The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

[Dennisch]

If the sentiment goes that way, every single historic artifact that has in any way a tie with anything that can offend anyone needs to removed from the public eye and moved to a museum.

Start with most European flags.

 

[Dotini]

Since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners, I fully expect all statues and images of them will be removed from wherever they are found.

History is written by the winners.

 

[DesertPenguin]

You're unbelievable.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why shouldn't they be reconsidered?

Exactly what damage would it do to the country to have an honest, open and accurate conversation about our past and the figures in it? Or do you believe that he is untouchable, and if so, why?

It wouldn't do any damage - argue/petition all you want.

I'm merely wondering what the usefulness would be and where the endpoint is. And on the flip side what would the harm be if we did decide to remove his statues.

 

[TexRex]

But what about the Uyghurs?

 

[Dennisch]

China has no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Betty blue]

This is no longer protecting peaceful cause. It started to become terrorism.

 

[DesertPenguin]

This is no longer protecting peaceful cause. It started to become terrorism.

Source?

 

[Scaff]

Please don't say we shouldn't have statues of Churchill. We can commemorate his undeniable contribution to guiding Britain without glorifying Gallipoli. It's imperative, in my view, that we remember how horrific a time that was, that we really needed a man like that to get things done.

I've not said we shouldn't, what I said it that we should as a country have a conversation about it, and that people should be honestly educated about the people from our past. One example of which is that you only mention Gallipoli in regard to a critical factor of Churchill, when that is the tip of the ice-berg.

History, as taught in schools in the UK, is not balanced in terms of an honest critical view of the UK and its role in the world throughout history.

If you ask me, it's not enough; there should be a huge hammer and sickle carved into the cliffs of Dover with the inscription "thankyou boys".

It's not our right, as generations who didn't live through the second world war, to decide who is celebrated or commemorated as part of it. That's on the generation who fought and lived through it, and decided who to build statues of at that time. Our political progress or revised opinions of those people shouldn't undo what they did and were recognised for in their time.

Why do we not have a right to critically evaluate the past and the people in it? You are aware that a good number of people at the time were also critical of him, hell the entire country voted him out of office the moment the war ended! A view that figures of the past are somehow exempt from critical evaluation is, to be blunt, illogical and absurd.

It leads to an unhealthy and inaccurate view of the realities of our past.

Richard the Lionheart - English king of great repute who didn't speak English and spent almost no time in the country and died due to his own arrogance and vanity.
St. George, favourite of English Nationalists, actually a Roman Greek who never set foot in the UK and is also patron saint of number countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

It wouldn't do any damage - argue/petition all you want.

I wasn't asking for permission.

I'm merely wondering what the usefulness would be and where the endpoint is. And on the flip side what would the harm be if we did decide to remove his statues.

The usefulness is accurate teaching of history and understanding of the countries role in the world, as for the harm of removing them? Statues of people come and go all the time, that would depend on when we are talking about and what the conversation around it had been. The end-point? That will be that slippery slope again.

However, do keep in mind that I didn't raise the slippery slope of removing statues of Churchill in order to defend a statue of a racist slave-trader. I simply said, why not have the conversation about it.

 

[NotThePrez]

I'm merely wondering what the usefulness would be and where the endpoint is.

I'm not British, but is a better educated society that's more aware of the messed up stuff its country has done not useful? Does creating a more accurate re-telling of history need an endpoint?

 

[ryzno]

Does creating a more accurate re-telling of history need an endpoint?

Yeah, how about actually teaching our kids what really happened in history.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, how about actually teaching our kids what really happened in history.

Sorry, that's not how history works. History literally means "his story". By "his", we mean the winner. The winner writes history, then and now. A good example is ancient Egypt; any incident which didn't glory Pharaoh simply went unrecorded.

 

[DesertPenguin]

History literally means "his story"

Oh, does it really? Bit of a stretch for a clever post

 

[MatskiMonk]

History, as taught in schools in the UK, is not balanced in terms of an honest critical view of the UK and its role in the world throughout history.

