Political Correctness

[TenEightyOne]

How much of the community not wanting it is necessary for it to be moved?

I don't know. Common sense suggests (imo) that these things work case-by-case, do you think it would be better to have a blanket threshold?

 

[Danoff]

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 think you would acknowledge that statues placed in public squares are not placed there as a history lesson. In fact, many of the civil war statues were placed with the purpose of intimidating and unwelcoming people of a certain skin color. There was a big peak around 1900 coinciding with Jim Crow (also intended to intimidate and unwelcome people of a certain skin color). In the 50s, another peak shows up around protesting civil rights and anti-segregation movements. Stone Mountain (which was not completed until the 70s) is an example of one of those. Directly created to protest civil rights.

To hold on to the idea that these statues are and were meant to teach history is a bit of an example of white privilege. If you had a different skin color it would be more difficult to feel that this was the intended message, especially given the history of treatment of certain groups in the south. Just imagine, for a moment, that you're a black person wanting to move to the south and considering moving to a city that proudly displays a Robert E. Lee statue at its center. Feel comfortable? I wouldn't.

There is something else going on though, such as with the case of Washington and Jefferson. In the case of civil war statues, many of them were erected to be cruel to others, with no furtherance of art or social understanding. In the case of statues of Washington and Jefferson, while artistic merit might have been on the short side, I think these statues are seen as a celebration of certain ideas and achievements, rather than specifically as a celebration of the individuals or all of their life choices. It strikes me as virtue signaling and immature to condemn these kinds of statues just because the people themselves were not perfect. Nobody is.

I think we should be open to discussion about how Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or anyone else is perceived. Because if the statue really does send a bad message, it might be time to remove it regardless of what the intended message was. That's a social discussion that should be had by the authorities of the particular statue. People will make a case for both sides, and that case needs to be weighed by someone whose job it is. If it really matters to people, and they can make a stink with the public, then what is the harm in taking it down? History will not be rewritten, and children will not go uneducated.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't know. Common sense suggests (imo) that these things work case-by-case, do you think it would be better to have a blanket threshold?

The problem is in judging the risk of it offending vs the chance of it eliciting an entirely different feeling.

How do we arrive at a decision in controversial instances like Thomas Guy/John Wayne?

I think we should be open to discussion about how Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or anyone else is perceived. Because if the statue really does send a bad message, it might be time to remove it regardless of what the intended message was. That's a social discussion that should be had by the authorities of the particular statue. People will make a case for both sides, and that case needs to be weighed by someone whose job it is. If it really matters to people, and they can make a stink with the public, then what is the harm in taking it down? History will not be rewritten, and children will not go uneducated.

I don't think it's an issue of erasing history, but rather of damaging cultural heritage.

And who exactly is going to be the final judge of each case?

 

[Danoff]

The problem is in judging the risk of it offending vs the chance of it eliciting an entirely different feeling.

How do we arrive at a decision in controversial instances like Thomas Guy/John Wayne?

A public hearing, the person (or committee) responsible for the airport name makes a call (probably some orange county official or committee), and we move on. If that continues to be a problem, people vote, the appointed person gets the boot, and the hearing happens again.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A public hearing, the person (or committee) responsible for the airport name makes a call (probably some orange county official or committee), and we move on. If that continues to be a problem, people vote, the appointed person gets the boot, and the hearing happens again.

Should one person's/committees decision have effect on another?

For instance both Guy and Newton had shares in the same company. Since Guy has been removed from public view (for now) should this mean Newton should be too? If the answer is no that implies quite a degree of arbitrariness.

 

[Danoff]

Should one person's/committees decision have effect on another?

For instance both Guy and Newton had shares in the same company. Since Guy has been removed from public view (for now) should this mean Newton should be too? If the answer is no that implies quite a degree of arbitrariness.

I don't really understand what you're asking.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't really understand what you're asking.

Sorry should have expanded in the original post.

GSTT (a hospital group) and KCL (a university) have decided to remove from view a statue of Thomas Guy because he made his money from shares in the South Sea Company which was involved in the slave trade. The call for removal came from a petition and its presence on this crowd-sourced website. The issue that arises is the fact that Newton also had shares in the same company (as did many others) but didn't make money from them. As of today no-one is calling for his statue's removal from a prominent place in front of the British Library.

My question is, should the decision taken by those in charge of Guy's statue be considered if someone objects to Newton's statue. The closest analogy I have is case law when handing out legal judgements - as in judging based on precedence. For me, it seems clear cut since they are both guilty of the same offence.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry should have expanded in the original post.

