National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Hawki]

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.

I think it will happen a lot faster than that. Not so much a potential collapse of civilization (though that's the thing that keeps me up at night), but shifting morals.

You want an example of this? J.K. Rowling. I remember when the books came out, the books were the whipping blocks of the right. The idea that they were promoting witchcraft, were anti-Christian, etc. Within the span of two decades (and less than that arguably, since Deathly Hallows was published in 2007), the books have become hated by those on the left for a litany of complaints that can fall under the umbrella of being "not progressive enough." That's not to say that you can't re-evaluate a work, but I can't think of a single series within my lifetime that went from beloved to hated within the span of a single generation. The only people who don't seem to care about Rowling or Blyton are the kids who read the books. Because both of these authors remain insanely popular among the age groups they're actually targeted at.

If I had to guess what the next ethical jump will be, it'll probably be veganism or some variant. "What, the people of 2020 ate animals? Disgusting!" Despite the fact that, like slavery (heck, even longer than slavery), the eating of animals has been going on for time immemorial. Heck, both are STILL going on.

Also, obligatory Simpsons reference, because I've been feeling like Abe for awhile.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

No that bad isn't a terrible standard nor was helping found the USA an achievement not worthy of remembering as such.

Not "no person". Just no person who has held much power in the context of imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, slavery, and so on.

It will be no-one ever. Unless they have a very good PR agent and are very good at covering up indiscretions.

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.

yup, who knows what for either at present maybe PETA will turn out to be right and we're all horrible people for keeping pets or something.

 

[Hawki]

In happier news, we can all laugh at Trump.

Donald Trump supporters blame poor crowd at rally on protesters

Donald Trump has blamed the poor numbers at his much-hyped re-election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Sunday on protesters, who his team say prevented his supporters from showing up.

www.news.com.au

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think it will happen a lot faster than that. Not so much a potential collapse of civilization (though that's the thing that keeps me up at night), but shifting morals.

You want an example of this? J.K. Rowling. I remember when the books came out, the books were the whipping blocks of the right. The idea that they were promoting witchcraft, were anti-Christian, etc. Within the span of two decades (and less than that arguably, since Deathly Hallows was published in 2007), the books have become hated by those on the left for a litany of complaints that can fall under the umbrella of being "not progressive enough." That's not to say that you can't re-evaluate a work, but I can't think of a single series within my lifetime that went from beloved to hated within the span of a single generation. The only people who don't seem to care about Rowling or Blyton are the kids who read the books. Because both of these authors remain insanely popular among the age groups they're actually targeted at.

If I had to guess what the next ethical jump will be, it'll probably be veganism or some variant. "What, the people of 2020 ate animals? Disgusting!" Despite the fact that, like slavery (heck, even longer than slavery), the eating of animals has been going on for time immemorial. Heck, both are STILL going on.

Also, obligatory Simpsons reference, because I've been feeling like Abe for awhile.

JK Rowling kind of brought that on herself by pretending that the books she wrote were more progressive than they actually were.

Kind of like saying that all religions and races were definitely represented at Hogwarts, despite never writing about them.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...s-that-there-were-jewish-wizards-harry-potter

 

[crimson5pheonix]

In happier news, we can all laugh at Trump.

Donald Trump supporters blame poor crowd at rally on protesters

Donald Trump has blamed the poor numbers at his much-hyped re-election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Sunday on protesters, who his team say prevented his supporters from showing up.

www.news.com.au

Bless Zoomers and K-pop stans, they're the real heroes of the revolution.

 

[Hawki]

JK Rowling kind of brought that on herself by pretending that the books she wrote were more progressive than they actually were.

Kind of like saying that all religions and races were definitely represented at Hogwarts, despite never writing about them.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...s-that-there-were-jewish-wizards-harry-potter

I agree that Rowling brought it upon herself to a point, but people had to be asking those questions themselves, and I'm left to ask, why the questions were being asked?

For instance, the "Jewish question" (God, that sounds ominous). People asked if there's Jews in Hogwarts. Rowling responds by plucking up an obscure character by virtue of his surname, and is never confirmed as being Jewish in the books. To me, this question is subordinate to a more interesting questions - how would a person of Abrahamic religion fit into a school like Hogwarts, considering that these religions tend to have a distrustful relationship with magic and "witchcraft?" You could imagine a Muggle-born of religious upbringing being introduced to Hogwarts, and the tension that would result, both internally and externally. But that's not the question being asked, the question being asked is "are there (insert group here) at Hogwarts?" That's the beginning and end of the question.

And to be clear, I'm not faulting the books for not doing certain things, because if you're faulting a work for not doing something, then what a work doesn't do can stretch ad infinitum. But on the other hand, Rowling did dig this grave for herself in certain elements. GrindlewaldxDumbledore is one of them. Lycanthropy = AIDS is another. We all know about the former, but the latter is kind of bizzare, because originally, I recall people complaining about how Lupin wasn't gay, and that his lycanthropy was an obvious analogue for AIDS. At some point, Rowling stated that lycanthropy WAS a parallel for AIDS. A claim I'm highly skeptical about, but okay, sure. Now, there's people complaining that lycanthropy = AIDS is homophobic, because Fenrir Greyback tries to spread his lycanthropy, which is apparently a parallel to the idea of gays intentionally infecting straight people with AIDS or something. So, apparently lycanthropy being or not being an analogy to AIDS is homophobic either way. Apparently, neither of groups of people are willing to consider that lycanthropy existed as a concept well before AIDS, and that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

It's too late for Rowling to get out of this Catch-22 she found herself in, but I'd say to any writer - don't be afraid to say "I didn't consider that " or "I don't know." I don't expect a writer to know everything about a fictional world they've created. And if you do start pulling stuff out of your arse, sooner or later, it's going to bite you.

 

[Hawki]

Bless Zoomers and K-pop stans, they're the real heroes of the revolution.

Zoomer?

Oh God, this is gold. I've endured "Millennial" being an insult all my life, now I get to say "okay Zoomer" to any little shit who thinks themselves better than me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, Rowling did go and say that Nazi wizards were threatening the entire wizard world, so you'd expect the entire world to be represented, and maybe in particular some Jews, LGBT people, Roma, the disabled etc. OTOH, most authors do that nowdays anyway, I think it's more what Rowling has said or done to annoy people after the series. Yes, there are gay characters...um...Dumbledore was gay, it was a big part of his fight with Grindelwald, really. Yes, we will see his fight with Grindelwald...no, his sexuality won't ever be even hinted at beyond me telling you this. But he's totally gay.

(OTOH, the Thor series doesn't get nearly as much flak for Valkyrie being bisexual, really she is. We had a 2 second scene that slightly implied this, but we had to cut it out for time. But she totally is.)

 

[Hawki]

Well, Rowling did go and say that Nazi wizards were threatening the entire wizard world, so you'd expect the entire world to be represented, and maybe in particular some Jews, LGBT people, Roma, the disabled etc.

I think that's a false equivalence.

By book 7, the Death Eaters are obvious Nazi stand-ins. When they take over the Ministry, the literature Umbridge displays is a clear reference to stuff like Mein Kemf. But their level of 'purity' is purely on "pure bloodedness." A real-world Nazi would love an "Aryan," and hate a Jew or Roma. A Death Eater would love a Jew or Roma if they were a pure blood, and hate an "Aryan" if they were a mudblood.

Also, back to the Jews (how did this become about Jews? Bleh.). I don't know what the population of Jews was in the UK at the time, but right now, that's about 2%. If one's going for the representation angle, that's a really low percentage to represent. But it does tie in on another issue, and that's religion in the series, period. In the context of the books, I can't think of a single character who's said to be religious at all...but I also can't think of a single character who's specified to be irreligious either. So one group of people could say that (religious group here) is under-represented. Another could say that atheists are under-represented. And if we're talking about Roma, according to Wikipedia, they account for 0.36% of the UK's population. I'm not exactly calling the books anti-Roma at this point. And if we're going back to religion, and people complain about lack of Jews, or Muslims...okay, but like, how many religious groups are seen in the books at all? Unless you're assuming that everyone who isn't specified as (insert religion here) is Christian or atheist, but I think that's a big assumption to make.

Also, I don't think the Death Eaters were threatening the world. There's not much evidence, if any, of them having influence outside the UK, at least during the timeframe of the books themselves. But even if they were, again, the Death Eaters have different priorities to actual Nazis, even if there's parallels between them.