It's nearly 25 years I left school, but I've always felt History was one of the worst taught subjects. I wouldn't even say it was biased, just the snippets of the past you learn don't really have any context. For me History was a worthless subject.

 

[Famine]

Sorry, that's not how history works. History literally means "his story". By "his", we mean the winner.

"His" is actually the PIE root "weid" which means "to see", but that's not likely to stop you dropping floaters like that one.

We get "wisdom" from the same root. And "****wit".

 

[Scaff]

Sorry, that's not how history works. History literally means "his story". By "his", we mean the winner. The winner writes history, then and now. A good example is ancient Egypt; any incident which didn't glory Pharaoh simply went unrecorded.

Do you think you could try making the trolling ******** a little less obvious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

 

[TexRex]

Sorry, that's not how history works. History literally means "his story". By "his", we mean the winner. The winner writes history, then and now. A good example is ancient Egypt; any incident which didn't glory Pharaoh simply went unrecorded.

Oh, does it really? Bit of a stretch for a clever post

Wikipedia:

History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the study of the past.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

 

[Dotini]

For the history of WW2, should consult a NAZI? For the history of the Civil War, should consult a Confederate?

 

[PeterJB]

We spent way too much time learning about the bloody Tudors playing ping pong with Catholicism and Protestantism. Though interestingly enough the only part of British colonial expansion I remember learning about was the Atlantic Slave Trade.

 

[TexRex]

For the history of WW2, should consult a NAZI? For the history of the Civil War, should consult a Confederate?

Deflection and obfuscation.

 

[NotThePrez]

^Thanks for that, I was just in the middle of typing out a response.

In any case, a YouTuber by the name of Potential History has done a video on why the notion of "history is written by the victor" is bull. I'd link it directly, but it does contain some language, WWII war footage and an unfortunate scene from Monty Python, so I'm not sure if it would pass the AUP.

 

[Scaff]

For the history of WW2, should consult a NAZI? For the history of the Civil War, should consult a Confederate?

Still not how it works, but I am amazed from a historic point of view how you are still a member here, given your sole input seems to be to troll the crap out of everything.

 

[MaxAttack]

I've not said we shouldn't, what I said it that we should as a country have a conversation about it, and that people should be honestly educated about the people from our past. One example of which is that you only mention Gallipoli in regard to a critical factor of Churchill, when that is the tip of the ice-berg.

Yeah, there is plenty more bad to point out about Churchill, aside from one horrifically botched military operation. He was a man of the 19th century - pro-aristocratic, racist as all hell and a rampant womaniser.

History, as taught in schools in the UK, is not balanced in terms of an honest critical view of the UK and its role in the world throughout history.

I agree - and benefit from my private education in my high school years. Teaching history from an unbiased standpoint is imperative. But it should be recognised that being completely unbiased is difficult in the field of history, since many historical sources are biased by their nature.

Why not? We have monuments to the British, American, Colonial, Polish, French etc forces from the war. But very few that recognise the contribution of the USSR - who took the toll of some 27 million lives in the second world war. The Red Army was the one that pushed the decisive offensives at the war's end, capturing Seelow Heights and Berlin. The Russians shattered the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front, and overcame a land invasion from the most technologically advanced, tactically capable army on Earth at that time.

Supreme Allied Command absolutely owes the victory to the USSR. It's a great shame that cold war politicking and power struggles made it untenable for us to recognise their huge contribution.

 

[Scaff]

Yeah, there is plenty more bad to point out about Churchill, aside from one horrifically botched military operation. He was a man of the 19th century - pro-aristocratic, racist as all hell and a rampant womaniser.

Indeed, and unfortunately almost none of its taught (with the Bengal famine and Ireland being two of the worst), and even more so any mention of it in some circles gets you branded as unpatriotic.

I agree - and benefit from my private education in my high school years. Teaching history from an unbiased standpoint is imperative. But it should be recognised that being completely unbiased is difficult in the field of history, since many historical sources are biased by their nature.