GSTT (a hospital group) and KCL (a university) have decided to remove from view a statue of Thomas Guy because he made his money from shares in the South Sea Company which was involved in the slave trade. The call for removal came from a petition and its presence on this crowd-sourced website. The issue that arises is the fact that Newton also had shares in the same company (as did many others) but didn't make money from them. As of today no-one is calling for his statue's removal from a prominent place in front of the British Library.

My question is, should the decision taken by those in charge of Guy's statue be considered if someone objects to Newton's statue. The closest analogy I have is case law when handing out legal judgements - as in judging based on precedence. For me, it seems clear cut since they are both guilty of the same offence.

I see, well it would depend on how the public viewed the Newton statue. They are presumably different people, and what their statue represents is for different localities and can mean different things to those people. Certainly if I were reviewing a petition to remove Newton's statue I might want to also consider (and it could be included in the petition) the discussion around Guy's statue, as it seems at least somewhat pertinent.

It's not a matter of whether a historical figure ever did a particular bad thing makes it automatically bad. If the pyramids were to have used slave labor, and some random statue of a slave owner is taken down, that doesn't mean the pyramids have to be destroyed. The pyramids are taken on their own, the historical, cultural, and social context has to be evaluated in its entirety to figure out whether the petition makes sense and it's doing more harm than good.

We're not trying and convicting people of crimes here. We're just deciding whether or not it's a good idea to have a statue on display and in what context it should be displayed. That's it. It's really not that big a deal. If it's sending a bad message, or outrages the public, then what's the big deal, just take it down. And yes, someone else can have done the same thing and it can be viewed differently by a different population based on a different contextual presentation and body of work.

 

[UKMikey]

To briefly Godwinise this thread, the Nazis helped put men on the moon. How do Jewish people feel about this? Here is an article in the Times Of Israel that suggests that while we may celebrate their achievements we should not forget they were in the SS. Their descendants argue that in those days you did what you were told or died. It doesn't erase history to discuss the rocket designers' past; quite the opposite in my opinion. It contextualises it.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/apollos-legacy-a-quiet-corner-of-alabama-haunted-by-nazi-germany/

 

[TheCracker]

Both Newton and Guy's links to the slave trade are at best tenuous, IMO. They weren't investing in the SSC because they thought they could make money from people trafficking, they invested because it had by then become basically a debt security government bond scheme. I don't think it even turned a profit from slave trading. How many people worthy of having a statue made of them can be linked, six degrees of separation style, to something deemed nefarious now? I guess pretty much all. The statue of Colston, who was an actual slave trader, being dumped in the sea is fair enough. The statue of Thomas Guy at Guys Hospital - a hospital he solely funded, leaving most of his considerable fortune too, that has helped treat and look after sick children and their families for hundreds of years, i'm less inclined to agree with. You have to find a balance.

 

[Biggles]

I do think it's going to become a difficult problem as the net is cast wider. Is having held shares in big tobacco, an arms manufacturer, or an oil company, going to disqualify people in the future? Newton is clearly one of the most significant figures in human history. From what I understand, he was also a bit of an unpleasant character & I don't doubt a little digging would reveal all sorts of unpalatable statements he made at one time or another.

On the other hand, John Wayne was just a movie star - not really a particularly worthy accomplishment. He's an American icon for playing heroic American characters on screen, as opposed to being heroic, like many completely unknown & uncelebrated Americans. The comments in question are probably not untypical of the kinds of things many white people would have said at the time, but does he really deserve an airport named after him?

 

[TenEightyOne]

For instance both Guy and Newton had shares in the same company. Since Guy has been removed from public view (for now) should this mean Newton should be too? If the answer is no that implies quite a degree of arbitrariness.

Guy became extremely wealthy from his Royal African Company shares and used some of that wealth to establish the hospital. That's a right-in-your face connection.

Newton (as you pointed out) lost money as a late buyer but was nevertheless an investor in the same company who hoped to make gains from its activity. For a time he was also president of the Royal Society which was heavily intertwined with the slave trade. For a long time my personal view is that statues to him should be rethought, maybe now is the time for more people to think so too.

In Newton's defence all the other statues are falling downwards, so he's done something positive with his invention.

On the other hand, John Wayne was just a movie star - not really a particularly worthy accomplishment.

