|
Post by nitronine on Jun 23, 2020 21:34:14 GMT
But surely that's the issue, the statues aren't teaching anyone anything, they're statues. Most of them don't even have plaques explaining who the person was, and even if they do they don't say the bad parts of their history. I think we can take the statues down and put them in a museum where people can actually learn. Mods, sorry for derailing this thread a little. If there's a more appropriate thread for this discussion then would you be able to move these posts there? ETA: you mention censoring of books, what books are these? I genuinely don't know Well, in Germany, every statue that is put up comes with a plaque explaining who it is and what he has done (for good or evil). So people can learn about the significance of the place and the person. A block away from my workplace there is a little art installation of a priest who has spoken out against Hitler and was beheaded as a traitor at that very place- my workplace is built on the site of a former Wehrmacht barracks.
The town I am working at was the favorite holiday destination of Bismarck- also a controversial figure. You cannot turn a corner without stumble onto some information about him. Or some statue/ plaque/ favorite tree. It is like walking a museum. I am totally fine with it.
I think the issue here (I'm in England so can't comment on Germany) is that most of the statues we have don't really explain who the person was and what they did, whether it was good or bad, so people always assume that it's good. I think a lot more people would be accepting of the statues and memorials if there was an effort to explain who these people actually were like it looks like they have in the town that you work in.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 23, 2020 21:44:58 GMT
And will they be abolishing the person and his story along with the image? Is that something that serves the history of the town? It's all very disturbing. I fear it is just hypocrisy. The people screaming the loudest to tear things down to increase their standing and trying to show how much they do for the community, are also the same people refusing to have refugees move into their neighbourhoods.
That is what scares me most.
I agree, there are much bigger issues than censoring old TV shows for example (not saying I disagree with that, sometimes I think it's too far but sometimes it's justified, I'm just using it as an example). I think that in most cases no one actually cares about that stuff, but the few people that do are loud about it and are able to get it changed because it's easier to do that reforming a whole system. If anything I think that these people do more harm than good because they can leave the impression that anyone who disagrees with them isn't welcome and this causes further divide amongst people and makes people who aren't in the movement (e.g. BLM) doubt its intentions.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Jun 23, 2020 21:52:00 GMT
The current tearing down old referred statues/ cultural icons/ censoring of books.... smacks too much of iconoclasm to me.
We have to learn from our history, not destroy it and hide it. But surely that's the issue, the statues aren't teaching anyone anything, they're statues. Most of them don't even have plaques explaining who the person was, and even if they do they don't say the bad parts of their history. I think we can take the statues down and put them in a museum where people can actually learn. Mods, sorry for derailing this thread a little. If there's a more appropriate thread for this discussion then would you be able to move these posts there? ETA: you mention censoring of books, what books are these? I genuinely don't know Then the problem isn't the statues, it's the community for not putting them in context. Don't want them in the town center? Then move them to a museum or more appropriate place and use them as a tool to educate. But I can't help looking at statues coming down as destruction and what every evil regime does to hide their history. Here in the US we have liberals who used to be the loudest about censorship and freedom of speech now calling for banning such books as Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because the n-word is used. It horrifies me. Here is an article regarding Huck Finn.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 23, 2020 21:53:33 GMT
I know most of you are in Europe so this doesn't necessarily apply, but the context of when the statue (or whatever) went up is also relevant. In the US, a huge percentage of the monuments/statutes to Confederate traitors aren't monuments celebrating local history at all, they were actually erected in the 1960s as a racist reaction against the civil rights movement at the time. The people who put them up weren't trying to honour heritage, they were putting up those statues as deliberate effort to intimidate black people protesting for their rights. 'This is the South, know your place.'
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Jun 23, 2020 21:56:22 GMT
I know most of you are in Europe so this doesn't necessarily apply, but the context of when the statue (or whatever) went up is also relevant. In the US, a huge percentage of the monuments/statutes to Confederate traitors aren't monuments celebrating local history at all, they were actually erected in the 1960s as a racist reaction against the civil rights movement at the time. The people who put them up weren't trying to honour heritage, they were putting up those statues as deliberate effort to intimidate black people protesting for their rights. 'This is the South, know your place.' That is horrible, but still fascinating in a historical sense. And could teach people a ton about what scared people are willing to do to try and keep societal change from their doors. Let's have the discussion. And tell me, why they are tearing down statues of George Washington and Francis Scott Key?
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 23, 2020 21:56:24 GMT
But surely that's the issue, the statues aren't teaching anyone anything, they're statues. Most of them don't even have plaques explaining who the person was, and even if they do they don't say the bad parts of their history. I think we can take the statues down and put them in a museum where people can actually learn. Mods, sorry for derailing this thread a little. If there's a more appropriate thread for this discussion then would you be able to move these posts there? ETA: you mention censoring of books, what books are these? I genuinely don't know Then the problem isn't the statues, it's the community for not putting them in context. Don't want them in the town center? Then move them to a museum or more appropriate place and use them as a tool to educate. But I can't help looking at statues coming down as destruction and what every evil regime does to hide their history. I semi-agree, the community should not allow the statues to be up if people don't want them, but I can also see why after trying to get the statues taken down/moved legally for years such drastic action is being taken. Not saying I condone it, just that I can understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jun 23, 2020 21:58:35 GMT
Everything should be asked, from time to time, the questions “is this worth keeping?” “Is this worthy of discussion?” “Does the existence of this do more harm than good?” And if good solid arguments cannot be made in the affirmative, then very little effort should be put into its continued presence in society. Tuck it away in a museum somewhere, preserve it by all means but let it be forgotten if it’s not worthy of being remembered, let it be remembered as being as harmful as it was helpful. Take about all aspects of it, don’t lionise it or defile it, just let all sides be heard.
Take Captain James Cook - adventurer, explorer ... and the sort of man who let his men rape their way across the South Pacific. Or George Washington - brilliant General .... and the sort of man who would have sex with the humans he owned (we call that rape BTW). Or Thomas Jefferson - clever man, enlightened thinker .... who owned other human beings despite preaching to the world “all men are created equal”. Or The Talons of Weng-Chiang - yes Chang is presented as a multifaceted human being, but he’s still a white fella in yellow face and every negative Victorian stepertype of the Chinese are presented without rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by nitronine on Jun 23, 2020 22:16:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Jun 23, 2020 22:27:48 GMT
I have to say I heartily agree with most things said here. I also like to hear from other countries and how things are handles there. As I come from Germany, we had a certain history with statues and a cult to our glorious leader, Lord and savior. That (luckily for the rest of the world) did not end well. Now certain statues and monuments (and concentration camps) are left standing to educate people. For example the Reichsparteitagsgelände in Nürnberg never was torn down. It is now basically a huge outdoor museum. I think that is much more effective than tearing it down and forget about it.
As for the censoring of certain books. We also had a history of that in Germany with the Nazi book burnings. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So the N word is in a historic book? Add a note at front to explain and educate. Do not abolish or hide art because it is uncomfortable. Some art was created to be uncomfortable. Art is a way to address and explain our environment and experiences. Not all of them are good. Nor should they be.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jun 23, 2020 22:29:18 GMT
I’m with Cato the Elder on this one: “I’d rather it were asked why isn’t there a statue of me than why is there.”
Is a complicated issue but one in which I’m sure there can be a resolution reached. Plaques are good, removal of the statue to a museum is good. People not demolishing public installations is best of all, but I prefer that to people killing each other. As for these statues being a educative part of history, I’ve come to only partly believe in that after a quarter-century of teaching. Art teaches. Commemorative statues should be like gravestones or, better yet, should be gravestones.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Jun 23, 2020 22:30:14 GMT
And then there's Pie (love him!) (This is an older one, but still relevant.)
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 23, 2020 22:35:54 GMT
"Destined To Repeat, Doomed To Forget".
IMHO it's all going a bit OTT, leaning too far to 1 side. Here in Australia there's internet campaigns to rename certain foods here.. A friend of mine, his surname is literally "Blackman". I told him if he ever gets internet troll hate to change his name, he knows what to do.
I have been speaking a fair bit the last few months with my Indigenous mate, and she agrees everyone needs to calm down a bit and relax.. To put it in context, when her older brother (who is 5 years younger than me) was born, her grandma was trying to get them to leave the hospital the day of his birth so the "white man" doesn't take him away , like what happened to her generation of Indigenous people.
I just saw a news article titled "Is chess racist?".. because white goes 1st.. (I don't play chess so I can't confirm).
