UK Politics: Black Lives Matter Here Too

[BigFatCoward]

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

[TrueMetis]

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

What? Are there any statues not intended to glorify? Should we not mention the Nuremberg rallies as an example of dangerous propaganda because they were intended to glorify? Should we not mention, and condemn, the statues of US civil war heroes placed in multiracial areas of the south of the US as an act of intimidation because of what those who erected them wanted to achieve? That’s fucking insane.

You can mention and condemn without displaying the thing. Mention and condemn the statues of US civil war heroes constantly, all the time, and end that talk with "these statues were created in an attempt to glorify the evil, and try and keep black people oppressed, so we destroyed them."

Having the statue on display doesn't add anything of value to that conversation. Not for civil war statues, not for Nazi statues, and not for slaver statues.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

Statues are easy. What about monuments like the Colloseum, Pantheon, and Forum Romanum?

Those can't be torn down. You need dynamite. 

[Hereward]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

So is almost everyone. That’s the problem. Almost everyone hates paedophiles and murderers, but there was a time that suggesting we just lynch them was considered abhorrent by almost everyone sane. Nowadays, unfortunately, suggesting that destroying something with no moral value, to most people, is actually the right thing to do and anyone who disagrees, even in principle, is probably a fascist.

[Derfel Cadarn]

A Tory MP seems to think Auschwitz is in Germany...

https://twitter.com/simonclarkemp/status/1270358722825596930?s=21

 

[Hereward]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Statues are easy. What about monuments like the Colloseum, Pantheon, and Forum Romanum?

Those can't be torn down. You need dynamite. 

You want to dynamite the Colleseum? Holy fuck. Can you tell me what ancient monument, or even pre-21 century monument or building, could survive this kind of puritanical logic?

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

The logic here is, forgive me, absolutely hilarious. The statue is in Oxford, and that shows that the issue concerns mostly Oxford students? Do you really think that follows?

"In 2016, hundreds of Oxford students campaigned for the removal of a likeness of the controversial 19th-century figure – who supported apartheid-style measures in southern Africa – from the wall of the college."

Basically yes. I am saying that. Its been a drawn out campaign by oxford uni students for a while. 

I mean really, what is actually hilarious is that rather than discussing actual racial injustice and ways in which the lives of minorities could be improved, anyone would think that removing a few statues counts as any sort of achievement at all. Thats what I mean, all those students can go back to their nice lives and feel good about themselves, they got a statue taken down.. and nobodys life was improved by it. 

I don't care at all if those statues are taken down, but I think the focus on that rather than you know, actual issues affecting minorities, is really a huge mirror to the sort of person protesting about it. 

[Ran]

Personally, I'm more concerned about the idea of destroying the sculpture because it's a work of art. Poor John Cassidy, trying to make an honest living designing public sculptures...

Stick it in a Museum (in its present condition, graffiti and all) to contextualize it. Or, if you really must, melt it down and reuse the bronze to form a new artwork with a plaque explaining the origins of the bronze used and so on, so that we're not entirely severed from the history.

[Hereward]

5 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

A Tory MP seems to think Auschwitz is in Germany...

https://twitter.com/simonclarkemp/status/1270358722825596930?s=21

 

He didn’t say that.

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

I don't think so, no more than the people of Mongolia should be asked to take down statues of Genghis Khan. All of them did horrible shit. But, they were in a different age.

I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to say leave these statues alone, but remove all public statues of say like Woodrow Wilson. Because, Wilson's racism went beyond the pail, even for his day.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

A Tory MP seems to think Auschwitz is in Germany...

https://twitter.com/simonclarkemp/status/1270358722825596930?s=21

 

re-read the tweet.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 minutes ago, Hereward said:

You want to dynamite the Colleseum? Holy fuck. Can you tell me what ancient monument, or even pre-21 century monument or building, could survive this kind of puritanical logic?

Of course not. But that and the other Roman buildings are also monuments to an empire built on slavery and massacres. As are many other old monuments around the world, as you correctly point out. 

Now certainly their value as cultural and historical artifacts may be immensely higher than statues of some random 18th century merchants. But in principle, where shall the line be drawn for when this sort of behavior becomes okay?

[Hereward]

5 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Of course not. But that and the other Roman buildings are also monuments to an empire built on slavery and massacres. As are many other old monuments around the world, as you correctly point out. 

Now certainly their value as cultural and historical artifacts may be immensely higher than some statues of random 18th century merchants. But in principle, where shall the line be drawn for when this sort of behavior becomes okay?

So, you’re agreeing with me?

[Ser Reptitious]

18 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

Are there groups of people (such as the descendents of slaves in the UK) around today that have legitimate grievances with these ancient individuals today? 

If Hitler statues still existed anywhere in the world today, would you be troubled if they were destroyed without proper bureaucratic approval? And did you feel that way about Lenin statues at the end of the cold war? I bet many of them in former East Bloc countries were torn down in the heat of euphoria, without getting the proper paper work first. Did/does that trouble you?

Seems a bit like you’re going for the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy here, whereby no statue, no matter what evil it depicts, can ever be torn down without getting official approval first, lest it opens the floodgates for the potential destruction of all statues.

 

6 minutes ago, Hereward said:

You want to dynamite the Colleseum? Holy fuck. Can you tell me what ancient monument, or even pre-21 century monument or building, could survive this kind of puritanical logic?

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic, playing on the same ‘slippery slope’ fallacy as BFC above.

[Conflicting Thought]

How is objecting to something just because its against the law a valid argument, the laws arent just an inmutable thing, that we just have to blindlessly follow, we have to be constantly questioning them and adapting them to conform to what the people need, or at least we should do that. Just because something is a law its not a sufficient argument to obey that law. 

[polishgenius]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

The problem I have is, I'm a massive end of the Roman republic nut. But they were clearly massive fucking wankers. I'm not down with statues of Marius, Sulla, Pompey or Caesar being torn down. So basically I'm a fucking hypocrite and am only down with getting rid of what I can't abide. 

 

I mean there is a difference in that the pain those guys created doesn't really still hurt people to this day.

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

I mean there is a difference in that the pain those guys created doesn't really still hurt people to this day.

Does it though? Or is the pain felt today, due to current inequality? 

[BigFatCoward]

8 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Are there groups of people (such as the descendents of slaves in the UK) around today that have legitimate grievances with these ancient individuals today? 

 

Now we have a problem, are you saying only those who have a historic grievance get a pass for ripping down a statue if its subject was a monster? 

[Derfel Cadarn]

“Irvine, it’s precisely because Germany has bravely confronted her past that Auschwitz still stands as a memorial of man’s inhumanity to man.”

It infers that Germany are behind Auschwitz remaining as as a memorial - as if they decided to keep it up and maintain it (whixh suggests its in German territory.

But it’s in Poland, nothing (now) to do with Germany.

[ants]

57 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

“Irvine, it’s precisely because Germany has bravely confronted her past that Auschwitz still stands as a memorial of man’s inhumanity to man.”

It infers that Germany are behind Auschwitz remaining as as a memorial - as if they decided to keep it up and maintain it (whixh suggests its in German territory.

But it’s in Poland, nothing (now) to do with Germany.

I think you're getting a little precious.  Yes, you're correct.  But Auschwitz is the most famous of the concentration camps, there are a number located in Germanic lands where the above applies.  Maybe its a slip, or maybe he just went for the famous one.