The statue as was already hid history on behalf of cowards who don't want to face up to it.You know the funnier bit.
All this is doing is hiding away history so Woke people no longer end up triggered remembering the terrible stuff their ancestors did.
1) It's a stupid idea to suddenly tell people to stop using a gesture that is extremely common just because some assholes decided to also start using it because it's giving them power and saying they can take over any gesture (and they will) to force people to stop doing it. It's giving them power to co-op whatever symbol or gesture they want.Yeah, I don't care. He's forfeited the right to irony.
If you want to be alienated and vulnerable, try being queer, or trans, or a person of colour. If being told to stop making a handsign because of its use by white supremacists was enough to drive you into the arms of neo-Nazi, then you were always going to end up there.
You literally get Wikipedia lists a 4chan prank as starting the modern free bleeding campaign right. Wikipedia itself. You get that right?Freebleeding is a thing. I don't see what 4chan has to do with it.
You seem to have real issues understanding this very important point about irony, which is that things stop being ironic once people take them seriously.
Black guy whose a known troll tells people drinking milk is a sign of white supremacy.So, where is the irony?
Getting people to believe it and getting them to then go after others for it.Where is the irony?
Wow, it sounds like those people are really owning white supremacists by doing stupid things without any irony.
Also, who are these people? Name one.
Because the name means so much. It could be any troll using a fake name. Honestly it probably is a channer it seems like their styleWhy do you think this is 4chan? There's a thread over on /pol/ with people trying (and failing) to find the original meme.
Also, the letter literally names the person responsible.
You think the people who need to know about this stuff will do that?Speaking as a historian. Trying to learn the history of marginalised people from looking at statues put up to glorify the people who oppressed them is the most hilariously misguided effort I can possibly imagine.
Read a book.
And I'm hoping the differences don't escape people here.Oh god this argument again. Alright here we go:
This guy right here is the Emperor Claudius. Or his head rather, originally supposed to attached to be a life sized bronze statue of him. The head was found in a river running through Colchester, the Roman capital of Britain right up until it was sacked by Boudicca during her revolt. Incidentally its around that time the head, which appears to have been torn from its body rather than weathered off, was deposited in the river. In case the clues haven't connected for you yet, thats a bunch of oppressed people marching on the capital of their oppressors, seeing a statue of the guy who originally kickstarted the oppression and ripping that fucker down to throw his head in the nearest body of water they could find. I'm really hoping the parallels haven't escaped you there. You will notice that this statue being demolished hasn't done anything to stop us learning about Claudius. Or Boudicca. Or Colchester. Or the Roman invasions. Or literally anything. Because statues are not history. Statues are merely monuments to an individual that, if anything, do more to erase history than their destruction will, since all a standing statue does is declare "hey, this guy was great!" without ever delving into what may have not been so great about them. You will notice this is why we don't have statues of, say, serial killer Dr. Howard Shipman. Nobody says then "Oh it will be to commemorate all the doctoring he did when not murdering his own patients" or "Oh it will serve as a reminder of past mistakes and the changes that had to be made" because when you really get down to it everybody knows a statue of him would be saying "Hey lets honour how great we clearly thought this murderous lunatic was."
So if you say "No we must preserve these statues to preserve history!" you are just flat out wrong. You're not trying to preserve history, history will be fine. You're just trying to preserve the status quo. Learn the difference
We now have these magical pocket sized devices you can put a name into and connect to the worlds largest collection of human history all compiled to views.Fucking, the only reason I or anyone else know a damn page worth of valuable history is either because we took the time out of our lives to find it, or we had a high-school teacher who gave a damn. I knew about the Tulsa Race riots before seeing them referenced on HBO because my English teacher gave a fuck about teaching a bunch of dumb white kids about racism. I learned about the history of Native Americans in my region of the country because I had a (politically incomprehensible) history teacher who gave a damn about the subject. I learned nothing about that from statues, though I can name several monuments along the Oregon trail. Sadly, they didn’t explain the consequences to natives or anyone else when I saw those. They just existed there with a plaque.