John Wayne was in some of the most madly racist mainstream films I've ever seen, but I'm going to mildly defend him... the movies, roles and productions were of their time. They reflected what society at large thought and did and told the accepted versions of American history (the ones I'm thinking of, at least). Those films wouldn't be made now but they shouldn't be forgotten, or the jobbing participants blamed for roles they were hired into. New (or existing) audiences should be aware of the context and social atmosphere that such productions were created for and allowed to make up their own minds.

 

[Danoff]

Newton (as you pointed out) lost money as a late buyer but was nevertheless an investor in the same company who hoped to make gains from its activity. For a time he was also president of the Royal Society which was heavily intertwined with the slave trade. For a long time my personal view is that statues to him should be rethought, maybe now is the time for more people to think so too.

In Newton's defence all the other statues are falling downwards, so he's done something positive with his invention.

In my personal opinion (and that's all it is really), a statue to Isaac Newton has only to do with how he single-handedly shoved science and mathematics forward a century or more. The man was one of the greatest minds (in at least those respects) humanity has ever seen. He is responsible for an unknowable (but large) amount of human prosperity. And that's the only takeaway I could get from a statue of him. I would not think that a statue of newton was a shrine to virginity, or any other aspect of his life.

Honestly I do not believe that it's fair to assume that a statue is a holistic celebration of the person. It's what it means to the public, which in Isaac Newton's case is great intellectual achievement.

...and I think a similar statement can be made of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Guy became extremely wealthy from his Royal African Company shares and used some of that wealth to establish the hospital. That's a right-in-your face connection.

But you're highlighting exactly what the problem is:

Thomas Guy had shares in the South Sea company - it was Robert Clayton, who also has a statue on GSTT grounds, that was connected to the Royal African Company.

In my personal opinion (and that's all it is really), a statue to Isaac Newton has only to do with how he single-handedly shoved science and mathematics forward a century or more. The man was one of the greatest minds (in at least those respects) humanity has ever seen. He is responsible for an unknowable (but large) amount of human prosperity. And that's the only takeaway I could get from a statue of him. I would not think that a statue of newton was a shrine to virginity, or any other aspect of his life.

Honestly I do not believe that it's fair to assume that a statue is a holistic celebration of the person. It's what it means to the public, which in Isaac Newton's case is great intellectual achievement.

...and I think a similar statement can be made of Thomas Jefferson.

"But he was racist sooooo......"

 

[Danoff]

"But he was racist sooooo......"

What does the statue represent? That's what matters. And it can change.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What does the statue represent? That's what matters. And it can change.

The statue represents who he/she was.

To some people, being a racist means we don't look past that, no matter what else they did. And it's those people we are all listening to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But you're highlighting exactly what the problem is:

It's a problem that I mis-attributed his racist profiteering to the RAC rather than the SSC? I do apologise, after a while one realises that all racists look the same.

And the last bit was a joke.

To some people, being a racist means we don't look past that, no matter what else they did. And it's those people we are all listening to.

What's the threshold for "looking past" somebody's racism?

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's a problem that I mis-attributed his racist profiteering to the RAC rather than the SSC? I do apologise, after a while one realises that all racists look the same.

And the last bit was a joke.



What's the threshold for "looking past" somebody's racism?

So with Thomas Guy, can you say what he was guilty of?

 

[Danoff]

The statue represents who he/she was.

To some people, being a racist means we don't look past that, no matter what else they did. And it's those people we are all listening to.

Yup. And if there are enough of them, the statue is no longer a positive thing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So with Thomas Guy, can you say what he was guilty of?

Large scale kidnapping and extortion, general crimes against humanity, that kind of thing. Probably not much apart from that - I understand he was very kind to children. Within bounds, of course.

 

[Biggles]

John Wayne was in some of the most madly racist mainstream films I've ever seen, but I'm going to mildly defend him... the movies, roles and productions were of their time. They reflected what society at large thought and did and told the accepted versions of American history (the ones I'm thinking of, at least). Those films wouldn't be made now but they shouldn't be forgotten, or the jobbing participants blamed for roles they were hired into. New (or existing) audiences should be aware of the context and social atmosphere that such productions were created for and allowed to make up their own minds.

It's very unclear to me what the difference would be between John Wayne & Thomas Guy in that respect ... except that Guy indisputably left a legacy of good through the founding of the hospital (& other charitable acts). However, digging into the history of Guy's remarkable life & his connection with the remarkable events of the South Sea Bubble does not lend itself to simple conclusions, as it is an extremely complicated history.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Large scale kidnapping and extortion, general crimes against humanity, that kind of thing. Probably not much apart from that - I understand he was very kind to children. Within bounds, of course.

