Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Meadmaker]

It gets better:

Police medics stated that the victim was shot in the back. Steven Baca was discharged from the military for "assault, fleeing the scene of an accident, insubordination and failure to obey an order" after he got into a fight with a sergeant over wearing his cover (hat) indoors.

Video of the event shows he shoved two other women prior him throwing the woman to the ground, resulting in a head impact. It was only after the third, more serious assault that the crowd attempted to detain him, which Baca responded to by shooting.

Seems that escalating things to violence a repeat problem for Mr. Baca.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/accused-protest-shooter-subject-of-2012-larry-barker-investigation/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

It's just classic.

The mob attacks the statue. A counter mob tries to defend the statue. One man goes towards it. A woman escalates by deliberately blocking the way. The man escalates by throwing the woman to the ground. The crowd escalates by threatening the man. The man escalates by shooting someone in the crowd.

That last escalation was a doozy. I think he's going to have a problem. I hope he likes orange.

But.....what did the statue have to do with all this?

So, we have a statue that is an artistic work that is part of a museum collection.

That statue is also a cultural relic of an ethnic minority in the United States.

It is clearly an historical work, surrounded by other statues that also represent the history of the town.


Tear it down!


In the case of some of those confederate statues that have been pulled down by mobs, I think the excuses have some merit. The state government won't let the city government do what it thinks is right. The statues have no real artistic value. The statues were put up specifically as a political statement to oppress black people and oppose the civil rights movement. No museum would want the statues. All of those things are true about the Confederate statues, but none of them are true about the conquistador statue, and yet, here we are. One man is shot. One man is in jail. The statue is hidden.

Who won? What good thing happened as a result of a mob showing up with picks and ropes to remove that statue?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's just classic.

The mob attacks the statue. A counter mob tries to defend the statue. One man goes towards it. A woman escalates by deliberately blocking the way. The man escalates by throwing the woman to the ground. The crowd escalates by threatening the man. The man escalates by shooting someone in the crowd.

That last escalation was a doozy. I think he's going to have a problem. I hope he likes orange.

But.....what did the statue have to do with all this?

So, we have a statue that is an artistic work that is part of a museum collection.

That statue is also a cultural relic of an ethnic minority in the United States.

It is clearly an historical work, surrounded by other statues that also represent the history of the town.


Tear it down!


In the case of some of those confederate statues that have been pulled down by mobs, I think the excuses have some merit. The state government won't let the city government do what it thinks is right. The statues have no real artistic value. The statues were put up specifically as a political statement to oppress black people and oppose the civil rights movement. No museum would want the statues. All of those things are true about the Confederate statues, but none of them are true about the conquistador statue, and yet, here we are. One man is shot. One man is in jail. The statue is hidden.

Who won? What good thing happened as a result of a mob showing up with picks and ropes to remove that statue?

The statue has been removed, so it seems pretty clear that the BLM protesters won a small victory.

 

[Checkmite]

Anyway, it's fairly simple what the tweeter was saying. The man with the gun was in fact being threatened.

That's the second thing the tweeter said.

The first thing the tweeter said, which was apparently immediately after the shooting but before the shooter had been identified, was that the shooter was "Antifa" and had "just tried to murder someone". And then of course when the shooter was identified as a right-wing Trump supporter, the shooting became instantly a case of "clear self-defense".

 

[Meadmaker]

That's the second thing the tweeter said.

The first thing the tweeter said, which was apparently immediately after the shooting but before the shooter had been identified, was that the shooter was "Antifa" and had "just tried to murder someone". And then of course when the shooter was identified as a right-wing Trump supporter, the shooting became instantly a case of "clear self-defense".

Maybe that's what he meant to say. I had a hard time sorting it out. What I thought he was saying, after I tried to make sense out of it, was that an Antifa mob tried to murder a poor helpless man in a blue shirt and he defended himself by shooting one of the Antifa mob.

He wasn't very coherent in any case.

But you might be right. He might have been saying "Antifa guy tries to murder someone..." followed by "Uhhh....what I meant was.....guy under attack defends himself."

 

[Nessie]

The UK loan for WWI took until 2014 to pay off.

The loan for WWII took until 2006 to pay off.

The loan for compensation paid to slave owners in 1833 took until 2015 to pay off.

 

[William Parcher]

Not just statues coming down. It was just reported that Aunt Jemimah and also Uncle Ben's foods will be renamed and not use black personifications as their brand image.

Goodbye Aunt Jemimah syrup and goodbye Uncle Ben's rice.

 

[William Parcher]

Other food products that might now change are Mrs. Butterworth's syrup and Nabisco Cream of Wheat. Both of those use a black person as a product image. Cream of Wheat might not need to change the name.

I think in a way it's a shame that the images of black people are being removed from universally enjoyed food products.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Other food products that might now change are Mrs. Butterworth's syrup and Nabisco Cream of Wheat. Both of those use a black person as a product image. Cream of Wheat might not need to change the name.

I think in a way it's a shame that the images of black people are being removed from universally enjoyed food products.

Quaker Oats Replaces Historically Racist Aunt Jemima Mascot With Black Female Lawyer Who Enjoys Pancakes Sometimes

The Onion struck hours before it happened for real.

 

[Meadmaker]

Arthur Ashe's statue has been defaced in Richmond.

Who could have imagined something like that happening?

But, it's ok, because the perpetrators were pretty obviously racist. (No sarcasm there. I think they probably were racist.) As long as we can clearly identify that some statue defacers were obviously bad, it's ok for other people who are not bad to deface statues.

 

[jimbob]

Only if you consider being a slave-trader and/or restricting your charitable largesse to those who are willing to conform to your particular political and religious views to be the mark of a bad person

OTOH at least one prominent late Victorian thought that he was exactly the sort of person that Bristol should venerate.

So who are we going to listen to, the thousands of people who object to the veneration of Edward Colston (many of whom are young and/or brown), or one dead white man ?

It's not just one dead white man, it's also a prominent Tory councillor:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/09/edwa...-golliwog-loving-bristol-councillor-12827969/

Who had previously objected to a plaque on the statue pointing out how he made his money from slaves, and who had said that vandalism or theft of that new plaque would be justified.

 

[Darat]

Not just statues coming down. It was just reported that Aunt Jemimah and also Uncle Ben's foods will be renamed and not use black personifications as their brand image.

Goodbye Aunt Jemimah syrup and goodbye Uncle Ben's rice.

Is it a bad thing?

Whilst you may think they are inoffensive because of familiarity I suspect they were originally chosen because of certain accepted stereotypes of the times. Think of "Mammy" as portrayed in the movie "Gone with the wind", the similar character in Tom & Jerry cartoons and so on.

The only time I personally would perhaps consider such a change to be silly would be if they were actual people from the time such as the founder of the company.

Were either real people?

 

[jimbob]

Is it a bad thing?

Whilst you may think they are inoffensive because of familiarity I suspect they were originally chosen because of certain accepted stereotypes of the times. Think of "Mammy" as portrayed in the movie "Gone with the wind", the similar character in Tom & Jerry cartoons and so on.

The only time I personally would perhaps consider such a change to be silly would be if they were actual people from the time such as the founder of the company.

Were either real people?

Beat me to it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, I listened to a podcast yesterday on which a journalist said that Colston was a controversial figure in his time, and that there were objections to his statue going up when it was erected.

 

[William Parcher]

Is it a bad thing?

Whilst you may think they are inoffensive because of familiarity I suspect they were originally chosen because of certain accepted stereotypes of the times. Think of "Mammy" as portrayed in the movie "Gone with the wind", the similar character in Tom & Jerry cartoons and so on.

The only time I personally would perhaps consider such a change to be silly would be if they were actual people from the time such as the founder of the company.

Were either real people?

We can do our own research on that question and many of the news articles on this explain the history. Here are the brands under scrutiny...

Aunt Jemimah
Uncle Ben's
Mrs. Butterworth's

Maybe coming up..

Nabisco Cream of Wheat


The hoodies are selling like hotcakes.

https://dorothy86.store/product/3d-...MI8MmbsbOL6gIVRuDICh3_JAtPEAQYAiABEgLuffD_BwE

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it a bad thing?

Whilst you may think they are inoffensive because of familiarity I suspect they were originally chosen because of certain accepted stereotypes of the times. Think of "Mammy" as portrayed in the movie "Gone with the wind", the similar character in Tom & Jerry cartoons and so on.

The only time I personally would perhaps consider such a change to be silly would be if they were actual people from the time such as the founder of the company.

Were either real people?

Aunt Jemima has been considered somewhat problematic as a black stereotype for a long time, but I have never heard of a problem with Uncle Ben.

The picture looks like an old-fashioned black guy. I'm not seeing the issue, but maybe wikipedia will explain the controversy.


ETA: I read the wikipedia entry. There's nothing that I can see that ought to make Uncle Ben controversial.

 

[William Parcher]

Aunt Jemima has been considered somewhat problematic as a black stereotype for a long time, but I have never heard of a problem with Uncle Ben.

The picture looks like an old-fashioned black guy. I'm not seeing the issue, but maybe wikipedia will explain the controversy.


ETA: I read the wikipedia entry. There's nothing that I can see that ought to make Uncle Ben controversial.

I read that an underlying problem is with the use of "Aunt" and "Uncle". It was described as being how white people once referred to (slave) black people. They weren't called "Mrs." or "Miss" or "Mr." That was considered too dignified and so it was just to be Aunt and Uncle depending on gender.

So it seems that black Ben has to go because he is not Ben; he is Uncle Ben.

 

[Mike!]

I read that an underlying problem is with the use of "Aunt" and "Uncle". It was described as being how white people once referred to (slave) black people. They weren't called "Mrs." or "Miss" or "Mr." That was considered too dignified and so it was just to be Aunt and Uncle depending on gender.

So it seems that black Ben has to go because he is not Ben; he is Uncle Ben.

"Mrs., Miss, and Mr." were too dignified, so making them mom and dad's brother and sister fixed it?

 

[shuttlt]

I read that an underlying problem is with the use of "Aunt" and "Uncle". It was described as being how white people once referred to (slave) black people. They weren't called "Mrs." or "Miss" or "Mr." That was considered too dignified and so it was just to be Aunt and Uncle depending on gender.

So it seems that black Ben has to go because he is not Ben; he is Uncle Ben.

Seems like quite a coincidence, given that this was clearly being done for reasons of racism, that calling non-relatives aunt, uncle, sister etc... is quite common in the parts of Africa I've had contact with.

 

[zooterkin]

Seems like quite a coincidence, given that this was clearly being done for reasons of racism, that calling non-relatives aunt, uncle, sister etc... is quite common in the parts of Africa I've had contact with.

It's quite common in the parts of the UK I've had contact with.

 

[William Parcher]

Seems like quite a coincidence, given that this was clearly being done for reasons of racism, that calling non-relatives aunt, uncle, sister etc... is quite common in the parts of Africa I've had contact with.

Hairs are not to be split during a cultural revolution.