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 23, 2020 23:33:10 GMT
I just saw a news article titled "Is chess racist?".. because white goes 1st.. (I don't play chess so I can't confirm). That sounds like clickbait to me. It's one of those questions with no answer, because chess has been played by so many different cultures across a number of centuries. There are quite a lot of weird quirky anecdotal stories if you Google it
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 24, 2020 0:12:11 GMT
Why? Is there controversy over this one? Lovecraft was an openly racist individual i think, so with the BLM stuff in the world being a focus right now, they may not wish to emphasise it "BLM stuff"? "stuff"? Really? That's the word you use? Lovecraft was an openly racist individual i think, so with the BLM stuff in the world being a focus right now, they may not wish to emphasise it I knew that but damn, I'm so tired of us throwing away interesting and engaging art because the artist is an ass. These creators are human, and humans are flawed. Some more than others. It shouldn't bring down the creation because people in 2020 say so. This is the worst kind of censorship, and it angers me. What art in 2020 has been thrown away?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 24, 2020 0:18:09 GMT
But surely that's the issue, the statues aren't teaching anyone anything, they're statues. Most of them don't even have plaques explaining who the person was, and even if they do they don't say the bad parts of their history. I think we can take the statues down and put them in a museum where people can actually learn. Mods, sorry for derailing this thread a little. If there's a more appropriate thread for this discussion then would you be able to move these posts there? ETA: you mention censoring of books, what books are these? I genuinely don't know Then the problem isn't the statues, it's the community for not putting them in context. Don't want them in the town center? Then move them to a museum or more appropriate place and use them as a tool to educate. But I can't help looking at statues coming down as destruction and what every evil regime does to hide their history. Here in the US we have liberals who used to be the loudest about censorship and freedom of speech now calling for banning such books as Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because the n-word is used. It horrifies me. Here is an article regarding Huck Finn. The problem is the community? Seriously? What say did the community have in the statue of Colston going up? Pulling down statues like Colston's isn't hiding history, in fact it's the reverse. The statue of Colston hide history, it erased it. & statues are put up as symbols of glorification. Slave traders should not be glorified.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 3:03:52 GMT
I'll put up my posts from the League of Gentlemen thread because it feels relevant. Speaking very specifically on the subject of media censorship: I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity. *nods* I'm all for content warnings. That quest for purity can prove rather dangerous. The Motion Picture Code (better known colloquially as the Hays Code) was created with the intention of "purging immorality" from Hollywood films. That meant violence, harsh language, eroticism and all the expected controversial themes, but it also extended into areas that became damaged by censure. Filmmakers couldn't present stories that contravened the "correct standards of living", this included depictions of poverty, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality, all of which were Code violations. All of which were used as excuses not to talk about the subject matters. Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering. (Nucleus's point helped carry through the discussion, in response to the above:) I agree with content warnings, but to take up a slightly contrary position: anti-censorship can also be used to create revisionist history and kill conversations as much as censorship can. While the details you provide here are interesting Wolfie, too often I see call to 'not censor' something, like old movies or TV, as being more base and impulsive, born not out of historical respect but personal insult: like liking Gone with the Wind makes you some kind of accessory to slavery and systemic abuse of black people in the US. Except it doesn't, and no one who is pointing out the troubling aspects is saying it does. So, as far as people like that are concerned, better to just put a blanket 'don't censor' on it and not think about the media you consume lest it push you out of your comfort zone.
It's the same problem as the fallout of Talons a few years back - too many people thought with their nostalgia, seeing criticism as an attack on them, and not with, well, critical thought. Like GotW or Fawlty, acknowledging Talons has a giant red flag in it doesn't make the work worthless, or you a bad person for liking it - but pretending it doesn't exist because you personally like the story around said flag is dishonest. Even the old chestnut of 'well, people didn't know better' is actually contradicted by history - people had big problems with Gotw or Birth of A Nation when they came out. Asian actors had been working for years by the time Talons came out.