How was he guilty of this?

Yup. And if there are enough of them, the statue is no longer a positive thing.

And those people will increase as time goes on. And what if they are misinformed/unable to appreciate the person beyond the headline grabbing point.

 

[Danoff]

How was he guilty of this?

It's not a criminal trial.

And those people will increase as time goes on. And what if they are misinformed/unable to appreciate the person beyond the headline grabbing point.

Why would they increase? And it does not matter if they're misinformed. If everyone hates it, move it to a museum where it can be displayed in proper historical context and actually do some teaching. If they're all misinformed, leaving it up to get broken/vandalized/destroyed is not helping anyone, it's just spreading anger and resentment, which is not the reason for having a statue up in the first place.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's not a criminal trial.

No, but it's trial by media/popular culture.

I'd like to know what he's guilty of if we are going to remove his statue.

Why would they increase? And it does not matter if they're misinformed. If everyone hates it, move it to a museum where it can be displayed in proper historical context and actually do some teaching. If they're all misinformed, leaving it up to get broken/vandalized/destroyed is not helping anyone, it's just spreading anger and resentment, which is not the reason for having a statue up in the first place.

I think as a society, the tendency is to become more "woke" the further we go along - hence why the number of people wanting a statue's removal will increase.

 

[Danoff]

No, but it's trial by media/popular culture.

I'd like to know what he's guilty of if we are going to remove his statue.

Being unpopular.

I think as a society, the tendency is to become more "woke" the further we go along - hence why the number of people wanting a statue's removal will increase.

Understanding various character flaws does not necessarily mean wanting a statue to be removed. It is for people who are virtue signaling and purity testing, but as long as most people see the "good" reason why the statue is up instead of seeing it as a celebration of something else, then it stays up because most people think it's "good".

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd like to know what he's guilty of if we are going to remove his statue.

If it causes a general swell of anti-sentiment then the monument isn't fulfiling it's purpose of creating consensus and stability. Does he have to be guilty of anything? In the case of Guy his crimes against humanity are self-evident, but the point stands.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Being unpopular.

Understanding various character flaws does not necessarily mean wanting a statue to be removed. It is for people who are virtue signaling and purity testing, but as long as most people see the "good" reason why the statue is up instead of seeing it as a celebration of something else, then it stays up because most people think it's "good".

Those people who do want someone's erasure from the public square are only judging on those flaws without recognising people as being a product of their time, and it is they who are increasing.

If it causes a general swell of anti-sentiment then the monument isn't fulfiling it's purpose of creating consensus and stability. Does he have to be guilty of anything? In the case of Guy his crimes against humanity are self-evident, but the point stands.

This is what I was trying to highlight when I pulled you up on the misattribution.

Thomas Guy was actually given those shares in the South Sea company by the government because of earlier investments. At that time the company wasn't involved in slavery, and wouldn't be for a few years. You can find more about this here, and also how he may not even have known about the company's dealings from the time they were involved in the trade and when he sold his shares.

Even if he did know, you are expecting him to practice in ethical investing - something that wasn't even a thing until decades later.

Now I know you're an intelligent guy who does his due dilligence when posting, but can you see how that proves my point when you say that "his crimes against humanity are self-evident" and we have a petition calling for renaming his campus that has trained thousands of doctors (among other professions) amassing over 15 thousand signatures.

 

[Danoff]

Those people who do want someone's erasure from the public square are only judging on those flaws without recognising people as being a product of their time, and it is they who are increasing.

...and this is a concern because?

 

[HenrySwanson]

...and this is a concern because?

I guess that comes back round to the question of what the harm is in removing statues. I posted earlier about how this can remove the chance to have positive interactions with them but maybe the erosion of cultural heritage is more relevant?

---------

Seems PC may be to blame for the sweatshops in Leicester going under the radar. Should be said that this isn't as concrete as the grooming gangs example (which was admitted by the police) since it is "just" the opinion of the home secretary.

 

[Danoff]

I guess that comes back round to the question of what the harm is in removing statues. I posted earlier about how this can remove the chance to have positive interactions with them but maybe the erosion of cultural heritage is more relevant?

Positive interaction with statues? You mean like this?

Erosion of cultural heritage? That's so incredibly vague. Do you think that statues establish this "cultural heritage"? And must they be displayed in certain locations to establish it? And what exactly is the cultural heritage established by which statue? And is it worth preserving? And at what cost?