OTOH, most authors do that nowdays anyway, I think it's more what Rowling has said or done to annoy people after the series. Yes, there are gay characters...um...Dumbledore was gay, it was a big part of his fight with Grindelwald, really. Yes, we will see his fight with Grindelwald...no, his sexuality won't ever be even hinted at beyond me telling you this. But he's totally gay.

Can you name some other authors? I'm actually curious.

(OTOH, the Thor series doesn't get nearly as much flak for Valkyrie being bisexual, really she is. We had a 2 second scene that slightly implied this, but we had to cut it out for time. But she totally is.)

Yeah, Marvel's guilty of that too. "Show, don't tell," and all that.

I mean, it's obvious why they're doing it. They want to claim brownie points for representation, but don't want to piss off the idiots who'll claim "forced politics" if Valkyrie kisses a girl. I guess Marvel gets less flak because while the MCU has arguably penetrated pop culture to a greater extent than Harry Potter, Valkyrie isn't on Dumbledore's level when it comes to plot relevance.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

Let's assume for one moment that the people who orchestrated the original 4chan hoax were not far-right activists trying to discredit their political opponents and cover their own politics, but fun anarchic trolls indulging in a bit of carnivalesque fun. That's not true, they absolutely were far-right activists, but let's assume it anyway. Let's assume the whole thing is a big giant joke which happened for no reason. Oh boy, what are those wacky trolls going to do next!

So let's assume every single person who photographed themselves making the okay sign, including all the actual neo-Nazis, were just doing it as a funny joke. They were just putting on an act and pretending.

But what were they pretending to be?

Oh right, they were pretending to be white supremacists. That was the joke, right? These people who totally aren't white supremacists (except the ones who actually are) are pretending to be white supremacists, so that those silly oversensitive liberals get mad at them and think they're white supremacists. That's how this works, right? That's the joke.

I'll reiterate the important part of that. The "joke" here is to make people think you're a white supremacist.

It sounds to me like these cool wacky fun trolls gave white supremacists the power to coopt that symbol when they set out to make people believe that symbol was a white supremacist handsign. Crying that people think you're racist because you did a hand sign that you deliberately attempted to make people believe was racist isn't really taking that power back. Refusing to distance your pretend white supremacy from the real white supremacists who are not pretending isn't taking that power back.

At this point though, the issue is less that white supremacists coopted an innocent joke, and more that you have to be pretty gullible to believe that this was ever a joke.

Except as we've seen it won't be "Stop using the handsign" it will be "Dear Mr Terminal Blue's manager, your employee Mr Terminal Blue was seen making this White supremacist hand gesture, I am shocked and applauded your store supports the Nazi ideology and me and my 50 friend have no intention to buy from your store again until action is taken. Yours Sincerely AntiFA Karen

"Oh no, I pretended to be a white supremacist on the internet so that people would think I was a white supremacist, and now people think I'm a white supremacist! Who could have seen this happening? Imagine my shock! Surely, I have no choice now save to become a white supremacist, which I totally wasn't already. Alas, for I was not a racist, but so cruelly have I been treated for merely pretending to be a racist that I must become racist for real now. Gas the k***s, race war now!"

Forgive my lack of sympathy, it just seems to me that anyone who flips that easily maybe wasn't being entirely honest about pretending to be a racist.

Hell it may not even be about getting people on the side of Nazi. But just alienating them from the site vehemently yelling about fighting the Nazi by getting people who are not Nazis attacked by them and showing said people that the supposed new age Nazi hunters are incompetent and more likely than not going to harm 10 innocent people at least just in the hopes 1 of them might be a Nazi.

If those people were pretending to be Nazis, I don't really care.

Why would you pretend to be a Nazi?

You literally get Wikipedia lists a 4chan prank as starting the modern free bleeding campaign right. Wikipedia itself. You get that right?

I don't get why it's relevant.

Getting people to believe it and getting them to then go after others for it.

Why would you pretend to be a Nazi if you didn't want people to go after you?

Sounds dumb to me.

Also again it relies on people accepting things as absolutely truth and getting the narrative locked in so suddenly going forward those symobols etc have always been secret signs of White supremacy.

No, it doesn't.

It just requires you not to care about irony which isn't actually irony.

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 style

I love how you will openly admit that going after a disability activist to get people to attack her online is "4chan's style", but then want me to care if these innocent lovable trollsters get (mis)identified as Nazis, or are outed to their bosses.

Like, the reason I didn't link to the /pol/ post on this is because people are literally talking about white supremacist shit in a thread about a stupid tik-tok meme.

Besides, let's be real. There's only one reason anyone from 4chan is on tik-tok.

You think the people who need to know about this stuff will do that?

Yeah.

But I suspect we have very different ideas on who the people are who need to know this stuff.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Also, back to the Jews (how did this become about Jews? Bleh.). I don't know what the population of Jews was in the UK at the time, but right now, that's about 2%. If one's going for the representation angle, that's a really low percentage to represent. But it does tie in on another issue, and that's religion in the series, period. In the context of the books, I can't think of a single character who's said to be religious at all...but I also can't think of a single character who's specified to be irreligious either. So one group of people could say that (religious group here) is under-represented. Another could say that atheists are under-represented. And if we're talking about Roma, according to Wikipedia, they account for 0.36% of the UK's population. I'm not exactly calling the books anti-Roma at this point. And if we're going back to religion, and people complain about lack of Jews, or Muslims...okay, but like, how many religious groups are seen in the books at all? Unless you're assuming that everyone who isn't specified as (insert religion here) is Christian or atheist, but I think that's a big assumption to make.

If I remember the books correctly, the only religious holiday ever celebrated at Hogwarts was Christmas, so in that way I guess you could make the claim that the school was mostly Christian as it didn't go out of its way to celebrate the holidays of other religions.

Then again, I'm not religious in the slightest but I celebrate Christmas as a pop-culture gift giving holiday, so there's no real evidence that they were celebrating Christmas because of religious reasons and not because most of the rest of the world was celebrating it.

 

[Hawki]

If I remember the books correctly, the only religious holiday ever celebrated at Hogwarts was Christmas, so in that way I guess you could make the claim that the school was mostly Christian as it didn't go out of its way to celebrate the holidays of other religions.

Then again, I'm not religious in the slightest but I celebrate Christmas as a pop-culture gift giving holiday, so there's no real evidence that they were celebrating Christmas because of religious reasons and not because most of the rest of the world was celebrating it.

True. Christmas, Easter, and Halloween are the three holidays they celebrate. But there's no religious connotations in them. Like, there's no mention of a nativity scene, Dumbledore never delivers a prayer, etc.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I agree that Rowling brought it upon herself to a point, but people had to be asking those questions themselves, and I'm left to ask, why the questions were being asked?

For instance, the "Jewish question" (God, that sounds ominous). People asked if there's Jews in Hogwarts. Rowling responds by plucking up an obscure character by virtue of his surname, and is never confirmed as being Jewish in the books. To me, this question is subordinate to a more interesting questions - how would a person of Abrahamic religion fit into a school like Hogwarts, considering that these religions tend to have a distrustful relationship with magic and "witchcraft?" You could imagine a Muggle-born of religious upbringing being introduced to Hogwarts, and the tension that would result, both internally and externally. But that's not the question being asked, the question being asked is "are there (insert group here) at Hogwarts?" That's the beginning and end of the question.

The question was asked because some people really do seem to want everyone included in every piece of media like a checklist because they can't relate at all with characters who aren't just like them. The argument they make is they're so starved for representation they'll snap at any possible representation.

Also gotta have Jewish character to help fight the Allegory of the Nazis in the books.

Rowling did dig this grave for herself in certain elements. GrindlewaldxDumbledore is one of them. Lycanthropy = AIDS is another. We all know about the former, but the latter is kind of bizzare, because originally, I recall people complaining about how Lupin wasn't gay, and that his lycanthropy was an obvious analogue for AIDS. At some point, Rowling stated that lycanthropy WAS a parallel for AIDS. A claim I'm highly skeptical about, but okay, sure. Now, there's people complaining that lycanthropy = AIDS is homophobic, because Fenrir Greyback tries to spread his lycanthropy, which is apparently a parallel to the idea of gays intentionally infecting straight people with AIDS or something. So, apparently lycanthropy being or not being an analogy to AIDS is homophobic either way. Apparently, neither of groups of people are willing to consider that lycanthropy existed as a concept well before AIDS, and that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Yeh she kinda did screw herself over quite a bit. Though some authors do dig themselves into a hole pretending elements of their books mean more than they appear to make themselves seem better writers

Honestly the deep end was the whole "Hogwarts didn't have toilets until long after Muggle pluming and students would just go to the look where ever and magic it away."

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Let's assume for one moment that the people who orchestrated the original 4chan hoax were not far-right activists trying to discredit their political opponents and cover their own politics, but fun anarchic trolls indulging in a bit of carnivalesque fun. That's not true, they absolutely were far-right activists,

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Honestly the deep end was the whole "Hogwarts didn't have toilets until long after Muggle pluming and students would just go to the look where ever and magic it away."

I always forget about that one because of how ridiculous it is.

There's just something amazing about the idea of Dumbledor shitting his pants whenever he was having one of his deep conversations with Harry.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Update on events not related to JK Rowling but the protests:

Raz Simone AKA the Warlord ruler of Chaz is alleging that medics refused to enter Chop to treat a patient over fears for their safety and as a result the man bled to death


Chop has had two shootings in the past 24 hours 1 fatal (likely the one they refused to enter Chop over safety concerns) 1 only serious.

 

[Hawki]

The question was asked because some people really do seem to want everyone included in every piece of media like a checklist because they can't relate at all with characters who aren't just like them. The argument they make is they're so starved for representation they'll snap at any possible representation.

Also gotta have Jewish character to help fight the Allegory of the Nazis in the books.

About the representation question, I want to stress that I don't think pushing for representation is without merit. There's studies that do cite that seeing yourself in media does have a positive psychological effect. Like, in the context of HP, reading Quidditch Through the Ages, I can't deny I had a "hey, neat" moment when I read the Australia & New Zealand entry. But the flipside of it is that the factors of representation can be broken down ad infinitum. So on one hand, there's people who'll decry anything out of "the norm" as being "forced politics." On the other hand, if one wants to make the argument of being under-represented, you really need to give me the context, be it the fictional one or otherwise. If it's a real-world setting, give me the statistics. If it's a fictional setting, give me the context.

So back to the Jewish question. If there were a number of religious characters at Hogwarts, if Hogwarts celebrated holidays in a religious sense, if there was religious iconography, I think that question would have some bearing. But since the setting doesn't address religion at all, the question strikes me as weird. And if people are asking for Jews to be in the books because the Death Eaters are Nazi analogies? Um, by this, the Muggle-borns are the Jewish analogies. I mean, you could have a Jewish character who observes this and says "I've seen this before," but again, criticizing a work for stuff it doesn't do is a line of criticism that can stretch ad infinitum.

And to be clear, I don't even think that's a bad idea for a story. Like, J.K. Rowling could decide to write a sidequel with such a character. But I don't think that's what the question is about. And if J.K. wants to claim brownie points, actually put in the work.

Edit: Here's a good video on the subject of LGBT representation in Harry Potter. I reccomend it, because the YouTuber uses actual statistics from the real world and the books to prove his point. On the flipside, there's a comment in the thread about lack of racial diversity in the books, to which I have to ask "by what standard?" By the standard of when the books are set (1990-1998), when the books were written (1997-2007) or by the standard of when the comment was made (2019)?

Honestly the deep end was the whole "Hogwarts didn't have toilets until long after Muggle pluming and students would just go to the look where ever and magic it away."

Yeah, I really don't know what was going on with that. It almost seemed like a troll post. Newsflash, humans have had ways of disposing of feces before toilets, we didn't need magic to clean them up.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Hey, this thread is about protests, not crap book series.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

About the representation question, I want to stress that I don't think pushing for representation is without merit. There's studies that do cite that seeing yourself in media does have a positive psychological effect. Like, in the context of HP, reading Quidditch Through the Ages, I can't deny I had a "hey, neat" moment when I read the Australia & New Zealand entry. But the flipside of it is that the factors of representation can be broken down ad infinitum. So on one hand, there's people who'll decry anything out of "the norm" as being "forced politics." On the other hand, if one wants to make the argument of being under-represented, you really need to give me the context, be it the fictional one or otherwise. If it's a real-world setting, give me the statistics. If it's a fictional setting, give me the context.

