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

[Rose White]

Fair to say that the comparison of Floyd to Che was not a good comparison if you are comparing the people. My comparison was of using their faces as symbols. I reached adulthood in the 90s and shirts with Che's face were fashionable. Many people wore them without knowing anything about him. That is as far as my comparison goes, that Floyd's face became a symbol too. Some people consider Floyd an actual hero. Some people consider Che an actual hero. Many people use the images of their faces to symbolize an idea.

Regarding erasing examples of racism in popular culture... in some ways censorship has the inverse result of amplifying that which it seeks to obscure. Lists of banned books abound. I'm personally not opposed to removing racist or misogynist media. I feel fairly certain that enough of it will survive where people can find examples of it if they want to.

LOL about diminutive gnats!

 

[Mee]

Fair to say that the comparison of Floyd to Che was not a good comparison if you are comparing the people. My comparison was of using their faces as symbols. I reached adulthood in the 90s and shirts with Che's face were fashionable. Many people wore them without knowing anything about him. That is as far as my comparison goes, that Floyd's face became a symbol too. Some people consider Floyd an actual hero. Some people consider Che an actual hero. Many people use the images of their faces to symbolize an idea.

Regarding erasing examples of racism in popular culture... in some ways censorship has the inverse result of amplifying that which it seeks to obscure. Lists of banned books abound. I'm personally not opposed to removing racist or misogynist media. I feel fairly certain that enough of it will survive where people can find examples of it if they want to.

LOL about diminutive gnats!

I agreed with your Che point .

I disagree with the banning books point - or Rather I have historically and . However - I think They should be accessible but not in our faces maybe?
at my school excerpts from that book were taught as lessons in critical reading/ thinking skills and history combined. We were encouraged to read the whole book - alongside a list of things like the diary of Ann Frank. I think being able to read it made me more clear of how damaging dogma is - and how insidious it’s creep.

I would not ban it .

In 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.

A couple of years ago I dH and I randomly drove down A Via bixio. I don’t know how many are familiar with mid twentieth century Italian history but I was so shocked to see this in a seaside holiday town I stopped and took photos to remind me how shocked and horrified I was.

It’s not anti tradition. I am fighting my instinct on change here. I hate it. But I hate things that sustain harm more.

 

[Sideways]

Haven't seen any banning of arts, literature or media.

I have seen private corporations remove certain films and tv shows from what they screen.

Which is simply saying: we aren't going to be part of showing racist content anymore, and we aren't going to profit from it.

Not censorship. Not banning. Not erasing anything. Simply saying, "We won't be a company that shows racist content anymore".

Removal of statues in public that we now understand are racially offensive, because of their connection to slavery, or massacres of indigenous people - isn't erasing history.

It's acknowledging our history, honestly for once. Acknowledging how offensive those statues are to many of us.

People eulogising at a loved ones funeral about their best qualities isn't'martyring' them. It's grief for the best things they've lost, and par for the course for funerals. Grieving the best of the person you've lost, rather than heaping crap on them after their passing.

Quite honestly:facepalm:

 

[joeylittle]

^^^ Everything @Sideways said.

For all, some reminders:
--> Careful reading helps communication.
--> If you're not sure what someone means, ask them.

I think there were some mis-understandings or mistaken comprehensions some pages back, as well as some 'what ifs' getting mixed up with facts that are then becoming hills to die on (metaphorically speaking).

Take a breath. Thanks.

 

[Ronin]

Offensive statues...

Like Lord Baden-Powell?

Yeah. Scouting is a very terrible movement and I'll make sure to tell all the brownies on the next jamboree ;)

Seriously. Covering up parts of history - instead of having a conversation about many aspects of it - is IME the kind of uninformed authoritarian stomp down that isn't necessary.

 

[Sideways]

Covering up parts of history - instead of having a conversation about many aspects of it

There's a difference between covering up history, and deciding "this isn't something we want to celebrate in a public park".

No one is forgetting who Baden Powell was. They're just acknowledging that dedicating public space to the commemoration of white supremacists isn't something we want to do in a multicultural society.

You're still allowed to talk about him, read about him and what he achieved bringing the scouting movement into existence, and see all that stuff in history books and museums. Even visit Scout Halls and join the local troup if the scouting movement survives the cost of compensating all its victims of child sex abuse (which it won't in some places).

Keeping a statue paying homage to that? Now we acknowledge what the full truth of the matter is? That's not what our public parks are for.

Easy example: we remove stuff like Nazi memorabilia from public spaces, not because we're removing Hitler and what he did from history. We remove it because it's seriously offensive, and there are more humane ways of remembering our history than leaving Nazi statues around the place.

 

[Ronin]

You DO realize some people may find tearing into (questionable in other respects) movement founders quite an insult to values and honor they've taken in that movement, and raising others in that movement?

Others of varied races / skin colors / nationalities.

And your comment automatically bringing child molesters into that discussion is very poor taste.

Since when it's become so popular to be so unpatriotic and against anything and everything promoting patriotism, in this thread?

Because, frankly, even people constantly bringing their trauma histories to discussion that is about wiildly different trauma type - at best - being intersection of race and police brutality - can, hopefully, acknowledge arguing FOR forced fast change of established symbols and orders via aggressive means only seeds *more* trauma potential... not less?

 

[Chris-duck]

Since when it's become so popular to be so unpatriotic and against anything and everything promoting patriotism, in this thread?

I haven't replied in a while. But patriotism is something I have *never* understood. Why be proud due to where I was born due to pure chance? It's just been a weird concept to me. I'm not sure it's a *popular* opinion, I definitely get backlash for it. But it's been my opinion my whole life.

 

[Ronin]

I haven't replied in a while. But patriotism is something I have *never* understood. Why be proud due to where I was born due to pure chance? It's just been a weird concept to me.

I don't believe it's defined by birthplace?

But as love of one's country, implies being protective & defensive of it and its (held dear to) values and customs and history.

However one defines 'one's country' in their heart & mind.

 

[Chris-duck]

But as love of one's country, implies being protective & defensive of it and its (held dear to) values and customs and history.

Yeah. Theoretically we can pick where we identify with. But in reality. I'm a Scottish person living in Scotland who can't leave Scotland anytime soon. So.. I'm not sure I can identify as anything other than Scottish :P

Its probably different for people with multi cultural backgrounds/the ability to leave where they are/whatever.

 

[Ronin]

Yeah. Theoretically we can pick where we identify with. But in reality. I'm a Scottish person living in Scotland who can't leave Scotland anytime soon. So.. I'm not sure I can identify as anything other than Scottish :p

But why would ya need to I mean you guys got handsome men wearing pretty skirts and even sober and for free, like what's there not to like :p /cough k I *can* also be less gay, both senses of the word

 

[Sideways]

You DO realize some people may find tearing into (questionable in other respects) movement founders quite an insult to values and honor they've taken in that movement, and raising others in that movement?

Right, so the whole point is accurate recognition of history, and how the way we choose to remember things can get really offensive really quickly.

You can go right ahead and selectively celebrate only certain parts of a person's life. Others are going to find the whole picture relevant as to whether a person is worth publicly celebrating.

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.

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.

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.

And your comment automatically bringing child molesters into that discussion is very poor taste.

You brought up the scouting movement. Personally, since child sexual abuse has been found to so rife in some scouting troups (and before you go there, I was a cub, I was a scout, everyone in my family was part of the local troup and benefitted from that), I think it's very relevant to the way we think about the scouting movement.

I'm entitled to be offended by a movement that has brought so much devastation to so many young lives. I'm entitled to consider that relevant when someone suggests to me that the establishment of the scouting movement was a great achievement, and worthy of public statues.

Just like people who might consider confederate statues offensive, while others want to celebrate the achievements of those historical figures.

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.

As to bringing my own trauma history into the conversation? This thread is rife with distorted perceptions of what is reasonable based on people's personal trauma histories. Mine is no less relevant than anyone else's.

I wasn't sexually abused by any of my scout leaders. 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.