Jump to content

UK Politics: Black Lives Matter Here Too


mormont

Recommended Posts

Ah, you get a much more well rounded history education in Scotland.

We learn about how we beat you in those two battles. And then later how you massacred the Jacobites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, john said:

Ah, you get a much more well rounded history education in Scotland.

We learn about how we beat you in those two battles. And then later how you massacred the Jacobites.

Not sure I learned much in High School History. I dropped it when I was 14 in favour of Geography. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all that was in primary school. I remember drawing a picture of Robert the Bruce and the spider.

I loved history in high school, did it all the way to SYS (Scottish equivalent of A Level at the time). It was mostly about the Nazis, to be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think in liberal and diverse societies it is important to teach both the good and bad. Doing otherwise, will create a lot of division and mistrust (of  course I value being accurate for just the sake of being accurate).

In the United States we had one version that went like: Everything the US did was always good and pure and the best. Home of the free and brave, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the Civil War was fought because the South was very concerned about "states rights".

Another version goes like: Before the United States, everything was unicorns and rainbows, and then the US came along and fucked it all up.

Neither are true.

Funny enough, the only time I ever see people making the latter claim about the history of the Americas is when people are trying to defend the former claim about the history of the Americas. No history course I've ever seen nor heard of has ever made the latter claim, I've spoken to tons of people who have told me that the the history they were taught was in line with the former though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrueMetis said:

Funny enough, the only time I ever see people making the latter claim about the history of the Americas is when people are trying to defend the former claim about the history of the Americas. 

Making shit up to correct somebody else's making shit up, isn't typically helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Making shit up to correct somebody else's making shit up, isn't typically helpful.

That's not what I said. The idea that pre-Columbus or pre-America America was perfect is as a straw man that defenders of an idealized version of US history bring up so they can knock it down. It's not taught seriously anywhere and the only people who might believe it are some white hippies obsessed with the idea of the noble savage. Ideal America is actually taught to people though, so bringing up the idea of an idealized pre-Columbus America is a red herring at best.

Simply, yeah neither are true, only one is actually being taught though. So why bother bring up the other at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

That's not what I said.

What did you write again?

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

The idea that pre-Columbus or pre-America America was perfect is as a straw man that defenders of an idealized version of US history bring up so they can knock it down.

I wasn't specifically just talking about pre-America. Though, admittedly, I didn't make that clear.

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Simply, yeah neither are true, only one is actually being taught though. So why bother bring up the other at all?

So you think the discourse about history is only in the class room?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

What did you write again?

That when someone is trying to defend the idealized version of American history they were taught they bring up a fake version of Native American history that's not actually taught anywhere to deflect criticism. IE

Person 1: Christopher Columbus was a monster who went to far even for the slave owning genocide committing government he worked for.

Person 2: Oh so I guess you think everything was perfect before "whitey" showed up, like the Natives never killed or enslaved each other.

Like that's basically the only time I ever see anyone make the claim that everything in the Americas was "unicorns and rainbows" prior to the US (or colonization, or whatever), as a bullshit straw man meant to deflect the very real criticisms of what western countries did.

That's what "the only time I ever see people making the latter claim about the history of the Americas is when people are trying to defend the former claim about the history of the Americas." was meant to convey, people aren't making shit up to correct somebody else's making shit up. People are making shit up, then when called on it are making up more shit to try and defend their previously made up shit.

Quote

So you think the discourse about history is only in the class room?

No, but the discussion has been centred around school curricula. But even if we expand the scope of the discussion, you can't bring them up like they're equivalent statements, ones something people are taught and is actually believed by a significant number of people, the other's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

That when someone is trying to defend the idealized version of American history they were taught they bring up a fake version of Native American history that's not actually taught anywhere to deflect criticism. IE

Person 1: Christopher Columbus was a monster who went to far even for the slave owning genocide committing government he worked for.

Person 2: Oh so I guess you think everything was perfect before "whitey" showed up, like the Natives never killed or enslaved each other.