The history written in statues and monuments is solely the history of victors, and it is solely their narrative being told. Because southern whites with those statues made a century after the conflict in question are telling the story of their victory over black America. The story of their superiority, their nobility, their honor, and their domination of the blacks through violence. It is a fiendish and false history told in a deceptive and worthless way. In removing it, we make room for a more accurate telling of these stories, hopefully in full and by people more interested in truth than connecting themselves to some glorious heritage.
In short, fuck the false gods of white America, they’re all shit and I piss on their graves.
And does the internet not help reveal it?The statue as was already hid history on behalf of cowards who don't want to face up to it.
These statues remember past glories of favoured sons and daughters. But they're all about the good things they did, and none of the ill - because people don't like to be reminded of it and don't want to deal with it. It's cherry-picking the bits of history to remember. The Colston statue was erected in 1895 and the plaque chooses to call him "wise" and "virtuous", quietly ignoring much of his wealth derived from slavery, even long after abolition and the recognition of how vile slavery was. And to the modern day, people have not wanted that dirty laundry aired. It's easy enough to repurpose these statues: it could have been as simple as a new plaque, and indeed campaigners in Bristol spent thirty years trying to get a new plaque for the Colston statue, only to meet constant prevarication and obstruction. If it had been done, the statue might still be there.
This is nationalism, though. People associate with their country, assume it as part of their identity. It's strangely irrational in a way to feel pride over what other people did and somehow think that some of their accomplishment should grace oneself, but that's the way humans are so we may as well work with it. However I would say to anyone that if they want their nation, community, etc. as part of their identity, at least have the honesty and bravery to accept all of it, not the just the chickenshit whitewash. A Briton can have pride that their ancestors, from their little island off the NW European coast, somehow conquered a huge amount of the world... but also humility for the atrocities carried out in the process. Keep the memorials to businessmen, generals, prime ministers to celebrate their achievements, and also have those memorials acknowledge the terrible things they did too.
And here I was thinking I could use the internet regardless of the number of statues around.And does the internet not help reveal it?
Internet available on say a mobile phone?
There is no attempt of any significance to remove the statue of Gandhi, or Churchill. No political party of any relevance called for it to happen; no huge protest turned out and tried to pull it down.They're about the good they did because people are often complex individuals. I mean people are calling to pull down statues of Gandhi FFS. I'm sure once some of her problematic stuff gets out Florence Nightingale will face calls for her statue to be pulled down too.
We're at a a stage where to "fight the NAzis in society" people are calling for the removal of a statue of the first world leader to stand up the the actual Nazis......... think about that for a moment.
And yet having the statue there gives a name and gets people willing to look further to google it.And here I was thinking I could use the internet regardless of the number of statues around.
There is a petition going round for the Gandhi statue.There is no attempt of any significance to remove the statue of Gandhi, or Churchill. No political party of any relevance called for it to happen; no huge protest turned out and tried to pull it down.
Johnson said he would defend it because he wanted a distraction, a culture war, and it whips people up. Not because it was actually under threat.
How many Roman statues do you think are actually left standing my dude? How kind do you think the last two-thousand-odd years have been to them? Most Roman statues have been long gone for a while now, and you'll notice history hasn't forgotten about them one little bit.And I'm hoping the differences don't escape people here.
How far back are people planning to go?
Do we pull down all Roman statues too (they kept slaves) do we pull down every statue of everyone deemed oppressive (goodbye Florence Nightingale)
If this is how little you know of history, you have no place to be lecturing other people on itBoudicca ander her revolt pulled down 1 statue symbolic of the leader or person who started the campaign in Gaul.
Do you have any idea just how many historical or cultural references appear in the works of Shakespeare? Who, I remind you, was writing for the common man. You don't do yourself any favours with this kind of elitist attitude, assuming everyone in the past was an ignorant fool while only you hold the truth of knowledgeWe as a collective learned about the history based on what is left to find. Would a lay person in medieval times know of those events? Maybe some scribe might have a dusty old volume on it but a lay person?
He was a doctor so he did in fact heal people. Made the sick better with his sage wisdom and well earned knowledge. You know, those he didn't discreetly murder. Arguably more than Edward Colston did. But you're actually agreeing with here anyway; statues are just monuments to a persons greatness. So what happens when we think those people aren't so great?We don't have a statue of serial killer Howard shipman because he was never seen as having done anything good worth celebrating in the first place.
...it's named after him because he created it, specifically as a means of seeking out and rewarding peaceful inventions after seeing how a thing he had invented to try and make mining and engineering safer got repurposed into a weapon. Maybe stop getting your history from statues and try a book if you are going to either misunderstand or misrepresent things like thatWe live in a world where the inventor a dynamite which likely lead to so many weapons of war is also the person the peace prize is named after and previously ran and arms manufacturer.
How many Roman statues do you think are actually left standing my dude? How kind do you think the last two-thousand-odd years have been to them? Most Roman statues have been long gone for a while now, and you'll notice history hasn't forgotten about them one little bit.
As for Nightingale, sure, why not. She was more of a statistician than a nurse, if we want to celebrate woman in healthcare give me Mary Seacole any day
Sorry that was your argument for it lol.If this is how little you know of history, you have no place to be lecturing other people on it
Yes because clearly the White supremacists are going to be the ones engaging with Shakespeare lol.Do you have any idea just how many historical or cultural references appear in the works of Shakespeare? Who, I remind you, was writing for the common man. You don't do yourself any favours with this kind of elitist attitude, assuming everyone in the past was an ignorant fool while only you hold the truth of knowledge
Not deemed worthy of extra recognition though.He was a doctor so he did in fact heal people. Made the sick better with his sage wisdom and well earned knowledge. You know, those he didn't discreetly murder. Arguably more than Edward Colston did. But you're actually agreeing with here anyway; statues are just monuments to a persons greatness. So what happens when we think those people aren't so great?
So yeh schools, housing for the poor and hospitals. He's reported to have given £70,000 in total which n todays money is £6,230,546Colston supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere........ Many of his charitable foundations survive to this day.
And is that not the problem demonstrated clear as day with going after statues due to one point in their history?...it's named after him because he created it, specifically as a means of seeking out and rewarding peaceful inventions after seeing how a thing he had invented to try and make mining and engineering safer got repurposed into a weapon. Maybe stop getting your history from statues and try a book if you are going to either misunderstand or misrepresent things like that
Technically true, yet with pretty much no relevance to how most people actually behave.And does the internet not help reveal it?
Internet available on say a mobile phone?
No, they're not at all about them being complex individuals, exactly the opposite is true. The statues are solely and explicitly in commemoration of their "good" deeds, despite the fact they potentially did a great deal of harm to other people that the people who erected the statue don't care about.They're about the good they did because people are often complex individuals.
There's no significant pressure to remove statues of Winston Churchill. Just because some journo found a couple of random people who did does not make it worth discussion.We're at a a stage where to "fight the NAzis in society" people are calling for the removal of a statue of the first world leader to stand up the the actual Nazis...think about that for a moment.
A) That is in fact 3 not 4Trajan’s Column
Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius
The Four Tetrarchs
There's 4 for you. I'm sure a number of others still survive.
We however know most of the history about then due to digging through the stuff and finding the remains. We don't know this stuff from knowledge passed down from the Middles ages etc
Because that statue emphasised that removing statues does not remove history. To which you give a flippant response about only one statue being removed (when several cities were utterly destroyed) and seemed to think Claudius had anything to do with the conquest of Gaul which just shows how little respect you actually have for history. Don't try and use it as a shield when you clearly have no other interest in itSorry that was your argument for it lol.
I do know she and her supporters did take part in a pretty large campaign to push the Romans out of Britain but you decided to focus it down to 1 statue being pulled down lol.
I'm sorry what do white supremacists have to do with anything? First time either of us have mentioned them.Yes because clearly the White supremacists are going to be the ones engaging with Shakespeare lol.
It's not an elitist attitude to point out that the lay person most likely only engaged with Shakespeare during their schooling and maybe the odd play at some point. Not much more.
Hence why I said "arguably" because he didn't do any of that himself, he just splashed cash around. Is that morally better than personally healing the sick?Not deemed worthy of extra recognition though.
Also
So yeh schools, housing for the poor and hospitals. He's reported to have given £70,000 in total which n todays money is £6,230,546
Alfred Nobel devised an explosive more stable than the ones currently used in mining and engineering in the hopes that it would make mining and engineering safer. Other people took that and went "Huh. Bet I could kill people with this." Its not like he invented a particular form of gun and was amazed it got turned to murder, he was making pre-existing methods safer. This doesn't demonstrate any problem except your willingness to ignore basic facts to try and make a gotcha pointAnd is that not the problem demonstrated clear as day with going after statues due to one point in their history?
Funny how people will go after statues of people due to problematic statements but ignore times they changed their minds or tried to do some good despite all the ill they did......
True but you can still look up info on them. As you just did lolA) That is in fact 3 not 4
B) Your second one has in fact already been taken down and placed in a museum, where it has been for about 40 years now
C) Your third one isn't in its original place or serving its original purpose. What history will you be learning from it?
Question. Did you choose Boudica for the ironic value in picking her?Because that statue emphasised that removing statues does not remove history. To which you give a flippant response about only one statue being removed (when several cities were utterly destroyed) and seemed to think Claudius had anything to do with the conquest of Gaul which just shows how little respect you actually have for history. Don't try and use it as a shield when you clearly have no other interest in it
In centuries prior to him there' wouldn't have been schooling on such matters for many commoners. So again for a good while much of the history was lost.I'm sorry what do white supremacists have to do with anything? First time either of us have mentioned them.
Dude, Shakespeare was the Michael Bay of his time. He wanted his plays to appeal to the masses so he filled them full of dick jokes, flashy action and pop culture references. Mentioning past battles, fragments of ancient cultures, old mythologies, those are his pop culture references. Things he could slip in knowing everyone would get it. Thats the point I'm getting at here, not that people in the past were cultured just because they'd heard of Shakespeare. You assuming the folks of ye olden times were pig ignorant of their past reflects poorly on no-one but yourself
It's how most philanthropists got statues just think in a century or two there might be Bill Gates statues.Hence why I said "arguably" because he didn't do any of that himself, he just splashed cash around. Is that morally better than personally healing the sick?
And I'm once again going to point out this doesn't actually effect my argument in any way. You don't make statues to learn from mistakes or highlight errors, you make them because you think a dude is rad enough to deserve one. You're quibbling over the cherry on top in the hopes we'll overlook your cake being stale
Nobel literally owned an arms manufacturer lolAlfred Nobel devised an explosive more stable than the ones currently used in mining and engineering in the hopes that it would make mining and engineering safer. Other people took that and went "Huh. Bet I could kill people with this." Its not like he invented a particular form of gun and was amazed it got turned to murder, he was making pre-existing methods safer. This doesn't demonstrate any problem except your willingness to ignore basic facts to try and make a gotcha point
If you google Jefferson, if the top 5 results only one goes into detail on slavery and race. It excuses his owning of slaves by saying he was a kind master and that everyone at the time owned slaves. It then brushes over the the criticism of this pointing out that excessive punishment did occur at the time and doesn’t mention the founding fathers who never owned slaves or freed them in their lifetime. They say he thought that blacks were inferior then excuses it by saying everyone thought that (obviously untrue). They say he believed in abolition eventually but only spend a single sentence on the Hatian revolution (WHICH OCCURRED DURING HIS PRESIDENCY) and state that it actually hardened him against abolition due to the violence against whites. His reaction to the violence against Hatian slaves, who had a life expectancy of two years upon reaching Haiti, were brutally abused, and during the Revolution were summarily executed and fed to dogs, is left unstated. It does not mention that his focus on running a plantation with a hundred slaves did not maintain his wealthy status, it actually made him destitute. He abandoned his his profitable legal practice to be the ideal plantation owner he believed fostered liberty by owning a hundred slaves and raping them. He found lawyers unethical you see, and owning slaves and raping them was not as unethical. Yes, google is such a great way to learn about statues.We now have these magical pocket sized devices you can put a name into and connect to the worlds largest collection of human history all compiled to views.
Do you not think having a statue could allow people to google the name and learn the history from it in a way that is more accessible and open than hoping they go to a museum?
We don't live in the previous age where the only way to learn history was requiring to go after different sources be it teachers, library books or museums. We have tools that allow people to literally pull out a small device which can connect to the internet and look it up. So yes statues can teach that history now just from being there for people to google the names from them.
See, if you're going to say yourself that info can be looked up without the need to see it on statues, you're just proving my point that its not the statues teaching historyTrue but you can still look up info on them. As you just did lol
You've lost sight of the argument. I didn't pick Boudicca, I picked the statue. Because of the parallels I could draw with modern activism. See, this is what happens when you just say "au contraire!" to everything people say to you, you lose sight of the contextQuestion. Did you choose Boudica for the ironic value in picking her?
Nope, guess again. It's mostly writing. Romans loved writing about themselves. Tacitus' description of Boudicca is just fantasticWe likely know who the person is because of other statues of them about or references to him likely on coins found about or other such artefacts.
Which is not the same as forgetting about the Romans. Everyone still knew they had existed, no history has been erased. So your argument that statues hold the key to remembering history still falls flatAgain it's not thanks to middle age peasants we know about the Romans it's mostly historians excavating and piecing together history. For a while that history was lost to most of the world. Much of what remained and was built by the Romans was allowed to crumble to ruin over time.
And how much schooling do you think the common man got in Shakespeare's time? I am providing contemporary evidence that people who you are attempting to label as ignorant would absolutely have understood historical references and context, you're going to have to do better than just insisting that knowledge was lost.In centuries prior to him there' wouldn't have been schooling on such matters for many commoners. So again for a good while much of the history was lost.
So they're not really teaching any history or merit, are they, just telling you how rich someone is.It's how most philanthropists got statues just think in a century or two there might be Bill Gates statues.
The people of the time. Hence me picking an old statue in my original posts, to try and demonstrate to you that this is not some static, eternal thing. Statues are not there forever, statues may not even be gone forever. History is a thing constantly in fluxAnd are not human beings complex people not all good or bad?
Who gets to decide who is good enough.
Okay. Some people want a statue of Gandhi removed. So what? Why not? Take him down and replace it with a sculpture of India, or a representation of an Indian citizen. Same as how our war memorials depict the soldiers not the generals. What is this pearl clutching you're doing supposed to prove or demonstrate?Again people are upset and Gandhi
Yep, which he tried to focus more on chemical engineering, being fairly indifferent towards the actual weaponry. I believe the interpretation is that he assumed that indifference would isolate him from the aspects of his work he felt clashed with his pacifism (though not enough to actually stop manufacturing weapons, you'll note), hence why it upset him so to be labelled a merchant of death.Nobel literally owned an arms manufacturer lol
Well that's 1 in the top 5 sources so not bad.If you google Jefferson, if the top 5 results only one goes into detail on slavery and race. It excuses his owning of slaves by saying he was a kind master and that everyone at the time owned slaves. It then brushes over the the criticism of this pointing out that excessive punishment did occur at the time and doesn’t mention the founding fathers who never owned slaves or freed them in their lifetime. They say he thought that blacks were inferior then excuses it by saying everyone thought that (obviously untrue). They say he believed in abolition eventually but only spend a single sentence on the Hatian revolution (WHICH OCCURRED DURING HIS PRESIDENCY) and state that it actually hardened him against abolition due to the violence against whites. His reaction to the violence against Hatian slaves, who had a life expectancy of two years upon reaching Haiti, were brutally abused, and during the Revolution were summarily executed and fed to dogs, is left unstated. It does not mention that his focus on running a plantation with a hundred slaves did not maintain his wealthy status, it actually made him destitute. He abandoned his his profitable legal practice to be the ideal plantation owner he believed fostered liberty by owning a hundred slaves and raping them. He found lawyers unethical you see, and owning slaves and raping them was not as unethical. Yes, google is such a great way to learn about statues.
