International News Black Lives Matter

[Marked Ox]

Well yes, I wasn't really suggesting that a shopping centre owner or council (or artist) would do such a stupid thing! But I am sure that IF they did, there would be various laws applied to stop them.
I am not saying that art should not be provocative (of course it should be allowed to be and modern art often is) but there is a difference between provocative and gratuitously offensive. It's a very very fine line though and one that art/artists in general (seemingly comedians in particular) find quite hard to negotiate. And yes, things do change. What might have been offensive or provocative in one place in one era (women's ankles, Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe, The Sex Pistols, long/short hair on men - it changes!) is not in another - and the other way around: what was once acceptable (Mind Your Language, The Black and White Minstrel Show, beating your wife, taking opium, burning old ladies with a cat, slavery) is no longer so.
So should we allow The Black And White Minstrel show to return on the basis that it is part of our history? Should women's ankles still be covered? I think that you can quite legitimately accept that things are part of the past (no revisionism, no whitewashing) without wanting them to be carried on into the present. Personally I think that applies to statues like this - I found it pretty amazing that it was still there in this day and age TBH. Is it important to remember both the good and bad this man (and others like him) did? Yes, I think so. Is a public monument praising him the way to do it? Not in my opinion.

The Black and White Minstrel show wouldn't return as I doubt there would be any demand for it so in effect things like that are self policed. By the opposite token of what if, using your examples, what if art with men with long hair is seen as bad so got rid of? Who decides what can and can't be got rid of?

Some religions have strict views on body parts being visible so why isn't it fair game for them to demand that penises, breasts and vaginas have to be covered up for modesty in paintings, statues etc? That has happened in history before after all.

 

[m]

A more contentious example would be any of the songs from the NWA/Dr Dre/Snoop Dogg back catalogue.

Not really sure why the feminist/'liberal' movement hasn't pushed for a complete ban of these songs and removal from Spotify/YouTube/Hollywood.

I think GB rightly categorises this behaviour as neo puritanism and it's surely only a matter of time before they come after other 'distasteful' elements of our culture.

Not that they should, but I'm just wondering why they haven't. This would be right up their alley.

Why the speech marks around liberal?

FWIW there was plenty of opposition to the lyrics of (for example) NWA back in the day - plenty of calls to ban from radio/MTV etc. The compromise was the 'parental advisory' sticker which (obviously) became a badge of honour for every would-be teen agitator.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

The Black and White Minstrel show wouldn't return as I doubt there would be any demand for it so in effect things like that are self policed. By the opposite token of what if, using your examples, what if art with men with long hair is seen as bad so got rid of? Who decides what can and can't be got rid of?

Some religions have strict views on body parts being visible so why isn't it fair game for them to demand that penises, breasts and vaginas have to be covered up for modesty in paintings, statues etc? That has happened in history before after all.

Re body parts being covered up. Yes, and not least by us in the Victorian era! Some of what is on public display now wouldn't have been then. And of course a statue that graphically showed a man in a 'high state of excitement' wouldn't be allowed as a piece of public artwork now. In ten years time that might be different, or we might have swung the other way (to coin a phrase) and be frantically covering up anything vaguely titillating. Who decides is a very good question indeed - and not one I have an answer for. Public opinion (although that can equate to the 'mob')? Someone appointed to decide on our behalf (no thank you very much)?

But I still think these are questions of taste and appropriateness when applied to monuments. What you might see in a gallery or museum is different to what is presented as public art, as indeed it was in earlier times (cf those wacky Victorians and their love of paintings with naked ladies in them!) and is now.

I don't think anything should be 'got rid of', although I think it behoves those with responsibilities for such things locally to be sensitive about what is being displayed and how local opinion regards it. As many people on here have said, a museum where the issues could be better explained might be a better location. Of course if the reputation of slavery somehow improves in the future (!) then it can be put back. I suspect though, that like the Black and White Minstrel show, there would be no appetite for it.

 

[Gary Baldi]

You also have Tupac Shakur, whose music is used heavily Californian politics and wasn't a Saint. Plus music videos depicting gang signs...