Like that's basically the only time I ever see anyone make the claim that everything in the Americas was "unicorns and rainbows" prior to the US (or colonization, or whatever), as a bullshit straw man meant to deflect the very real criticisms of what western countries did.

That's what "the only time I ever see people making the latter claim about the history of the Americas is when people are trying to defend the former claim about the history of the Americas." was meant to convey, people aren't making shit up to correct somebody else's making shit up. People are making shit up, then when called on it are making up more shit to try and defend their previously made up shit.

I was talking generally about after the US became an independent country. Not all that stuff that happened before it. And the US did do bad stuff, like other western countries.

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

No, but the discussion has been centred around school curricula. But even if we expand the scope of the discussion, you can't bring them up like they're equivalent statements, ones something people are taught and is actually believed by a significant number of people, the other's not.

I'm not sure why I can't bring them up as equivalent statements just because allegedly one isn't believed by a significant number of people. The fact is that both people on right and left make dubious statements. In the US does the right do it more? Sure. But, some of the left do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an unalloyed positive that this incident has had the effect of making people re-evaluate public figures who've had statues erected to them or things named after them. The tearing down of the Colston statue has unarguably done more for public education about history than its existence ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-53004638
 

It now seems that statues are having the be removed for their own protection.  Well this is nice.

 

It is kinda nice. Maybe this will carry over to my side of the Atlantic.

The Confederate monument in front of my city's courthouse was supposed to be removed years ago, but the Daughters of the Confederacy blocked the removal with a lawsuit. The lawsuit was defeated, but the monument is still there. Maybe the protests will jumpstart the removal process.

https://www.ksla.com/2019/12/04/caddo-approves-remove-confederate-statue/

The protests here have been from the city bus stop to the courthouse. Can you imagine doing a march demanding equality and meeting a statue erected by people who think that you should be property? I can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

It's an unalloyed positive that this incident has had the effect of making people re-evaluate public figures who've had statues erected to them or things named after them. The tearing down of the Colston statue has unarguably done more for public education about history than its existence ever did.

It has also done literally nothing to solve racism. So there is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think about this issue of statues and memorials, I think mostly of weighing what harm someone did vs. what good they did, and how we reinterpret these things. The honoring of those who profited from slavery or defended slavery is, very clearly, a point where no good they did can blot out the bad. 

Yet I can't for the life of me imagine what the harm was in Robert Baden-Powell writing in his diary that he thought Mein Kampf was a good book (and then noting that Hitler did not at all live up to the ideals he professed in the book), or thinking well of Mussolini in his early years, actually did. These were bad ideas, but they were mostly privately held beliefs that had no influence. He was not a politician, he was not some figure having any influence on British attitudes or policies towards these things.  Whereas the good he did, forming the Scouts, is I think reasonably evident even if the organization is a conservative one and has been slow to change with the times.

More generally, I think when there is some public honor accorded someone, it is the right of the public in later days to rescind that honor; we do not let the laws and practices of our ancestors prevent us from taking on new laws and practices, after all. But I admit the illiberal approach to doing this does not sit well. Ochlocracy should not supplant democracy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It has also done literally nothing to solve racism. So there is that.

1) How is that a useful bar to determine the need for any action?

2) "Literally nothing" uh, seems like it's better to not have people walk past statues of perpetrators of evil. FYI - slaving is evil - just in case you were confused.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Week said:

1) How is that a useful bar to determine the need for any action?

2) "Literally nothing" uh, seems like it's better to not have people walk past statues of perpetrators of evil. FYI - slaving is evil - just in case you were confused.

 

Well if your goal is to fight racism and make the lives of minorities better, the effect of pulling down a statue is close to zero. The only real effect is to make the protestors feel good and think they achieved something meaningful. They didn’t. 
 

And once the principal extends out into a predictable over reach to statues of people who once knew a slave over or who read a bad book once, then they will start to lose the backing of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A wilding said:

You won;t think that more or less open racists blocking the removal of a public object that has become a symbol of racism doesn't stop the lives of minorities from getting better?

Removal of the statue doesn’t touch any of the issues affecting minorities right now. It is an obviously empty gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...