They are indeed, and its a challenge, but one that is most certainly worth the investment.

Why not? We have monuments to the British, American, Colonial, Polish, French etc forces from the war. But very few that recognise the contribution of the USSR - who took the toll of some 27 million lives in the second world war. The Red Army was the one that pushed the decisive offensives at the war's end, capturing Seelow Heights and Berlin. The Russians shattered the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front, and overcame a land invasion from the most technologically advanced, tactically capable army on Earth at that time.

Supreme Allied Command absolutely owes the victory to the USSR. It's a great shame that cold war politicking and power struggles made it untenable for us to recognise their huge contribution.

I agree, but your example maybe a little 'out there'.

 

[W3H5]

OK, here we go *takes deep breath*

But what about the Uyghurs?

Don't know if sarcasm or not but will address the issue; genocide - apparenty not worth protesting. Meth head armed robber that theathened a pregnant woman with a gun to her abdomen (yeah, the facts are coming out now), killed unlawfuly by police; let's raid for all it's worth. ****ing scum. Nobody deserves to die, but some people make live hard for themsleves.
Protest by all the freedoms given to you by your consitution. But when you enage in anarchy and ignore the rule of law you deserve what's coming, no matter your skin colour.

Don't get me started on China. Y'all want to fight for rights and freedom (ah bless)? Hit up the Chinese Embassy, or go one further and address the actual slavery the still exists in the Middle East, Asia and other thrid world nations because you won't find it in the modern western world, you ****ing hypocrits.

History, as taught in schools in the UK, is not balanced in terms of an honest critical view of the UK and its role in the world throughout history.

My education in British history taugh me that it was our people that concluded slavery and expressed the same sentient on the american nation.

Would I take a knee? What the **** for? Did my faimly's sacrifice to defeat a common evil mean nothing? Can any second or third (including valued European members of my family) gerneration British say that owned slaves? **** no.

It's highly likley that my ancestor had black slaves (centuries ago). Am I resposible for them?

Hey, before I lose your attention, let's not forget that the African American slave trade pales in signficace to the slave trade of Europeans by the Arab nations back in the old days.

I'd like to conclude by adding that the current riots and protests over the unlawful killing of a human being, no matter their skin colour, is ****ing minor comapred to the real attrocites commited by government states that seems to be too much of a hard target.

Y'all go spend a year living under the rule of an oppressive, facsist, Chinese regime and then they'll be something to riot about... if you're even allowed to protest. Little thought for the people of HK right now? How many statues or shop fronts did they dececrate?

I'm not British, but is a better educated society that's more aware of the messed up stuff its country has done not useful? Does creating a more accurate re-telling of history need an endpoint?

The messed up stuff in the UK you refer to would be the abolishion of slaver? The industrial revolution the changed the world? Prey tell, at what point does histroy become "not useful"?

If anything was messed up, it brought us to our current state of living, and for one thing, that aint bad.

Oh, maybe you mean the enedless list of modern iventions that shaped the modern world that came from Britain or in turn the US?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Meth head armed robber that theathened a pregnant woman with a gun to her abdomen (yeah, the facts are coming out now), killed unlawfuly by police; let's raid for all it's worth. ****ing scum. Nobody deserves to die, but some people make live hard for themsleves.

So nobody can serve time in your ideal judicial system, there are no "spent" convictions? I'm not sure he was making life hard for himself unless that was his own knee, but there you go.

My education in British history taugh me that it was our people that concluded slavery and expressed the same sentient on the american nation.

Before (and indeed after) Wilberforce took up the cause (which he was reluctant to do) it was "our people" (grrr) who wanted it to continue.

Oh, maybe you mean the enedless list of modern iventions that shaped the modern world that came from Britain or in turn the US?

"Ancient" Greeks had working mechanical calculators before us... don't overestimate how much "progress" is second hand in the light of the peoples and knowledges suppressed by various empires across history. Who invented what is a poor metric for civilisation.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The usefulness is accurate teaching of history and understanding of the countries role in the world, as for the harm of removing them? Statues of people come and go all the time, that would depend on when we are talking about and what the conversation around it had been. The end-point? That will be that slippery slope again.

