• All donations and upgrades are manually verified and approved within 24hrs.
  • Upgrades are ongoing. Learn how to save your bookmarked posts.

News Events around the George Floyd protests and riots, US and beyond

Not open for further replies.
BLM stands for recognizing and promoting diversity. When erasure is noticed it is exposed.
^If one wants to be truly diverse then destroying various 'players' depictions (books, statutes etc) in the making of a country, society, political party etc is doing exactly that. You are actually censuring so only one side is seen.

Leave them there and make more statues of the other side... Put them in the parks & at the steps of new buildings. There certainly are enough artists & places to accommodate both?

And my removing a significant amount of biased books doesn’t mean I am erasing the history of the dominant culture. I’m making room for more books which better represent the diversity of people and ideas.
Lol to me, allow the children to browse from the entire selection rather than guiding them.

Sometimes, maybe even more often than not? a child reads a book and ends up with more questions than answers? Asks why was it so - that is a mind that has become attuned to the then and now. That is a mind that is challenging and ready for more information. Not less. If you allow our history to remain recorded & accessible we are much less likely to repeat it imo.

That’s how I feel about taking down statues and monuments that no longer represent the diversity of people and ideas and making space for ones that do. Cultural values change and that’s helpful in my opinion.
I'm all for cultural values progressing and change. I think mine have. I still do not see the value in removing what are beautiful representations of the period in which they were made.

Why not make more statutes and place them in other parts of the parks. Why not simply educate?

And btw I've never seen a statute or monument that has made me personally advocate for one thing or another. I can take them or leave them but still admire them. & I guess I'm critical enough to not simply believe everything I read or see anymore?

But I can appreciate the work of art for just that art. and I can appreciate that the person was a major player in one movement or another and retain my own personal ability to decide what I think. A statue doesn't make decisions for me. Nor do books, music, films etc.

I think the destruction of anything that depicts our past is a shame and I'm sure that moving forward there will be many regrets about allowing it to happen. You can put away your secrets, destroy the road markers that took you to those dark places and be destined to walk the same road.

Critical analysis really should come in to play more. We've become a society in the West where we destroy things as some kind of symbolic gesture that it is now publicly condemned.

Why don't we have an attitude like the Germans do with their memorials and places you can go & walk in to see & experience the horror of concentration camps? That's history isn't it. That's not being destroyed - it's there to remind people this is what has happened. We should remember and we can do better and are doing better.

n my ideal we’d remove the statues from streets and put them in a museum and provide the histories of the people, when the statues were erected - and the reasons why they were removed- now , on 2020. Give whole picture discussions about progression- but not have statues that are symbolically oppressive to some on streets.
^If that's the way it goes it will be a shame. Why cannot the same be done on the street? If one must pay to seek out our history then we will lose more. I love museums and when I'm well I spend lots of time there. But they are closed in & expensive. Sitting near a massive statute of something or someone has idk a better feel to it. And there's no reason why the infomation cannot be provided at the statue.

So, if it's offensive to a whole lot of people have statues celebrating historical figures adorning our public spaces, why is it necessary to keep them there? We aren't forgetting who they are, or what they did. We aren't erasing their achievements.
^How short sighted though. What about our next generations? You may not forget but you cannot speak for those that come after you. Why not keep them there and provide education & information about the other side of this persons actions. Why not engage artists to erect beautiful statutes of the oppressed? Let art speak!

All we're doing is being mindful of the whole picture, and how the complete history of that person is incredibly painful to a large section of society.
^I respectfully disagree. The whole picture would be to add to the history. Not destroy selective parts of it. That includes depictions.

Retaining those offensive statues in public spaces encourages a selective version of history, not the truth. Their removal is an acknowledgment of history, not an erasure of it.
^As above. If you take away reminders of things that happened in places. People forget the places. You are selectively choosing one history over another. People who have oppressed also may achieved wonderful things that furthered and benefited mankind. By destroying these artefacts etc you are doing exactly what you seek to avoid.

Just like people who might consider confederate statues offensive, while others want to celebrate the achievements of those historical figures.
^Exactly. ^^ If you erase one side unfortunately you erase the other.

It's not about erasing history. It's about being mindful that some people, quite rightly, find certain historical figures causes of immense pain, and making space for the diversity of people in our community. Recognising that our public spaces are for everyone, and ought not to be spaces where things like racial oppression are celebrated.
^There really no limit on space. Take a look at the size of our cities, parks and buildings. Rather than have some irrational, heartless & basically meaningless piece of commissioned art - engage artists who can produce art that represents the people that lived, fought & worked the region. That'd be powerful and meaningful and would add to our history - not try to reshape it or erase it from view.

There is room and space for people to erect their own statues of their own warriors and their own history. There are thousands of parks that could have statues representing important cultural figures who pushed back against the prevailing attitudes of the day. Nothing prevents them from doing so now. I don't know why they don't. I'd love that. The few I have seen are absolutely beautiful and give a great representation.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Warrior of peace


Stockman NT

Guess what - that's not a white stockman depicted there - it's Sabu Peter Sing - a leader of the Wardaman Tribe. He was one of the people that worked to build a bridge between the white pioneers and the aboriginal tribes in the Northern Territory. He is memorialised here and his story is inspiring.

^Why isn't there more like that?

^I appreciate that your opinion is sympathetic to a certain sector of the community. I am too. We differ in the doing that's all. :)

I've watched many films and videos of the acts our forefathers perpetrated on our indigenous peoples. I've lived and worked in the places where major events took place. Like the battle of Wave Hill? Have you heard of it? Probably not. And then Wave Hill walk-off. Big events that changed history. One of our former Prime Minsters visited nearby - to hand over land. There's a painting of that in the local Court house but honestly the picking up of the soil & handing it back to the elders could be memorialised into a statue?

But thousands of children have been, all over the world. You might think that's not relevant to the way we remember the 'achievement' that is the scouting movement. I think there's a whole lot of people who would disagree with you on that point.
^Well why stop there then? Let's get rid of Michael Jackson from our music, video's & various monuments. Let's erase and hide all of Harvey Weinsteins movies. When you start to remove, hide, secrete away one thing that is the work of, or a reminder of, or a monument of, something or someone - where does it stop? Who decides? The victims of those perpetrators, society, politicians, protestors, graffit artists....

My view is we, all of us, are really complex. We do good, we do bad, we do beautiful & ugly. Just because we don't like one part of us, doesn't mean we should not acknowledge the other parts.

Destruction of art - speaking historically, is almost always for the purpose of one culture wanting to dominate another & I think we do agree that's bad. Let people decide what they want to believe - in essence - allow democracy to work.

I don't see an angry mob removing statues from parks as representing any one group or our democracy.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom