Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[ThatGuy11200]

I am seeing pictures of the statue of Carl Linnaeus with the words "He's next".

Any idea what he is supposed to have done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Carl_Linnaeus

Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish physician, botanist, and zoologist, modified the established taxonomic bases of binomial nomenclature for fauna and flora, and was a pioneer researcher in biologically defining human race. In Systema Naturae (1767), he labeled five "varieties" of human species. Each one was described as possessing the following physiognomic characteristics "varying by culture and place":

The Americanus: red, choleric, righteous; black, straight, thick hair; stubborn, zealous, free; painting himself with red lines, and regulated by customs.

The Europeanus: white, sanguine, browny; with abundant, long hair; blue eyes; gentle, acute, inventive; covered with close vestments; and governed by laws.

The Asiaticus: yellow, melancholic, stiff; black hair, dark eyes; severe, haughty, greedy; covered with loose clothing; and ruled by opinions.

The Afer or Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; black, frizzled hair; silky skin, flat nose, tumid lips; females without shame; mammary glands give milk abundantly; crafty, sly, lazy, cunning, lustful, careless; anoints himself with grease; and governed by caprice.

The Monstrosus were mythologic humans which didn't appear in the first editions of Systema Naturae. The sub-species included the "four-footed, mute, hairy" Homo feralis (Feral man); the animal-reared Juvenis lupinus hessensis (Hessian wolf boy), the Juvenis hannoveranus (Hannoverian boy), the Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champagne), and the agile, but faint-hearted Homo monstrosus (Monstrous man): the Patagonian giant, the Dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Khoikhoi (Hottentot). In Amoenitates academicae (1763), Linnaeus presented the mythologic Homo anthropomorpha (Anthropomorphic man), humanoid creatures, such as the troglodyte, the satyr, the hydra, and the phoenix, incorrectly identified as simian creatures.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am seeing pictures of the statue of Carl Linnaeus with the words "He's next".

Any idea what he is supposed to have done?

Invented Latin species names.
Drew a lot of plants (and gave them names, categorizing them into the whole Kingdom/Philum/order thing that you had to learn in high school)
Got his head chopped off. (I think it was for non-payment of taxes, or something. It was a financial thing.)
Collected and wrote down the rules for Tablut. (Generalized to all "tafl" family games.)

And...
ETA: Post edited. I really need to read to the end of the thread before replying. Other people got to it long before I did.

 

[Darat]

Why? I love history, particularly ancient history. I hate the thought of destroying monuments because they are offensive to some today.

200 and 50 year old statues are hardly ancient history so no idea what your view on ancient history has to do with the discussion in this thread.

 

[The Don]

Would Egyptian monuments and ancient Egyptian artifacts be destroyed if there was found to be any connection to slavery? Or, is that something different or not applicable?

IMO there's a significant difference between someone or something with a tangential relationship to slavery and a statue to someone who not only made his fortune from slave trading and who was notorious for disposing of his "livestock" and claiming on his insurance when the opportunity arose.

There's also a difference between destroying an artefact and displaying it proudly in public. For example, IMO it's perfectly acceptable to display shackles in a museum exhibit which explains the history of, and the evils of, slavery. OTOH a pair of shackles being proudly displayed with references to a glorious slave-trading past is an entirely different matter.

 

[Jono]

He also named the animals, and some people consider him the father of "scientific racism," by including four races as separate subcategories of homo sapiens. Others would trace the problem back further, and no doubt racism of one sort or another goes back as far as you'd care to look, but Linnaeus was pretty important in providing modern racism with the scent of science.

Taxa-in humans in biogeographical groups wasn't really the problem, ever. The over-time oppressive, hierarchial terminology and most importantly the attached 'moralistic' characteristics were indeed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

An excellent idea. You tell the Brits.

I do.

 

[Darat]

Changing a street name isn't "wiping out an important part of history". Just like erecting statues, street names aren't created to teach or record or preserve history. They are acts of speech, designed to communicate that a person, place, or thing is worthy of special honor. It is okay to remove the statue or change the street name as another, separate act of speech intended to communicate that the present public no longer considers that person, place, or thing worthy of special honor. Doing so does not "delete them" from history like some kind of Twilight Zone gimmick.

I keep going back to this, where has the idea arisen from that we must be bound to what folk in the past decided they wanted as ornaments? Especially given that in the past for the vast majority of such "commemorations" would have had sod all to do with the general public and will have been decided upon by a very small, completely unrepresentative actual elite celebrating themselves.

They put up and pulled down what they wanted, as should everyone.

 

[lionking]

"Judge historical figures by the perspectives of their own time and culture" is a guiding principle of historiography. It makes great sense to keep it in mind if you want to write a biography that will be respected in academic circles. It's part of stripping away biases and pretentions to get at the "why" of the observed and recorded behaviors of the subject.