In short, Thomas Jefferson can suck my dick. Fuck Jefferson all my homies hate Jefferson.
Statues give you a start.See, if you're going to say yourself that info can be looked up without the need to see it on statues, you're just proving my point that its not the statues teaching history
the example you brought up was the actions of those supporting Boudica.You've lost sight of the argument. I didn't pick Boudicca, I picked the statue. Because of the parallels I could draw with modern activism. See, this is what happens when you just say "au contraire!" to everything people say to you, you lose sight of the context
and we found the statues and artifacts and writings etcNope, guess again. It's mostly writing. Romans loved writing about themselves. Tacitus' description of Boudicca is just fantastic
So you're arguing medieval peasants would be hugely educated in history?Which is not the same as forgetting about the Romans. Everyone still knew they had existed, no history has been erased. So your argument that statues hold the key to remembering history still falls flat
More than they got centuries before lolAnd how much schooling do you think the common man got in Shakespeare's time? I am providing contemporary evidence that people who you are attempting to label as ignorant would absolutely have understood historical references and context, you're going to have to do better than just insisting that knowledge was lost.
Oh and once again, if you're point is about schooling then once again you're making my point for me and making it clear its not the statues doing the teaching.
More that they had an impact on the area as such.So they're not really teaching any history or merit, are they, just telling you how rich someone is.
Normally they got moved due to damage or them decaying or conquerors wishing to erase past history etc.The people of the time. Hence me picking an old statue in my original posts, to try and demonstrate to you that this is not some static, eternal thing. Statues are not there forever, statues may not even be gone forever. History is a thing constantly in flux
That no person will never be deemed good enough most likely so we might as well pull down every damn statue and ban ever putting more up because no-one is a perfect being.Okay. Some people want a statue of Gandhi removed. So what? Why not? Take him down and replace it with a sculpture of India, or a representation of an Indian citizen. Same as how our war memorials depict the soldiers not the generals. What is this pearl clutching you're doing supposed to prove or demonstrate?
Well Silence is violence and all thatYep, which he tried to focus more on chemical engineering, being fairly indifferent towards the actual weaponry. I believe the interpretation is that he assumed that indifference would isolate him from the aspects of his work he felt clashed with his pacifism (though not enough to actually stop manufacturing weapons, you'll note), hence why it upset him so to be labelled a merchant of death.
Demand it be changed and push winners to reject the prize........Though going back to why you originally started this tangent, many people have found this problematic throughout the years, the juxtaposition has always been noted. But whereas a statue offers a nice tangible target you can physically act against, what are you supposed to do about an immaterial title?
1 source mentions slavery at all and mostly says he wasn’t that bad. Cool standard you have there. Methinks you don’t actually care about recognizing that these were horrible people.Well that's 1 in the top 5 sources so not bad.
Not "no person". Just no person who has held much power in the context of imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, slavery, and so on.That no person will never be deemed good enough most likely so we might as well pull down every damn statue and ban ever putting more up because no-one is a perfect being.
I think it's a stretch to call these people "horrible" just because they lived in a different time period and don't share the same 2020 values that we have. Chances are, people in 2120 will be calling us all horrible people for some unforeseen reason.Methinks you don’t actually care about recognizing that these were horrible people.
HAITI HAPPENED WHILE JEFFERSON WAS PRESIDENT. FRANKLIN FREED HIS SLAVES DURING HIS OWN LIFETIME. THEY KNEW SLAVERY WAS BAD THEY JUST DID NOT CARE.I think it's a stretch to call these people "horrible" just because they lived in a different time period and don't share the same 2020 values that we have. Chances are, people in 2120 will be calling us all horrible people for some unforeseen reason.
If humanity makes it that far.