So back to the Jewish question. If there were a number of religious characters at Hogwarts, if Hogwarts celebrated holidays in a religious sense, if there was religious iconography, I think that question would have some bearing. But since the setting doesn't address religion at all, the question strikes me as weird. And if people are asking for Jews to be in the books because the Death Eaters are Nazi analogies? Um, by this, the Muggle-borns are the Jewish analogies. I mean, you could have a Jewish character who observes this and says "I've seen this before," but again, criticizing a work for stuff it doesn't do is a line of criticism that can stretch ad infinitum.

And to be clear, I don't even think that's a bad idea for a story. Like, J.K. Rowling could decide to write a sidequel with such a character. But I don't think that's what the question is about. And if J.K. wants to claim brownie points, actually put in the work.

Edit: Here's a good video on the subject of LGBT representation in Harry Potter. I reccomend it, because the YouTuber uses actual statistics from the real world and the books to prove his point. On the flipside, there's a comment in the thread about lack of racial diversity in the books, to which I have to ask "by what standard?" By the standard of when the books are set (1990-1998), when the books were written (1997-2007) or by the standard of when the comment was made (2019)?


Yeah, I really don't know what was going on with that. It almost seemed like a troll post. Newsflash, humans have had ways of disposing of feces before toilets, we didn't need magic to clean them up.

I'm not against representation however I think it's more a case of doing it via a range of media rather than demanding everything try to include every-one.

One of the highly celebrated shows in the UK was called "Queer as folk" and as you can probably guess was very specifically aimed at the gay community. It did really well. Definitely not a show I have any interest it or was trying to pander to me at all and that was fine. Shows need to be allowed to find and appeal to their demographic because shows specifically for a demographic can do very well.

If some-one creating something wants a range of characters then fine but trying to cram as much into one show as possible often doesn't work.

Also the whole push for inclusion can be hell for people writing stuff as some people will pop up and be complete assholes and try to start shit if you don't include them or make something for them. Think of it like the reserve Twilight hate. Instead of hate for what was included there's hate for what you didn't and a few of them they're very loud and very persistent.

Also if you don't know how to write said characters or write them badly the you'll get crucified so that's another issue.

I mean I laugh at
The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere (yes that's a real book title) but it is there for a specific quite niche audience.

J.K. does seem to want to claim Brownie points but there's also some not nice people (and this was from before twitter and Tumblr etc) who are quite militant about what they want being included in fiction and if you say they're not they take it badly but pointing to a random character and giving them a token bit of inclusion in the past would get rid of them.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Statues give you a start.

Honestly dude, no, they really don't. Statues generally contain very little information, losing them is not a huge loss

the example you brought up was the actions of those supporting Boudica.

Was it a pick for the Irony value of picking her considering parallels that could be drawn?

Genuinely have no idea what kind of point you're angling for here dude, I'm I'm not entirely convinced you do either. I picked the statue because its a representation of an oppressor thrown into the river by people being oppressed. The events around that Claudius are a dead ringer for ones happening now, and demonstrate that history and knowledge remain unchanged by the destruction of statues

and we found the statues and artifacts and writings etc

Quite frequently dude, no, no we do not. Those things get exposed to the real world which means they more than likely end up trashed through simple virtue of time if nothing else

So you're arguing medieval peasants would be hugely educated in history?

If you would care to actually read what I'm saying and not construct a strawman you will see that no, I'm saying they'd be aware of history. History gets passed down by people telling stories about it dude. Why do you think my example was Shakespeare, a storyteller?

More than they got centuries before lol

Your average dude in Shakespeare's time is getting about the same schooling and education as an average dude in Chaucer's time: very little.

More that they had an impact on the area as such.


Normally they got moved due to damage or them decaying or conquerors wishing to erase past history etc.

So if they're constantly getting moved and destroyed anyway, why so angry about ones getting moved or destroyed now? Clearly when its happened before its done absolutely nothing to actually erase history

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.

Wait long enough and every statue that exists now will have been pulled down. Why do you think I picked a statue from 2000 years ago to demonstrate historical parallels? It shows there is no stasis, that architecture and monuments are constantly shifting and changing and it does nothing to impede the knowledge of history. If you're going to argue against my points it would help if maybe you tried to understand them first

Well Silence is violence and all that



Demand it be changed and push winners to reject the prize........

People have been doing exactly that. For years. So whats your point exactly?