Yeah, and that's a perfectly logical stance to take as well. A lot of it is best approached on a case-by-case basis. The anti-censorship mentality from a historical perspective comes from a desire to preserve the evidence of a practice, rather than the practice itself. Or should. But I agree, it shouldn't be employed unilaterally across every piece of media in a blanket rule, nor should it be used as an excuse not to discuss the issues, either way. There has to be a reasoned discussion behind the why of it. Why discard it? Why preserve it? What does it actually bring to that body of history? And I think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the personal, individual drives behind why this is such a contentious discussion in the first place. With a lot of these pieces of media, it's about being able to like something while admitting that it has flaws. To use a personal example, I love Marco Polo. It's one of my favourite First Doctor stories. I don't consider the yellowface employed there to be an integral element of my enjoyment of it. If you took that away, it could only improve it. I'd like to know why it was possible to get half-Asian Zienia Merton to play Ping Cho, but no one for the Court of the Khan or Tegana 1 himself. What was actually standing in the way of that? Was it a lack of time, a lack of wisdom, a lack of resources? Was it a cultural blindspot? A lack of channels to Asian acting communities? And if any of those threads are pulled... What lessons can we learn from them and take into the future, as a result? That's a critical discussion worth having. Something worth analysing beyond the like and dislike of personal taste. I think a lot of people get caught up on the word "critical" because it means something very different depending on the field being discussed. It's not used in the film theory sense to derogate or belittle a story. It's about analysis beyond the scope of an individual's like or dislike. Too often it's about a clash of opinion, rather than trying to find out -- well, why did this work out the way that it did? What were the mechanics behind it? (1 - The choice for Tegana feels informed, in part, by Derren Nesbitt's familiarity with William Russell, or vice versa. The pair appeared together at least a dozen times prior on The Adventures of Sir Lancelot, frequently with Nesbitt in a villainous role.)The emphasis lies, I think, in how the art and history is taught. I can't speak to the statues, but on the subject of art... There are still people who don't know that the father of Alexandre Dumas – author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo – was born of a French nobleman and a slave of Afro-Caribbean descent. In Haiti. Thomas-Alexandre freed his son when they arrived in France. A playwright and novelist in popular culture with over 200 adaptations of his works. The fact that this can still come as a revelation, rather than well-known fact (even to great lovers of Dumas's work), speaks to the problems of culling complexity from historical narratives. I hope that the ultimate result of all this will be a reclamation of buried history rather than the abolition of it. In the case of Lovecraft, the condemnation of his views comes easy. In the case of Lovecraft's works, they've been heavily reinterpreted already and will continue to be as time goes on – memorably in films like Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water. Interestingly enough, del Toro – originally born in Mexico – has had H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness as a pet project for film release on his mind for ages. As a director and writer, he dabbles quite extensively in Cosmic Horror themes and motifs. From Hellboy to his work on Trollhunters. A figure like Lovecraft may be the owner of his work, but he doesn't shape the genre that spawned from it or its interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 24, 2020 8:36:29 GMT
I agree it is frustrating and a deeply personal and difficult issue. As an creative, obviously censorship is not a friend. That said, with all respect in the world to elka and tui, I think the argument of 'statues keep history alive' is flawed for a number of reasons and, while cultural context varies, at least one of these is universally applicable:
1) Most of these statues were not erected contemporary to the individuals: they were put decades, even centuries later. They don't tell us what people thought while the person was alive, but rather through the lens of nostalgia and skewed versions of history, depending on what political movement was dominant at the time. This applies very heavily to the statues of Confederate leaders, which were erected oh-so conviniently when civil rights movements were gaining tractions.
2) The building of a statue to someone indicates you are, in some way endorsing and even celebrating that person and what they stood for. What does a statue to Leopold of Belgium, or a profiteer in human misery like Coulston say? Especially in increasingly diverse communities which contain people who, in some way, link back to what these men did? What message, deliberate or not, do you transmit?
3) Agendas - the tombs of Franco and Mussolini became gatherings places for neo-Nazis. Everything that isn't WW2 about Churchill is never part of discourse. Do I even need to say anything about the Lost Cause mythology in the US? If statues and monuments really worked as some kind of 'true history', why do people continually honour the achievemenets of bad individuals, institutions and ideas?