Shall we ban Ed Sheeran for mentioning in a song about speeding in a car? Or the intent of the song There She Goes by the La's? Madonna for suggestive songs?

Let alone the money behind building Liverpool's landmarks and infrastructure. Best demolish Liverpool just in case anyone is offended.

What do we do about UK universities taking money from China and other repressive regimes?

It just proves how small the world view of the BLM movement is and what will happen if it remains unchecked because people are afraid of the mob. Is this Marxism in disguise?

 

[Marked Ox]

Re body parts being covered up. Yes, and not least by us in the Victorian era! Some of what is on public display now wouldn't have been then. And of course a statue that graphically showed a man in a 'high state of excitement' wouldn't be allowed as a piece of public artwork now. In ten years time that might be different, or we might have swung the other way (to coin a phrase) and be frantically covering up anything vaguely titillating. Who decides is a very good question indeed - and not one I have an answer for. Public opinion (although that can equate to the 'mob')? Someone appointed to decide on our behalf (no thank you very much)?

But I still think these are questions of taste and appropriateness when applied to monuments. What you might see in a gallery or museum is different to what is presented as public art, as indeed it was in earlier times (cf those wacky Victorians and their love of paintings with naked ladies in them!) and is now.

I don't think anything should be 'got rid of', although I think it behoves those with responsibilities for such things locally to be sensitive about what is being displayed and how local opinion regards it. As many people on here have said, a museum where the issues could be better explained might be a better location. Of course if the reputation of slavery somehow improves in the future (!) then it can be put back. I suspect though, that like the Black and White Minstrel show, there would be no appetite for it.

As it was mentioned previously for music, I like the clear and obvious "advisory" type sticker idea adapted for such statues with the info so education properly happens. I think just having such art etc in museums and galleries does limit who sees them and educational value of such things for the majority.

And I'd say decisions being made right now are because of the mob rather than a considered process.

 

[Aylesbury Rich]

Oh, I don't know. Makes sense to me. Every building anywhere in the world that has any association with slavery, however oblique, should be ceremoniously demolished. In fact, the entire docks areas of ex-slaving ports like Bristol and Liverpool should be levelled. And what about the ancestors of those who worked on the slavers as crewmen, cooks etc? They should be tracked down and imprisoned. It might have been 200+ years ago but they're all culpable still.

Entirely sensible. Plus, and this is a logical extension to the argument, restitution is due to the descendants of the 1.2 million Europeans taken into slavery by Africans...or the c.17 million Africans and Europeans taken into slavery by the Arabs...

Perhaps there could be some sort of round robin process? The Arab countries give Africa £100 Trillion as reparations, they then pass it on direct to Europe as payment for the Barbary Corsairs, then Europe gives it back to the Arabs for the Crusades. Then everyone wins!

 

[Aylesbury Rich]

You also have Tupac Shakur, whose music is used heavily Californian politics and wasn't a Saint. Plus music videos depicting gang signs...

Shall we ban Ed Sheeran for mentioning in a song about speeding in a car? Or the intent of the song There She Goes by the La's? Madonna for suggestive songs?

Let alone the money behind building Liverpool's landmarks and infrastructure. Best demolish Liverpool just in case anyone is offended.

What do we do about UK universities taking money from China and other repressive regimes?

It just proves how small the world view of the BLM movement is and what will happen if it remains unchecked because people are afraid of the mob. Is this Marxism in disguise?

Hmmm... we will have to get rid of The Guardian too, that was founded by a cotton merchant who obtained his material from slave picked cotton from the USA...

 

[SteMerritt]

You also have Tupac Shakur, whose music is used heavily Californian politics and wasn't a Saint. Plus music videos depicting gang signs...

Shall we ban Ed Sheeran for mentioning in a song about speeding in a car? Or the intent of the song There She Goes by the La's? Madonna for suggestive songs?

Let alone the money behind building Liverpool's landmarks and infrastructure. Best demolish Liverpool just in case anyone is offended.