However, do keep in mind that I didn't raise the slippery slope of removing statues of Churchill in order to defend a statue of a racist slave-trader. I simply said, why not have the conversation about it.

The usefulness I think we can agree on - bringing an individual's life into the wider sphere for public scrutiny is always a noble cause.

The other points however - the harms and the endpoint - are a bit hazy.

We're now seeing Gandhi being defaced. If he can't pass the litmus test is there any point in having any statues left up?

 

[MaxAttack]

Indeed, and unfortunately almost none of its taught (with the Bengal famine and Ireland being two of the worst), and even more so any mention of it in some circles gets you branded as unpatriotic.

I would not call you unpatriotic for that. Patriotism is useless if it obscures reality. It's possible to be proud of being British, whilst not being proud of everything Britain has ever done, in my opinion.

I'm just not one for revising the decisions of the past. Clearly, after WW2, people thought Churchill deserved a statue or two. For me personally, as someone who will never understand what it was like to live in that time, it's not my place to question that decision.

I'm all for discussion and reflection on history - doomed to repeat, and all that - but good education should be prioritised ahead of bulldozing over the artifacts of our past just because they don't fit the narrative we want. We should be able to teach kids that Churchill did and thought terrible things, but he also did great things and a huge duty unto his country. It's not invalid for both of those statements to be true.

EDIT: Yes, a carving in the cliffs would be rather silly, but if we were to base monuments on the size of the contribution to the war, we would need a lot of concrete for the USSR

 

[Nessy]

I'm against the peaceful protests in the UK turning into some of the violence we've witnessed over the past few days, it's especially shocking what happened to that horse-mounted WPC, (hope she makes a full recovery). I believe there's more to come out about what happened in that particular situation, and I believe the cause of it lands directly at the feet of some of the protestors.

I was however really pleased to see the toppling and removal of Colston's statue. And I don't think it should be put back.

 

[NotThePrez]

The messed up stuff in the UK you refer to would be the abolishion of slaver? The industrial revolution the changed the world? Prey tell, at what point does histroy become "not useful"?

If anything was messed up, it brought us to our current state of living, and for one thing, that aint bad.

Oh, maybe you mean the enedless list of modern iventions that shaped the modern world that came from Britain or in turn the US?

^I'm only addressing this specific part since it was quoted to me in particular.



Also see the Talib Kweli quote in my signature.

The accomplishments of a nation, especially those that helped create a better world overall, should absolutely be taught and studied by all, but limiting the scope to just those good things creates a dangerous bubble of "Hey, we're great, and we do great things. Screw scrutiny." This thought can be easily be taken advantage of, and is arguably being done so as we speak in the U.S. (I'm not well versed on all the events surrounding Brexit, but I can't help but wonder if this was also a factor in those events?)

Take Churchill as an example. His accomplishments during WWII absolutely should be taught, as he and his contemporaries were able to keep Britain from falling to Hitler. At the same time, so should his involvement in the planning of Gallipoli during WWI, if for no other reason than to show that he was a very imperfect person who could make dumb decisions and was also prone to messing up (and also show how not to plan an amphibious invasion and get an unnecessarily high number of soldiers killed).

I'd say the same for the fact that the U.S. space program was spearheaded by a former Nazi.

Or the fact that the Third Reich found that smoking lead to major health risks and launched one of the world's first major anti-tobacco movements (even though a healthy amount of that movement was based in Nazi reproductive ideology, and was hilariously unsuccessful).

Personally speaking, I'm pretty happy being an American, but I'm also more than willing to call out my country when it screws up. I'm also willing to call out those that try and make it seem like a bad portion of our history is being overblown (see knuckleheads that run around with Confederate flags and go on about "muh heritage."). I believe in this because by studying both our accomplishments and our failures, especially the failures that lead to the damage/destruction of human rights, general equality, and death, will create a better society down the road.