From where I sit, most statues are not real history, and if you really care about informing future generations - invest in schools and history programmes. Teach a wide array of historial events and don't sugarcoat them because 'the kids can't handle it' - that's how you get kids not learning about the civil rights movement, or the revisionist nonsense of states rights with the Confederacy. Instead of keeping outdated monuments meant to celebrate a warped legacy, why not ask better of history curriculums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 8:50:35 GMT
I agree it is frustrating and a deeply personal and difficult issue. As an creative, obviously censorship is not a friend. That said, with all respect in the world to elka and tui, I think the argument of 'statues keep history alive' is flawed for a number of reasons and, while cultural context varies, at least one of these is universally applicable: 1) Most of these statues were not erected contemporary to the individuals: they were put decades, even centuries later. They don't tell us what people thought while the person was alive, but rather through the lens of nostalgia and skewed versions of history, depending on what political movement was dominant at the time. This applies very heavily to the statues of Confederate leaders, which were erected oh-so conviniently when civil rights movements were gaining tractions. 2) The building of a statue to someone indicates you are, in some way endorsing and even celebrating that person and what they stood for. What does a statue to Leopold of Belgium, or a profiteer in human misery like Coulston say? Especially in increasingly diverse communities which contain people who, in some way, link back to what these men did? What message, deliberate or not, do you transmit? 3) Agendas - the tombs of Franco and Mussolini became gatherings places for neo-Nazis. Everything that isn't WW2 about Churchill is never part of discourse. Do I even need to say anything about the Lost Cause mythology in the US? If statues and monuments really worked as some kind of 'true history', why do people continually honour the achievemenets of bad individuals, institutions and ideas? From where I sit, most statues are not real history, and if you really care about informing future generations - invest in schools and history programmes. Teach a wide array of historial events and don't sugarcoat them because 'the kids can't handle it' - that's how you get kids not learning about the civil rights movement, or the revisionist nonsense of states rights with the Confederacy. Instead of keeping outdated monuments meant to celebrate a warped legacy, why not ask better of history curriculums? This one, used as an excuse, really irks me. The education you receive as a kid is considered foundational to your world view. What you learn there, you keep for the rest of your life and will be what you use to build your own perspective. Why do basic children's lessons like "be kind to others" and "don't judge by appearances", suddenly become too difficult to discuss when you start talking about real-world instances perpetrated by adults?
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 24, 2020 11:14:07 GMT
Even the most cursory look at history will show that values change over time. What is considered acceptable in one society at one point in time is unacceptable in another society and/or at a different point in time. The idea that any one generation or any one society has "got it" and arrived at the final correct set of moral values and is therefore in a position to judge all other societies and generations is just plain daft. Having said that, however, the reality of human nature is that in practice every generation tends to think that its values are the pinnacle of human morality and understanding and to judge others on that basis.
Consider:
As you read this now, you - whoever your are and whatever your views - will be seen by future generations as a nasty bigot. No doubt about it. Future generations will have different values to us now and some of the values you now hold will be utterly anathema to them, even though no one today sees anything wrong with them. I'm not saying you are (or will be perceived by future generations as) guilty of racism or sexism or homophobia or anything else. You might be, or instead you might be judged guilty of some other -ism or -phobia that no one alive today has even thought of yet. But have no doubt that if your every view and statement were to be scrutinised by future generations, you would be found wanting in lots of ways. Who are you then to judge previous generations?
By all means we should say what previous generations did and why we no longer do it and why we consider it to be wrong, but getting on our high horses about previous generations is inherently ludicrous. It's like getting cross at a dog for chasing a cat - no point in getting angry, that's just what dogs do. Likewise there's no point in demonising our ancestors - that's just the way things were back then. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". I'm not saying we can't draw attention to things they did that are no longer considered acceptable, nor am I excusing anything, but I think all the anger and self-righteousness and moral crusading directed at the past is a waste of energy and effort that could be better expended on trying to change things today.
So my view is we should keep historical people and events in context and in perpective, be humble, "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 24, 2020 11:29:52 GMT
By all means we should say what previous generations did and why we no longer do it and why we consider it to be wrong, but getting on our high horses about previous generations is inherently ludicrous. It's like getting cross at a dog for chasing a cat - no point in getting angry, that's just what dogs do. Likewise there's no point in demonising our ancestors - that's just the way things were back then. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". I'm not saying we can't draw attention to things they did that are no longer considered acceptable, nor am I excusing anything, but I think all the anger and self-righteousness and moral crusading directed at the past is a waste of energy and effort that could be better expended on trying to change things today. So my view is we should keep historical people and events in context and in perpective, be humble, "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". It's ludicrous to get "on our high horses" about people like Edward Colston? "That's just the way things were back then"? Very strange take, that I hear a lot. If that was indeed the way things were back then, & of course using the example of Colston's statue it was put up 170ish years after his death & years after the slave trade had been abolished, then how did things change? When did this magical moment happen when people suddenly thought the transatlantic slave trade was a bad thing? Its not as simple as "that's just the way things were back then". Some people "back then" disagreed with it, if they didn't it would still exist now with Africans being transported from their homeland en mass to be sold & branded as slaves. In the specific case of Colston its opening up a wider issue about how those of us in the UK know very little about our countries part in the slave trade, it has been hidden from us. Now we are having that conversation thanks to those that tore the statue down. We are confronting our past & this inevitably leads to us asking ourselves difficult questions about where are we know? How have things changed? But returning back to the question of this thread, are we losing our history & art? No. I don't think so.
|
|