What do we do about UK universities taking money from China and other repressive regimes?

It just proves how small the world view of the BLM movement is and what will happen if it remains unchecked because people are afraid of the mob. Is this Marxism in disguise?

You're better than that, why take things to illogical extremes? (although banning Sheeran for that is entirely acceptable)

Money from oppressive regimes is another matter, and definitely worthy of discussion - I, for one, wouldn't want Saudi money involved with OUFC for instance.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Entirely sensible. Plus, and this is a logical extension to the argument, restitution is due to the descendants of the 1.2 million Europeans taken into slavery by Africans...or the c.17 million Africans and Europeans taken into slavery by the Arabs...

Perhaps there could be some sort of round robin process? The Arab countries give Africa £100 Trillion as reparations, they then pass it on direct to Europe as payment for the Barbary Corsairs, then Europe gives it back to the Arabs for the Crusades. Then everyone wins!

I'd like to know what we do with countries where there are still open slave markets?

 

[Aylesbury Rich]

I'd like to know what we do with countries where there are still open slave markets?

Now you are just being silly...

 

[Gary Baldi]

You're better than that, why take things to illogical extremes? (although banning Sheeran for that is entirely acceptable)

Money from oppressive regimes is another matter, and definitely worthy of discussion - I, for one, wouldn't want Saudi money involved with OUFC for instance.

I am being deliberately facetious to prove a point because different people find different things offensive, and we can't allow any one minority POV group to demand that their opinions are more important than others, because of mob justice and social justice pressure. As such, it will become an all consuming exercise and achieve little, because some people will demand Tupac or Drill be taken off of the radio or YouTube.

Instead, best we look forward in our lives and make today and tomorrow better for all, than worry and wring our hands about what happened in the long ago past, or rewriting it to remove the bits we don't like.

 

[bazzer9461]

Behave. Was it put up to honour/glorify an individual? Don't be deliberately dense.

It was used to hold the slaves for transportation to the USA so was it out uo to hold prisoner slaves? And yes it was paid for by the sale of slaves, why the f**k should that be allowed to stand as people know what it was used for in the past yet the statue of Rhodes must come down because he did the same as what John Bolton did at Storrs hall and he used to hold lavish parties there, Cecil Rhodes slave trader but now a 100 scholarships in his name are awarded with a 20 or so from Africa, so what’s the difference? So oh can be dense and stand their saying Black lives matter that’s your choice but think and out all lives matter, maybe we should take statues of terrorists down as well

 

[bashamwonderland]

Why the speech marks around liberal?

FWIW there was plenty of opposition to the lyrics of (for example) NWA back in the day - plenty of calls to ban from radio/MTV etc. The compromise was the 'parental advisory' sticker which (obviously) became a badge of honour for every would-be teen agitator.

I put speech marks around the word "liberal" because liberalism is an ideology of tolerance and freedom. I don't think that banning, "de-platforming", and censorship fit with those principles.

If these people truly were liberals (I'm thinking of the classical liberal variety), I would expect them to attempt to educate and allow, instead of ban and hound people into agreeing with their message.

I suppose true liberalism sits within the centre right and centre left of politics. Go too far right or left and eventually you're talking to the same people.

 

[bazzer9461]

Oh, I don't know. Makes sense to me. Every building anywhere in the world that has any association with slavery, however oblique, should be ceremoniously demolished. In fact, the entire docks areas of ex-slaving ports like Bristol and Liverpool should be levelled. And what about the ancestors of those who worked on the slavers as crewmen, cooks etc? They should be tracked down and imprisoned. It might have been 200+ years ago but they're all culpable still.

The way people are behaving i wouldn’t put it past some serious changes so history will disappear, but wait a minute “ what’s prejudice dad” “erm well there was something in show to explain, behave son ask your teacher “

 

[QR]

It was used to hold the slaves for transportation to the USA so was it out uo to hold prisoner slaves? And yes it was paid for by the sale of slaves, why the f**k should that be allowed to stand as people know what it was used for in the past yet the statue of Rhodes must come down because he did the same as what John Bolton did at Storrs hall and he used to hold lavish parties there, Cecil Rhodes slave trader but now a 100 scholarships in his name are awarded with a 20 or so from Africa, so what’s the difference? So oh can be dense and stand their saying Black lives matter that’s your choice but think and out all lives matter, maybe we should take statues of terrorists down as well

I refer you to my previous post.

