Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Looks like it is in a private location too, so assuming you like it keep it up.

I'll definitely be keeping it up, as I'm able to separate the good and the bad a person does from their professional output, be it art, or otherwise.

Now, about that pic in the lower right........

lol, yeah, I'm not religious, it's just been in the family a long time and I kind of like it.

I really not that familiar with Ali’s private life. You have provided me with some new info and context for Darat’s post up thread.

He's an interesting guy, and a lot of people don't really know too much about him other than for his boxing or his politics. He's just one example of the complexities of humanity, IMO. A guy we often worship almost on autopilot.

 

[Manger Douse]

I don't know about a "real" patriot, but expecting somebody to reliably notice a small plaque in an unfamiliar city after 16 pints is unreasonable. People piss on themselves after that amount of alcohol.

Not "people" - someone sworn to protect monuments and the police and I assume monuments to the police. That none of them were apparently aware of this monument is why we're laughing

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's worse than that. Gilbert Syndrome isn't just saying "all statues matter", he's literally whining about Morrissey CDs and Che Guevara T-shirts while we're trying to get government funded statues to people who sold slaves and people who went to war for the right to own slaves removed.

Yep. It's just more "Arbitrary moral consistency is all that matters" Bobbing basically.

I've got news for a lot of people. When the pot calls the kettle black... the kettle is still black (irony of the imagery of that particular metaphor being used in this topic notwithstanding.)

Not being 100% morally consistent even to your own standards and categorizations (to say nothing of other people's standards and categorizations) isn't a greater sin than being a racist apologist.

Yes. If black people not having to stare at statues glorifying the people who enslaved them means that I have to live without maintaining a 100% perfectly consistent personal stance on statues... I can live with that.

The people who can't (or pretend they can't) scare me.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's like being at the funeral of someone's kid

No, it's not.

I've been to funerals of someone's kid. They aren't much like forums.

 

[Meadmaker]

and if you start hitching Rushmore and Washington or even Columbus to the argument you're making it harder for black people to not have to stare at statues glorifying people who fought a war to keep them in chains...

True, but the mob in Boston who took off the head of Christopher Columbus' statue kind of did the hitching for us.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yep. It's just more "Arbitrary moral consistency is all that matters" Bobbing basically.

I've got news for a lot of people. When the pot calls the kettle black... the kettle is still black (irony of the imagery of that particular metaphor being used in this topic notwithstanding.)

Not being 100% morally consistent even to your own standards and categorizations (to say nothing of other people's standards and categorizations) isn't a greater sin than being a racist apologist.

Yes. If black people not having to stare at statues glorifying the people who enslaved them means that I have to live without maintaining a 100% perfectly consistent personal stance on statues... I can live with that.

You consistently speak with the urgency of someone who is out amidst this ongoing issue, when you're literally just a talking head on an internet forum.

You claim that you don't want to talk about anything related to the OP, just the OP itself, because otherwise "we're" standing in the way of black peoples lives and their quest for peace. You then liken the suggestion to tackle the wider issues on an internet forum to standing up during a child's funeral to begin a debate...

The people who can't (or pretend they can't) scare me.

I'll tell you what worries me, a bloke on an internet forum who claims he's too busy to tackle more than one subject for fear of said discussion getting in the way of justice for black people, that's just genuinely weird behaviour, mate.

Are you able to successfully operate the kettle and the toaster at the same time without ruining your quest for breakfast?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

No, it's not.

I've been to funerals of someone's kid. They aren't much like forums.

You'd think I was stopping Joe in the middle of a peace march to ask him what he thinks about other similar issues in society in general.

We're all on a forum having a natter. Nothing we say or do here dictates what happens out in society.

Me asking anyone how they feel about cultural icons with dubious connections isn't going to put a halt to the BLM movement, as far as I can tell.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the danger of the "But All Lives Matter!" retort to "Black Lives Matter" has been explained, and that's all this is no matter how much deny it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah yes the "Oh but all we're doing is talking on the internet, I just don't see what big ole' fuss is about" thing.

Because the same delaying and distracting tactics are happening in real life as well.

"But we're just talking heads on the internet" isn't a blank card.

When argumentative shutdown tactics get perfected online, they get used in the real world.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Again the danger of the "But All Lives Matter!" retort to "Black Lives Matter" has been explained, and that's all this is no matter how much deny it.

Who're you referring to? Because I've never once mentioned a single things about "all lives" mattering versus black lives mattering.

You keep just harping on about how any discussion other than the one you want to engage in is somehow hurting black people's quest for peace, which, frankly, is absolutely silly.

I've asked how the only subject you seem willing to engage in can possibly go any further without branching off into similar avenues, you've yet to answer that, unsurprisingly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who're you referring to? Because I've never once mentioned a single things about "all lives" mattering versus black lives mattering.

Oh stop being obtuse.

"What about statues that offend black people?"
"Oh yeah... well what about all statues! What about Che Guevara shirts? What about, what about, what about, what about..."

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Ah yes the "Oh but all we're doing is talking on the internet, I just don't see what big ole' fuss is about" thing.

Because the same delaying and distracting tactics are happening in real life as well.

"But we're just talking heads on the internet" isn't a blank card.

When argumentative shutdown tactics get perfected online, they get used in the real world.

Ah, yes, my evil plan to halt the progress of the BLM movement by waxing hypothetical on an internet forum is working! Mwahahaha!

Let me ask you a question regarding the real world, Joe. What are you actually doing out there to help this movement you feel so strongly about progress to its hopefully happy conclusion, y'know, other than sitting at your desk posting comments?

 

[RedStapler]

Let me ask you a question regarding the real world, Joe. What are you actually doing out there to help this movement you feel so strongly about progress to its hopefully happy conclusion, y'know, other than sitting at your desk posting comments?

WhataboutWhataboutWhatabout

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Oh stop being obtuse.

"What about statues that offend black people?"
"Oh yeah... well what about all statues! What about Che Guevara shirts? What about, what about, what about, what about..."

I've never asked what about... anything. I have asked whether or not people are truly willing to tackle the contradictory nature of who we pick and choose to deem worthy of celebration.

In case you forgot, the OP was about the toppling of Colston's statue, a figure once celebrated and remembered, and now reviewed and reviled for his dubious ties to slavery.

The wider question being, are you now going to re-evaluate other cultural and historical icons who we celebrate and/or remember? What's wrong with asking that question? It halts nothing, it changes nothing, you are simply being asked a question that you've now spent more time ducking and dodging than you have giving a simple answer to.

Are you actually interested in change? Or are you simply banging the drum of the contradictory woke students out in the streets for the sake of seeming enlightened?

I'm not interested in what statues you want to come down versus what you want to remain standing. My views have been made clear several times regarding how I feel about such things, that you and others cannot be bothered to read them and instead choose to misinterpret them and warp them into being something they aren't is not something I care about other than obviously regarding it as dishonest and pathetic attempts to have me seem to be something I'm not.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

WhataboutWhataboutWhatabout

No, you're right, the topic at hand is the only important one, so... Colston's statue came down, what next, oh enlightened guru of progression?

Where does that conversation go now?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not being 100% morally consistent even to your own standards and categorizations (to say nothing of other people's standards and categorizations) isn't a greater sin than being a racist apologist.

On a podcast I listened to the other day Naomi Smith said "If you're more concerned with the manner in which people are protesting than you are about the reasons why they're protesting then you're part of the ******* problem".

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

On a podcast I listened to the other day Naomi Smith said "If you're more concerned with the manner in which people are protesting than you are about the reasons why they're protesting then you're part of the ******* problem".

I'm for the cause, and I'm also for people going about supporting that cause without resorting to ridiculous behaviour. But people are gonna do what people do, so that ship has sailed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've never asked what about... anything. I have asked whether or not people are truly willing to tackle the contradictory nature of who we pick and choose to deem worthy of celebration.

And that's the problem.

When people want to just do good, people like you run into scour them for any signs of "hypocrisy."

The "contradictory nature of who we pick" is not more important then just getting rid of some statues that cause real emotional pain to real people.

You see it as some big horrible, unacceptable thing if Statue X comes down and Statue Y doesn't come down without some full on spreadsheet of exactly why one was taken down and one was left up and I couldn't care less.

Improvement of the overall situation is more important than moral consistency to me.

If Bad Statue A goes down and Bad Statue B stays up... well at least Statue A is down. That's enough for me.

The internet has just ******* got to get over "Hypocrisy" (and a very poorly defined version of it at that) being the only sin it recognizes.

 

[Giordano]

On a podcast I listened to the other day Naomi Smith said "If you're more concerned with the manner in which people are protesting than you are about the reasons why they're protesting then you're part of the ******* problem".

I would extend that. Ignoring the broad opposition to violent protests that attack people, I suspect that the majority of the people who express concern with the manner in which people are protesting are actually in favor of what the protestors oppose. They just don’t want to say so.

The majority, not all.

 

[Planigale]

Oh really? That's your argument?

So, explain to me, why we always wait until black people want to ask to have the statues of racists traders taken down before people start pouring out of the word work handwringing to the heavens with a "but whattaboutaa udder statues?!" routine.

If there was a "wider discussion" we'd would have already be having it. Don't sit there and pretend that it just suddenly reminds you that you are super passionate about statues of Columbus and Mount Rushmore whenever Confederate statues (or equivalents) come into the news.

It's like being at the funeral of someone's kid and just all of a sudden deciding that during the eulogy is the perfect time to stand up and give a big dramatic talk over the person giving the eulogy about how much you love your kid and when people get made giving a defensive, huffy "OH sO yoU'r SaYing I'm nOT allOWED to lOVE my CHIld as well!?" routine.

This level of disingenuous is uncalled for.

To take the example of Colston, do we know he was a 'racist trader'? How was slavery viewed? Colston lived from 1636 to 1721, and was involved in the slave trade for twelve years from 1680 to 1692. Essentially as an investor. The next thirty years of his life he donated his wealth to Charitable causes. What he did as an investor was certainly not criminal. The abolition campaigns had not started, so it is not clear there was even a view it was immoral (the first Quaker tracts were published in the 1680s). What would Colston have known about the conditions of the slaves? It was the abolition campaigns that brought to the fore the intolerable conditions of slavery. At this time English and Irish people were being sent to the colonies as indentured slaves; not the equivalent of slaves but as close as English law allowed. At this time North African slavers were regularly raiding coastal villages and enslaving Europeans / Christians, this included slaving raids in England and Ireland (7,000 English people were abducted between 1622-1644). The raiding in the Mediterranean led to a massive economic decline and depopulation of the coast.* Galley slavery was common in Mediterranean Europe.

Was slavery a racist endeavour for Colston? Or was slavery something that everyone did, North Africans enslaved Europeans, Europeans bought slaves from West Africans, transported them and sold them to Europeans.

If a letter from Colston appeared dated 1692 saying 'On reflection I believe the transport of slaves is immoral and I shall no longer participate but give the monies I have gained to Charities', would this make a difference because we now had insight in to his beliefs? Or would his actions be more important than his beliefs? If this letter appeared in the future would that mean that those places that have been renamed in his dishonour having their original title restored?

The man is dead and gone. As Shakespeare might say the evil lives after him, and perhaps the greatest use that he can serve now is as a lesson about racism and the consequences of the slave trade, and the truth about his beliefs and morality when he was a living person is irrelevant to the good that he can do in becoming a scapegoat or exemplar.

*https://voxeu.org/article/long-run-consequences-pirate-attacks