- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
What does this have to do with imaginary political correctness?
That those in power should do everything they can to suppress public protest because it's a slippery slope to rioting? If a mob threatens public order then there's nothing stopping the authorities from halting them regardless of whether it agreed with their original cause.The size of the mob was small, only 300 or so, it seems. But as the government officials had previously acknowledged the correctness of the original motivation, they were powerless to act as the mob moved on to destroy unrelated public property, some symbols of the prior culture and civilization.
Similar stories are playing out all around the country right now. So perhaps there is a lesson or some insight to be learned here.
The initial motivation of the protest was in the interest of BLM and against police brutality, which are politically correct motivations.
In Seattle and elsewhere, those in power have conceded the right to protest is protected and this cause is just. Our police have given up the use of crowd control technologies such as tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and flash bangs for 30 days. However, occasionally the protest turns to riot, property is destroyed and people are shot and killed within the occupied protest. This has gone on for two weeks while the police have lost their precinct and their tools and the city authorities are still vacillating as to what to do.That those in power should do everyting they can to suppress public protest because it's a slippery slope to rioting? If a mob threatens public order then there's nothing stopping the authorities from halting them regardless of whether it agreed with their original cause.
That's on the list of targets for removal (funnily enough).Well, this statue in Washington, DC a good example:
View attachment 934194
Perfectly encapsulates what I would imagine has been the traditional (white) view of Lincoln's role. I'm thinking the world is full of statues like this to various persons/events.
That's on the list of targets for removal (funnily enough).
Why? It's still public in a museum...but not appropriate any more for public memorialization
Why? It's still public in a museum...
Why? It's still public in a museum...
Running right through the heart of, arguably, the limousine-liberal capital of the United States (Marin county) is a an avenue called "Sir Francis Drake Boulevard" that runs from San Francisco bay all the way to the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes. Predictably, there is now a campaign to remove the statue that commemorates Drake and to rename the road. Drake was 1, an English person, and 2, a slave trader (among other things), and 3, definitely not from California and there is limited evidence to suggest he ever even landed here.
Incidentally, I've been suggesting this to anyone who would listen (nobody would listen) for several years. Running through notable people either from Marin or had substantial presence here, I arrived at two people who I think would be a good fit to rename the road after:
1. Tupac Shakur - Famous Hip Hop singer and something of an activist for rights/quality of life of blacks (I mean, changes is a pretty brilliant song on the subject)
2. Anton LaVey - Founder of the church of Satanism and all around good guy
In reality, I think it would be best if the road was given a native name...considering it's importance as the main East-West spine through Marin, Avenue of the Miwok sounds good. Unfortunately, there just aren't really any Miwok around to get their input on it.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it shouldn't be left in a public spot because thematically it is antiquated?Yeah - I'm aware of that. It belongs in a museum. iI's a typical example of Victorian era art with its moralizing, narrative theme. Museums are full of 19th century art like this. Some of it is good art, some of it not. A lot of it is pretty interesting in an artistic or historical context, but not appropriate any more for public memorialization.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it shouldn't be left in a public spot because thematically it is antiquated?
I don't know about other states but here they usually have a plaque with a decent bit of history for whatever public monument.A "public spot" implies continuing promotion of its theme. In a museum it can be seen as an artifact of a particular era without implying the endorsement of that theme.
I don't know about other states but here they usually have a plaque with a decent bit of history for whatever public monument.
I believe it's on the person to look at it in anger or look at it and learn it's history.
My grandfather was Jewish and served in WW2, if I ever went over to Germany I wouldn't say tare that down! It's disrespectful to my ancestors! I would look at it and try to learn it's history.
People are so triggered now a days and really don't want to learn. A sad state of modern times...
I don't know how to spell it or say it but I believe there is still a building standing where many Jews were killed. If not I stand corrected.Tear what down in Germany?
The problem with the American Civil War is precisely that people "really don't want to learn". That's why there was the Ku Klux Klan & Jim Crow & southerners drove around for decades with confederate flags on their vehicles. I suggest you read this article:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510
I don't know how to spell it or say it but I believe there is still a building standing where many Jews were killed. If not I stand corrected.
In reference to the KKK, JC era and the flag, I'd call it more of refusing to change.
Auschwitz?
I guess the attitude in the South would be a bit like Germans claiming that WWII was fought just to right the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles & the loss of German-speaking territories.
There were atrocities on both sides during the Civil War, although nothing that rises to the level of the systematic genocide carried out by the Nazis. Still, somehow the South was allowed to carry on after the war as though the war was fought over more of a constitutional technicality than a matter of human decency. Unlike in Germany, there was never a clear acknowledgement that they were in the wrong.
If it's Westerners doing the shrugging then I suspect it's more from ignorance of the context rather than any kind of hypocrisy in the same way that one doesn't hear much about South Koreans protesting the Confederate battle flag. If on the other hand it's about the blase attitude displayed by Japanese authorities towards South Korean protests, then I can understand. It sounds like a campaign that needs better publicity in the West is concerned if it's to gain widespread support here.On a similar note to this, I've noticed in the past couple weeks that a similar blase attitude towards what was happening before/during WWII in the East is also seemingly why people do a collective shrug in the best case when they see people get upset about how the IJN ensign is so casually used in modern Japanese culture.
What in particular is wrong with its theme?A "public spot" implies continuing promotion of its theme. In a museum it can be seen as an artifact of a particular era without implying the endorsement of that theme.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it shouldn't be left in a public spot because thematically it is antiquated?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it shouldn't be left in a public spot because thematically it is antiquated?
How much of the community not wanting it is necessary for it to be moved?Museums are a context that audiences majoritatively understand as different from on-the-street displays.
If communities don't want these edifices in their public spaces then yes, it's definitely a curatable object and should be moved to a museum where, by the very definition of a museum, it belongs. Museums are a form of physical shell for tangible and intangible human histories.
Not sure which statues have been moved "because of objections from individuals". Any examples?How much of the community not wanting it is necessary for it to be moved?
Do we have to then move Thomas Guy, Nelson, Newton, Gandhi because of objections from individuals?
You think this is being done along party lines? Now that's amusing. I'm also not sure how moving a statue is manipulating history.Tearing down the statues of people that belonged to the party that you vote for is kinda of amusing. You can’t erase history, just manipulate it.
Nah I’m guessing a majority vote for that party.Not sure which statues have been moved "because of objections from individuals". Any examples?
You think this is being done along party lines? Now that's amusing. I'm also not sure how moving a statue is manipulating history.
Not sure which statues have been moved "because of objections from individuals". Any examples?