(i.e. Behave. Was it put up to honour/glorify an individual? Don't be deliberately dense.)

 

[Essexyellows]

We have a Nelson Mandela park in the city.
I think he was a terrorist, he was the head of the military wing of the African National Congress, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation)
Some think he was a freedom fighter.
He himself said he "wasn`t perfect".

Do I think he should be commemorated in such a way? Yes, because he achieved what he set out to do in toppling apartheid by means necessary.
However don`t dress him up as a saint, they killed plenty of people along the way.

Same as a slave traders.

Tell the whole story and show the whole picture, as the world was then, and how much it has progressed now.

Do not just say Black = oppressed and White = Privilege or you become what you are fighting against.

 

[chuckbert]

I am being deliberately facetious to prove a point because different people find different things offensive, and we can't allow any one minority POV group to demand that their opinions are more important than others, because of mob justice and social justice pressure. As such, it will become an all consuming exercise and achieve little, because some people will demand Tupac or Drill be taken off of the radio or YouTube.

Instead, best we look forward in our lives and make today and tomorrow better for all, than worry and wring our hands about what happened in the long ago past, or rewriting it to remove the bits we don't like.

You're not proving a point at all. You're going all "reductio ad absurdum". It is not "hand-wringing" that racism is still a serious problem. "different people find different things offensive" and "we can't allow any one minority POV group to demand ...".
The simplistic solution that "we look forward in our lives and make today and tomorrow better for all" sounds beautiful, but is actually a liberal (gasp) sop to avoid conflict. Black people across the world have been listening to that s**t for a long time. People in the states have been waiting for substantial change for a long time, and it hasn't come yet.

I can't fathom how people can't see this - @Scotchegg seems to be good at explaining it - read what he says.

We are a long, long way from making progress on racism and sexism, but I guess an English football forum isn't the first place to seek enlightenment

 

[QR]

We have a Nelson Mandela park in the city.
I think he was a terrorist, he was the head of the military wing of the African National Congress, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation)
Some think he was a freedom fighter.
He himself said he "wasn`t perfect".

Do I think he should be commemorated in such a way? Yes, because he achieved what he set out to do in toppling apartheid by means necessary.
However don`t dress him up as a saint, they killed plenty of people along the way.

Same as a slave traders.

Tell the whole story and show the whole picture, as the world was then, and how much it has progressed now.

Do not just say Black = oppressed and White = Privilege or you become what you are fighting against.

One person's terrorist in another person's freedom fighter but I haven't heard anyone says Colston wasn't a slave trader.

 

[Essexyellows]

One person's terrorist in another person's freedom fighter but I haven't heard anyone says Colston wasn't a slave trader.

Again you completely miss the point.

Yes, slavery is 100% wrong, it still goes on today, but it is 100% wrong.

Mandela thought nothing of people dying to get to the end goal, same as Colston.

In his latter years he spoke out against what he and others did, similar actions by Colston as he endowed his wealth for the benefit of others.

We can not deny it happened........... what next? Forget the Holocaust because it was uncomfortable?

It`s how we evolve and learn that defines us so leave the history alone and tell the whole story warts and all.

 

[bazzer9461]

I refer you to my previous post.

(i.e. Behave. Was it put up to honour/glorify an individual? Don't be deliberately dense.)

And I will refer to my previous post, the commentary used on the steam boat from lakeside to Ambleside include the fact that Storr Hall was used to House slave before they were sent to the USA that is how it is being remembered it was bought by John Bolton and that is what Storr hall is remembered for. I just suppose it’s easier to protect and cause wanton vandalism......I suppose you’re in the get rid of the Churchill’s statue in Whitehall.