When addressing today's broad and complex social issues, please just leave it at home.

200 and 50 year old statues are hardly ancient history so no idea what your view on ancient history has to do with the discussion in this thread.

You obviously didn’t bother reading my earlier post that Delphic Oracle was responding to. Where I asked if statues of slave owner pharaohs could be destroyed.

But should statues of pharaohs be destroyed because they were notorious slave owners?

This thread is about discussing statues associated with racial injustice. No time limit on this that I can see. So I am totally on topic.

You’re welcome.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I disagree; I think it should be recovered from the river and put into a museum in the same way Liverpool has done with much of its slavery monuments and history, as Gilbert Syndrome has mentioned. I don't think it should be returned to the plinth. We need to learn from history, not pretend it never happened.

I think it can stay in the harbour, with a plaque erected telling divers what it is, where it is, and why it's there.

 

[Darat]

You obviously didn’t bother reading my earlier post that Delphic Oracle was responding to. Where I asked if statues of slave owner pharaohs could be destroyed.



This thread is about discussing statues associated with racial injustice. No time limit on this that I can see. So I am totally on topic.

You’re welcome.

Which ones are you talking about?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You keep mentioning this insurance on 20,000 people killed and thrown into the sea; do you have a source for that? It strikes me that the insurance company marketing that particular policy must have gone broke.

All ships cargo was and is insured.

 

[lionking]

Which ones are you talking about?

It’s on this page, plus read my edit.

Your attacks on people expressing opinions which are on topic are getting tiresome.

Unless you are asking me to nominate pharaohs? Really?

 

[Darat]

Lionking - why do you think we have to be bound by the decisions of people made 50, 200 or 40,000 years ago? Why can't people today do what those people did and decide what they want to commemorate in their public spaces?

 

[Darat]

It’s on this page, plus read my edit.

Your attacks on people expressing opinions which are on topic are getting tiresome.

Sorry but I can't see any you have mentioned.

 

[lionking]

Lionking - why do you think we have to be bound by the decisions of people made 50, 200 or 40,000 years ago? Why can't people today do what those people did and decide what they want to commemorate in their public spaces?

I cannot believe you are arguing in good faith.

As has been raised before, who decides to destroy statues and how? A mob acting illegally? A random group of vandals? Destroying property they didn’t own or control?

Or maybe the Taliban?

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

Are you comfortable that the Taliban decided to destroy 1500 year old statues of Buddha?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Statue deserved to go down. The guy was a freaking slave trader he is more directly guilty then the Confederate generals (though their statues should go also.
Of course a dirty little secret is that a lot of the great British Trading Fortunes were founfrf on "The Blackbird Trade".

This is an interesting thread on that:

https://twitter.com/tonys2009/status/1269656654683013122

On top of what others have said about there being no regular slave transport through the UK I'd also call the twitter thread bollocks based on the 3 foot long bolts which would destroy the foundations, so the rings couldn't be removed. Why would you use 3' bolts to tie slaves to? Also if you wanted them gone then you could just cut the head of the bolt off.
I think some older wise guy in the shop was winding up a naive young employee.

 

[Darat]

I cannot believe you are arguing in good faith.

As has been raised before, who decides to destroy statues and how? A mob acting illegally? A random group of vandals? Destroying property they didn’t own or control?

Who decided they should be raised in the first place?

You haven't yet explained why you think we have to be bound by the decisions of people made 50, 200 or 40,000 years ago? Why can't people today do what those people did and decide what they want to commemorate in their public spaces?

Or maybe the Taliban?

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

Are you comfortable that the Taliban decided to destroy 1500 year old statues of Buddha?

Not comfortable with that at all - I think it was a terrible act. But so what? Why should what I want be what everybody else has to honour?

And you are certainly not arguing in good faith as you know we are talking about recent history and about what still directly effects the people living today as a direct consequence of those being commemorated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I cannot believe you are arguing in good faith.

As has been raised before, who decides to destroy statues and how? A mob acting illegally? A random group of vandals? Destroying property they didn’t own or control?

Or maybe the Taliban?

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

Are you comfortable that the Taliban decided to destroy 1500 year old statues of Buddha?

I see you are in the Farage camp.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

i'm not much of a fan of guilt-by-association, but I do know that if I found myself agreeing with Nigel Farage that I'd definitely take that as a cue for self-examination.

 

[The Don]

Not comfortable with that at all - I think it was a terrible act. But so what? Why should what I want be what everybody else has to honour?

And you are certainly not arguing in good faith as you know we are talking about recent history and about what still directly effects the people living today as a direct consequence of those being commemorated.

.....with regards to the comparison to the Taliban, IMO that's a crock.

If you want to compare it to the destruction/disposal of a statue of Buddha, it's more closely analogous to me throwing out the cheap statue of Buddha that my aunt bought from some local shop in the 60's and had on her mantle-piece than the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan.