• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

Another example today of "I don't care if it's not racist. The fact that I thought of it as racist means that it is racist" from today's headlines.

Nooses were discovered hanging from trees in a city park. Nooses=lynching=racist. So, an investigation was launched. It turns out that there was a guy who put them up as exercise equipment, to swing from. And, they weren't nooses.

Well, the mayor chimes in saying that even though they weren't nooses, all ropes in trees are really just like nooses, and even though they weren't racist, they would be seen as racist just like any other noose, even if the rope isn't a noose, so leaving them in place would be racist.

If he had just noted that they were taking them down to their liability insurance not appreciating untested exercise equipment in a city park, that would be fine, but the mayor stuck with the racism thing.
 
Meadmaker said:
And....I have never heard of "Uncle" being associated with slavery. I can't say that I've paid close attention to all contemporary sources to figure out how people talked about slaves, but if "uncle" and "aunt" have any connection to slavery, I somehow have missed it.

The closest thing I know is an "Uncle Tom" is a black person who accepts white supremacy. That's from the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which I have not read, and I suspect darned few Americans ever have read, although we would recognize that it is, indeed, a book about a black guy referred to as "Uncle Tom". I had always assumed that it was because the title character was named Tom, and was someone's uncle, and he had a cabin.

ETA: I've seen similar things happen many times. There is some phrase, word, picture, or whatever that is in common use, and someone invents a "history" behind the phrase, and declares that the phrase now means whatever the history implies, and further use of it is now taboo. It doesn't even matter if the history is entirely fictitious.

We saw an example earlier in this thread. Black Boy Tavern in Bristol, named because it was near the slave market, except that there was never a slave market, and it was actually a reference to King Charles II. Never mind that. Because it could be taken as racist, it's racist. QED.
Click to expand...

Uncle Remus in Song of the South. I am fairly sure he was not intended to be the sibling of those children's parents. Half sibling maybe
 
I wondered if I had somehow missed something about this "uncle" thing, so I went off looking for google.

Sometimes here at ISF we love to do formal fallacy identification. If you want to see a wonderful example of "begging the question", read this story. With regard to Aunt Jemima, it makes the case somewhat, but when it comes to Uncle Ben's, it's pure question begging.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-06-17/aunt-jemima-racist-stereotypes


But....we are getting away from statues, aren't we? The issues are related. It's about identification or misidentification of symbols of racism. Is the New Mexico conquistador statue racist, because it remembers a white guy, or not racist because it remembers an Hispanic person? Italians were once an oppressed ethnic group in the United States, and a lot of Columbus statues actually relate to that legacy. Italian-Americans wanted to celebrate an historical representative of their homeland. Now, though, Columbus is just white, so he doesn't get any protection.
 
William Parcher said:
I would say that at this point in time it's more specifically about symbols of black slavery.
Click to expand...

Onate (that conquistador whose statue was attacked) didn't have anything to do with black slavery.

Columbus may have. His bad stuff is usually associated with Native Caribbean slavery, but I think that I read he may have stopped off in Africa and bought some black slaves to take to the New World in his later voyages.
 
Meadmaker said:
I wondered if I had somehow missed something about this "uncle" thing, so I went off looking for google.

Sometimes here at ISF we love to do formal fallacy identification. If you want to see a wonderful example of "begging the question", read this story. With regard to Aunt Jemima, it makes the case somewhat, but when it comes to Uncle Ben's, it's pure question begging.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-06-17/aunt-jemima-racist-stereotypes


But....we are getting away from statues, aren't we? The issues are related. It's about identification or misidentification of symbols of racism. Is the New Mexico conquistador statue racist, because it remembers a white guy, or not racist because it remembers an Hispanic person? Italians were once an oppressed ethnic group in the United States, and a lot of Columbus statues actually relate to that legacy. Italian-Americans wanted to celebrate an historical representative of their homeland. Now, though, Columbus is just white, so he doesn't get any protection.
Click to expand...

This is a very identitarian way of deciding what is racist or not.

I would wager a lot of native-latino peoples in the Southwest U.S. don't revere a Conquistador because of their shared ethnic heritage. Perhaps their views are centered more on the behavior of the individual in question during their lifetime (rape and plunder of peoples and land).

Columbus wasn't Italian. There was no Italy, there were no Italians. He was Genovese/Ligurian, at the time half of Italy would have farted in his general direction and called his mother a hamster.

There are lots of historical figures that weren't slavers and warmongering tyrants from every ethnic group.

Maybe what we venerate says something about us. Maybe what we see being venerated imprints values to aspire to on us.

Having your name repeated, face looked upon, or deeds discussed after death is one of those "how to live forever" impulses.

Look around. What do our icons of veneration say about how to leave an impactful legacy?
 
Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods. They don't represent a cause or a team or a movement. They represent some food brands. They're names and images that huge corporations designed and used to manipulate you. Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?
 
Myriad said:
Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods.
Click to expand...
Their absence would negatively effect the flavor of the food.


Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?
Click to expand...
TragicMonkey was very upset and he still is.
 
Meadmaker said:
Consumer boycotts have also been somewhat effective lately. Boycott states with confederate statue laws. Get the sports teams on board, that has been effective. Threatening to cancel big sporting events is a bit hollow right now, but they'll start up again eventually.
Click to expand...


And as if on cue.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...e-themed-flag-or-risk-losing-college-n1231502

(SEC threatens to cancel events in Mississippi if they don't take the Confederate battle flag out of their state flag.)
 
Myriad said:
Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods. They don't represent a cause or a team or a movement. They represent some food brands. They're names and images that huge corporations designed and used to manipulate you. Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?
Click to expand...

Exactly !

The Moretti beer guy used to be an avuncular plump old guy with white whiskers. Now he's much younger, slimmer and has lustrous brown hair. No outrage whatsoever (except from me, I'm boycotting the brand :D)
 
Planigale said:
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
Click to expand...

I would argue he most certainly would have known, as slavery was illegal in England proper.

This informs us that there was a view keeping someone in slavery was against British principles.
 
Thermal said:
Jesus Christ.

Can't a discussion be had about the broader interpretation of statue removals without it turning into this polarizing Us v Them bull ******

Monuments reflect what society the ruling classes reveres and values. If a significant portion finds them reprehensible, and for damned good reasons, why shouldn't a discussion thread explore the reach and limits? It's a natural progression of the topic. Its not like we are carving the results in stone, here and now. It is simply getting the thoughts out on the table to have a thorough perspective.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Planigale said:
Where do we stand on the Jolly Green Giant as an icon? Should he come out and be the Gay Green Giant?
Click to expand...
He's also offensive to people with hypochromic anemia and gigantism - turning their suffering into a jolly figure of fun. Maybe replace him with a woman of colour holding a molotov?
 
Myriad said:
Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods. They don't represent a cause or a team or a movement. They represent some food brands. They're names and images that huge corporations designed and used to manipulate you. Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?
Click to expand...
This is my view when the brand stuff comes up. Never mind logos these ruthless manufacturers or as likely these days license holders are concerned about what will sell or sometimes what will lose the least sales.

There are generation rifts in the UK from the renaming of Marathon and Opal fruits, these are important!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom