Racist Countryside Art

[theprestige]

And?

And congratulations, Cambridge University's principal museum has been infected with progressive sociopolitical woo. Divisive, fear mongering, anti-social woo. One wonders how representative this is, of the ideas espoused and imparted throughout the university.

 

[Hercules56]

Well I prefer the term "woke-ass nonsense". But when in Rome...

White-guilt nonsense.

 

[theprestige]

White-guilt nonsense.

Which is doubly and triply tragicomic. If there's one thing white people don't have to feel guilty about, it's memorializing their white homeland. If there's anywhere that people of other continents and pigmentations should properly feel like strangers in a strange land, guests dependent on the unearned hospitality of the locals, it's in ******* Angle-Saxonia.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Exactly. The claims made in the article in the OP is nothing but ignorant, ridiculous speculation. There is no evidence that European landscape art is a problem or inspires hate or bigotry in anyone.

Well, there’s this:

“An environmentally themed mural by elusive street artist Banksy that appeared last week on a London street has been encased in plastic and surrounded by fencing after an apparent act of vandalism.”

https://www.9news.com.au/world/bank...andalism/714ac6b2-3388-49e5-817e-0c1d0c0c1f81

 

[gabeygoat]

And, what?

and...chicken butt!








sorry

 

[Lplus]

Which is doubly and triply tragicomic. If there's one thing white people don't have to feel guilty about, it's memorializing their white homeland. If there's anywhere that people of other continents and pigmentations should properly feel like strangers in a strange land, guests dependent on the unearned hospitality of the locals, it's in ******* Angle-Saxonia.

You're either being deeply sarcastic, or you have little understanding of the depth of the loathing of Britain and its history felt by the progressives, particularly within academia.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're either being deeply sarcastic, or you have little understanding of the depth of the loathing of Britain and its history felt by the progressives, particularly within academia.

It's only recently that we in British cultural dependencies are starting to understand and accept what absolute ***** the colonial British really were. I mean, they were awful. Really, really terrible human beings who routinely committed atrocities and massacres and stole cultural artifacts with reckless abandon. Terrible, terrible people, the British colonials were. Some of the worst people the planet has ever seen. Well, among the worst - a group that is distressingly large.

Post-war British people are much nicer than the colonials were.

 

[Lplus]

It's only recently that we in British cultural dependencies are starting to understand and accept what absolute ***** the colonial British (1) really were. I mean, they were awful. Really, really terrible human beings who routinely committed atrocities and massacres and stole cultural artifacts with reckless abandon. Terrible, terrible people, the British colonials were. Some of the worst people the planet has ever seen. Well, among the worst - a group that is distressingly large.

Post-war British people are much nicer than the (2) colonials were.

1 - Make that colonial Europeans - hell, make it all colonial powers.

2 - but the post war British, and the rest of the colonial powers, are still expected to apologise for the rest of time for the behaviour of their ancestors in a period when such behaviour was not only not frowned upon but was even encouraged.

"The past was another country" my backside.

 

[arthwollipot]

1 - Make that colonial Europeans - hell, make it all colonial powers.

Colonials sucked, yes, but British colonials sucked horrendously. They were particularly sucky, even for colonials.

2 - but the post war British, and the rest of the colonial powers, are still expected to apologise for the rest of time for the behaviour of their ancestors in a period when such behaviour was not only not frowned upon but was even encouraged.

No, but they should acknowledge their ancestors' suckage, not make excuses for it, and where possible do what they can to alleviate the harm that they inflicted on indigenous populations.

Returning all the stuff they stole would be a good start.

 

[Trausti]

Colonials sucked, yes, but British colonials sucked horrendously. They were particularly sucky, even for colonials.

Compared to whom? To the Arab/Muslim colonials? The the Han colonials? To the Bantu colonials?

Returning all the stuff they stole would be a good start.

Just horrible. These "indigineous" people didn't value their own history and artifacts. The silly Brits shouldn't have either.

 

[theprestige]

Colonials sucked, yes, but British colonials sucked horrendously. They were particularly sucky, even for colonials.

Oh yeah. Way worse than the French or the Belgians. Way worse than the Americans, during their colonial period. Way worse than the Spaniards or the Portuguese. Way worse than the Mongols or the Carthaginians or the Romans. Way worse than the various Chinese colonial pushes. Way worse than the Japanese. Way worse than Muscovite aggression. /s hashtag eyeroll.

Should be so lucky, getting colonized by a liberal western civilization. If you had the courage of your convictions, you'd renounce your colonizer citizenship, and throw yourself on the mercy of your imperialist overlord.

 

[arthwollipot]

Just horrible. These "indigineous" people didn't value their own history and artifacts. The silly Brits shouldn't have either.

That is indeed the racist argument made by racist British colonials to justify keeping artifacts away from the people to whom they have religious and cultural significance.

Should be so lucky, getting colonized by a liberal western civilization. If you had the courage of your convictions, you'd renounce your colonizer citizenship, and throw yourself on the mercy of your imperialist overlord.

I remind you of that other thread where I pointed out that I am a member of the Australian Republic Movement and will vote to break from the monarchy at my earliest opportunity. I guess you missed that. Or ignored it because it doesn't fit the carefully-crafted caricature of me you have in your head.

 

[bruto]

Compared to whom? To the Arab/Muslim colonials? The the Han colonials? To the Bantu colonials?

[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/XY7XMcpY/slavetrade.jpg[/qimg]



Just horrible. These "indigineous" people didn't value their own history and artifacts. The silly Brits shouldn't have either.

That argument seems to hinge on the idea that Africa is one country, rather than a continent of many. If the sultans of Zanzibar enslaved people from the interior of the continent, or those of one tribe enslaved those of another, it is not a deficiency of the enslaved people's self respect. Nor does it suggest that the enslavers didn't value their own history and artifacts. There were nasty people and monsters of all sorts in all sorts of places, but they enslaved each other, not themselves.

To suggest that this justifies the European colonists' looting of African artifacts makes no more sense than saying Sweden could loot the British Museum because the British were at war with the French.

And though it may be the case that once Britain outlawed the slave trade they did so aggressively, it was a trade they had previously enjoyed, and for which they were partially responsible. The seller is guilty of many sins, but the buyer bears some too.

And anyway, this should not devolve into a tu quoque argument. If you treat people badly and steal their stuff, it's wrong in its own right, even if the people in question are no better.

 

[Trausti]

That argument seems to hinge on the idea that Africa is one country, rather than a continent of many. If the sultans of Zanzibar enslaved people from the interior of the continent, or those of one tribe enslaved those of another, it is not a deficiency of the enslaved people's self respect. Nor does it suggest that the enslavers didn't value their own history and artifacts. There were nasty people and monsters of all sorts in all sorts of places, but they enslaved each other, not themselves.

To suggest that this justifies the European colonists' looting of African artifacts makes no more sense than saying Sweden could loot the British Museum because the British were at war with the French.

And though it may be the case that once Britain outlawed the slave trade they did so aggressively, it was a trade they had previously enjoyed, and for which they were partially responsible. The seller is guilty of many sins, but the buyer bears some too.

And anyway, this should not devolve into a tu quoque argument. If you treat people badly and steal their stuff, it's wrong in its own right, even if the people in question are no better.

The idea of valuing artifacts is a Western value that the British/Europeans imposed on the rest of the world. If the Europeans had not saved these artifacts these would have been plundered or destroyed. Indeed, that such artifacts exist today is due to those evil colonizers a century ago thinking they were worth saving.

 

[bruto]

The idea of valuing artifacts is a Western value that the British/Europeans imposed on the rest of the world. If the Europeans had not saved these artifacts these would have been plundered or destroyed. Indeed, that such artifacts exist today is due to those evil colonizers a century ago thinking they were worth saving.

How kind of the white man to take up the burden and plunder properly.

 

[Lplus]

Colonials sucked, yes, but British colonials sucked horrendously. They were particularly sucky, even for colonials.

They were certainly the one of the most successful in terms of countries colonialised. I suppose that could count - I wonder whether the subjects of French and Belgian and Spanish and Portugese colonialism agree the British were the worst.

No, but they should acknowledge their ancestors' suckage, not make excuses for it, and where possible do what they can to alleviate the harm that they inflicted on indigenous populations.

Pointing out the myriad of colonial acts in the history of the planet is not making excuses for bad behaviour, but it might just put the behaviour of one colonial power in perspective. And that in itself is an acknowlegement of the behaviour.

As to do what is possible to alleviate harm? define possible. And even then there will be those who say it isn't enough, and never will be.

Returning all the stuff they stole would be a good start.

And strangely I'm with you there. As far as I'm concerned if it wasn't found, made, or at least used, in the UK it shouldn't have a place in a british museum.
But that's a general view I take, not restricted to colonial spoils.

And so we get back to the museum in question and can at least agree that the landscape art of british artists should actually have a place in a British museum.

 

[arthwollipot]

The idea of valuing artifacts is a Western value that the British/Europeans imposed on the rest of the world.

That's ********.

If the Europeans had not saved these artifacts these would have been plundered or destroyed.

That's ********.

Indeed, that such artifacts exist today is due to those evil colonizers a century ago thinking they were worth saving.

That's also ********.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As a Brit, I'm not unaware of and won't defend my ancestors' Maxim-guns-vs-sharpened-fruit reputation for grabbing large amounts of other peoples land and declaring ownership. Nor of our older reputation which lingers across much of South America for being a nation of viscious pirates.

But I am curious about the claim that the British were the worst-behaved colonisers. By what metric?

 

[arthwollipot]

As a Brit, I'm not unaware of and won't defend my ancestors' Maxim-guns-vs-sharpened-fruit reputation for grabbing large amounts of other peoples land and declaring ownership. Nor of our older reputation which lingers across much of South America for being a nation of viscious pirates.

But I am curious about the claim that the British were the worst-behaved colonisers. By what metric?

By the metric I pulled out of my bum. I didn't expect the damn Spanish Inquisition.

As a descendent of those colonisers, I have become keenly aware of how awful they were. I'm sure other European colonial powers were pretty damn awful too, but I know more about how bad the British were. The ABC and CBC didn't produce three seasons of a podcast called Stuff The Dutch Stole.

 

[bruto]

As a Brit, I'm not unaware of and won't defend my ancestors' Maxim-guns-vs-sharpened-fruit reputation for grabbing large amounts of other peoples land and declaring ownership. Nor of our older reputation which lingers across much of South America for being a nation of viscious pirates.

But I am curious about the claim that the British were the worst-behaved colonisers. By what metric?

I suspect it depends on how you measure, by the depth of depravity or the overall amount. The British Empire was huge. But for sheer brutality, though my knowledge is anecdotal and statistically deficient, I imagine Belgium might score higher, and I think there are some Asians who might vote for Japan.