscating points to discredit things.  It's just daft Daily Mail style hysteria.

It's just the logical conclusion of the argument. We are benefiting today from the wrongs of the past. Shouldn't such hypocrisy be addressed? I don't know about whataboutery or daft, but it would certainly be bloody inconvenient to our soft and comfortable lives.