|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 25, 2020 3:26:28 GMT
Even though I am a born and raised Aussie, the other generations were born overseas. English wasn't my grandmothers 1st language. My mother speaks 2. "Our people" were invaded/ partially taken over- my grandmother recalled when she was a youngun being forced to learn a different language and to try and "forfeit" our national heritage. The conflict is still going on. And yes- these discussions are Very Well presented. great to read and experience. Best part of fandom coming out now. Thank you Same. That's why, I think, the whole discussion circling around the idea of a single unvarying culture in Australia, to offer that perspective, is so difficult. There's often only one generation's difference between what's considered familiar and foreign. My roots are predominantly European 1 (with stops in Canada and New Zealand) and I am Australian. My friends, whose children I'm uncle to, are from Asia and are also Australian. Opposite ends of the Earth geographically, but there's no contradiction there. Uniformity would diminish us. We are one culture and many cultures. All at the same time. When it comes to talking about the past: there's a very immediate sense that it's not one history linked by country, but many histories linked by family lines. 1 - Even that's not uniform. The comparatively recent European immigrant half have very different experiences than the by then long-established European settler half.Funnily enough, there is a high population of "my mob" in Canada
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 25, 2020 9:13:31 GMT
On the other hand, I deplore the mob violence and anarchy that we have seen recently. And I actually think it is counter productive because real change only comes about when you change people's hearts and minds and you do that by engaging and understanding, not by rioting. Any group wanting to bring about lasting change in society needs to get the middle of the road / common sense / floating voter type of person on board and rioting isn't the way to do that. Rioting actually alienates potential sympathisers and however good it might make the rioters feel in the short terms it is arguably counter-productive in the medium/long term. I fully understand the sentiment here, and agree with a lot of your points, but historically speaking riots and protests have been the main way that people have been able to make a change. Just look at the Suffragettes or Stonewall to name two (slightly recent) examples. Exactly, change does not occur by being nice & polite or even going through more official channels - those channels are obviously weighted against minority groups. Lasting change has, like it or not, only happened through more violent & destructive protests. Something some people forget when they see a Pride march as a fun day out. & returning to the title of this thread, "Are we losing our history and art?". I haven't seen any specific examples that would say yes we are. We can complain about TV shows being removed due to offensive content, we could even argue that it is a persons choice to watch but with some examples like the use of the N word it is more problematic, especially when that word just pops up out of the blue in an episode like in Fawlty Towers. & of course the episode in question hasn't been destroyed, it will be returned with an appropriate warning about content. & even if it was being removed from the streaming service its still available to buy so hasn't been "lost". As for the discussion of Rowling, again no art has been "lost" here, but if you are a young trans person who grew up with Harry Potter you must feel pretty let down, upset & offended by her comments. Its easy for some of us to say its only an opinion but, as with the statues of Slave Traders (which if they're removed from public display also isn't an example of history being "lost") we, & by that I mean those of us who are white straight males, need to put ourselves in the position of others & see how offensive certain things are. & history is of course not fixed, it changes & our understanding of it changes. If that means a few statues of vile people are removed, if that means certain tv shows or films are given warnings about content or removed from certain streaming platforms then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 25, 2020 9:27:12 GMT
Well, I go away for a bit and come back to all this. Fascinating. I don't have any comments that wouldn't run to several pages of me just ranting. Best if you don't see that right now
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 25, 2020 9:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jun 25, 2020 11:26:14 GMT
"This Programme contains standards and views of its time which viewers may find Offensive" is the message being put to some UK Tv programme descriptions at the moment.
Regards
mark687
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,788
|
Post by lidar2 on Jun 25, 2020 11:56:33 GMT
"This Programme contains standards and views of its time which viewers may find Offensive" is the message being put to some UK Tv programme descriptions at the moment. Regards mark687 I think that's a fair compromise which should satisfy all parties. Although, if you think about, something like that should really go with ALL programmes even 2020 ones. There's always someone somewhere who will get offended by something. Plus, if a programme doesn't carry that health warning then the broadcaster could be perceived as certifying that something is inoffensive, which will only start more arguments when someone decides to be offended by it
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 25, 2020 11:58:00 GMT
I think it remains an interesting debate. Just because the Wilkes and the O'Haras are shown to treat their slaves well - Ashley even states at one point he would have freed them anyway when he became the head of the house - some think that people wouldn't know slavery was wrong. Even Rhett Butler describes the issues surrounding the civil war are inevitable when a civilisation refuses to move with the times. It's all a bit OTT in it's presentation but a lot of films were back then. I think a lot of it's magic does lie in little moments - like the two I've just mentioned than it does over all. As a fan of the movie I feel it over stays it's welcome in the last thirty minutes or so whilst Rhett tries to improve his social standing. I gather, however, that a lot is removed from the book, which displays references to the Klu Klux Klan (of which some of the main characters are members of) amongst other things. I haven't read it, which considering I enjoy the film, is surprising. I must rectify that soon. I am not totally insensitive to the controversies that surround the film - the fact that it was premiered in a 'white only theatre' and Hattie McDaniel (who is superb in the film) was segregated during the Oscars are horrendous, especially as during 1939 a major war began against an ideology that believed in a master race half way across the world. I also don't think things like these should be 'erased' when appraising the film anymore than the film itself should be 'erased' either.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 25, 2020 12:02:13 GMT
"This Programme contains standards and views of its time which viewers may find Offensive" is the message being put to some UK Tv programme descriptions at the moment. Regards mark687 I think that's a fair compromise which should satisfy all parties. Although, if you think about, something like that should really go with ALL programmes even 2020 ones. There's always someone somewhere who will get offended by something. Plus, if a programme doesn't carry that health warning then the broadcaster could be perceived as certifying that something is inoffensive, which will only start more arguments when someone decides to be offended by it Actually that's a good point. Thirteen Reasons Why has a 'Warning' at the beginning of the episode and rightfully so. Whilst it tries to handle it's subject matter sensitively and show the consequences it is, whilst compelling, a very hard going series that puts it's audience through the emotional wringer and shows it's characters including the 'bad' ones in shades of grey.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 25, 2020 12:32:12 GMT
As an aside I imagine Breaking Bad will get a warning one day due to it's depiction of Mexicans, even though at the moment it's considered one of the best shows ever made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 14:44:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 25, 2020 16:05:23 GMT
The article acknowledges it was a mistake. Not sure why this invalidates BLM or the debate around statues - if anything, this is a reminder about symbols and semiotics i.e. the value of meaning.
And not sure why you put Columbus in there, since there's no ambiguity about what he did (historians universally agree that he was both a abusive tyrant and didn't actually discover America).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 17:54:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 26, 2020 18:45:08 GMT
I respectfully disagree - the author starts in bad faith, wasting time mischaracterizing and hackneyed 'over-sensitive liberals who hate America' material. The Palmyra argument doesn't work either - huge difference between the more recent legacy of Confederates or Andrew Jackson, and then the crimes of an ancient empire close to two millenia old. And look, a 'well the natives were cannibals, so therefore enslaving and abusing them was totally cool' - isn't that the same kind of lazy equalizing McCarthy is claiming to argue against?
As a bonus, here's a better piece on Columbus, his legacy and the value of preserving historical context without also excusing bad things:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEHMzhtwgMI
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 26, 2020 19:20:49 GMT
With all the varied and detailed responses on here, I do think that this discussion is missing something crucial that ensconses the whole thing - why did it come to this?
Folks, whatever your personal political beliefs are, the fact is that unchecked police brutality and other societal problems relating to everything from healthcare to education to jobs disproportionally target black and other minority people. Chiefly, but no means exclusively, in the US. This has been building for a long time, and prior incidents like the killings of Treyvon Martin among others didn't lead to any real change. When a community has tried doing things the 'nice way' - write to their representatives, stage more short-term protests, do social media campaigns, and it leads to nothing - eventually, there has to come a breaking point. Whatever you personally think of the protestors themselves, I think we can all at least empathize with the core issue - they've been ignored and mistreated for too long and they want it to stop so no one else has to live in that culture of abuse. The statues are a small part of that underlying current of anger at being sidelined in favour of the white majority, and not having concerns addressed. Conservatives ignored the problem and liberals didn't do enough to solve it (even Conservative commentators whom I dislike like Lauren Chen acknowledge this as a real problem, beyond individual political lines). And, frankly, it seems to have lead to some changes - Trump himself won't budge, but individual states and cities have and the question of racism is being re-engaged with in a broader and more meaningful way in the mainstream.
The simple truth is history and change are both difficult and ugly - seldom has 'the nice way' been what lead to societal shifts (and this true, again, regardless of personal political belief). While we think of people like King and Gandhi today as heroes, in their own time, they were hated and ridiculed for daring to upset the status quo. The civil rights movement of the 60s, among other types of movements, did not begin and end with 'I Have a dream' - it was so much more complicated than that. In our discussions of history concerning the statues, we should not forget the history of how change works, and how not romanticized or easy it is. Change is difficult, uncertain and uncomfortable - otherwise, it wouldn't be change. We can debate and discuss, but we must not pretend that this whole cycle was random or unmotivated.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 26, 2020 19:24:12 GMT
As an aside, could I ask the mods to maybe think about retitling this thread, as 'Are we losing our history and art?' is maybe a bit too broad and non-specific for what we are talking about here. Maybe something more along the lines 'How do we deal with Problematic Art?', 'Is protesting statues a solution' or 'What do monuments say about our history'? Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 23, 2020 12:07:24 GMT
|
|