Rhodes Should Fall, or Perhaps Not.....

[Nearly Sane]

No. See the first paragraph of #15.

And what is the difference between someone coming from a country and seeing a statue in a position of approbation of someone involved in the suppression and enslavement of their ancestors?

[Shaker]

And what is the difference between someone coming from a country and seeing a statue in a position of approbation of someone involved in the suppression and enslavement of their ancestors?

If someone is coming from a country and sees such a statue, quite honestly I don't really see what business it is of theirs. They had no hand in the erection of the statue, which would have occurred a long time ago (most likely long, long before they were even born), so if they become a resident of the host country, while they have every right to petition or otherwise campaign for its removal and go through all the usual channels of dissent, on the whole I incline toward the view that they should grow up and suck it up. There is a statue of a known and notorious religious fanatic and killer of Irish men, women and children outside the Palace of Westminster which on your view could be considered a standing affront to all Irish people (especially Irish Catholics) to this day. Except that to my knowledge it isn't, certainly not to any notable or noticeable degree. Most people seem to be considerably more mature than that.

[Nearly Sane]

Note it isn't my view that I am arguing here and I've made that quite clear throughout this thread. I realise that on this board it is very easy to get into the old simple dichotomies but that's not the point. I started this trying to move JP from their absolutist position, and I suspect his position is actually closer to what you have clearly expressed here. I am sympathetic to it but I think that the idea that someone should they complain about any such statue just needs to grow up is mere well poisoning. Rather I think you have to make clear that the existence of such historic statues are no longer about approbation though arguably given that there is a continued argument that we follow neo colonialist policies, it's one that needs more complexity than 'Grow up!'


As another question, in 2012 there was a statue in Scotstoun of Jimmy Savile that was removed, quite rightly imo. What if it had taken a hundred years for Savile's actions to come out, should it have remained?

[Rhiannon]

Isn't it a good thing for there to be some discomfort? Living with the actions of the past can be awkward and difficult and the present is not a feather bed, and university's as good a place as any to get to grips with that.

[Shaker]

Isn't it a good thing for there to be some discomfort? Living with the actions of the past can be awkward and difficult and the present is not a feather bed, and university's as good a place as any to get to grips with that.

Exactly. You probably - well, almost certainly - don't follow Jerry Coyne's site (he doesn't like it being called a blog, for some reason, even though it is), but every so often he reports on the latest example of conflicting opinons and/or "controversial" ideas being quashed in a university (mostly American; some examples from abroad) on the grounds that they are too much for students to handle, the 'too much' always being decided by people who take upon themselves the onerous responsibility of deciding this for others on their behalf without their consultation.

Amongst other things this involves inviting but then banning certain speakers (alluded to by Hope in #2 and #6), or at best censoring and at worst banning certain texts (Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer and the like) on the grounds that their "offensive" content (the use of what is euphemistically called the N-word, or depictions of sexual behaviour including sexual abuse and rape and so forth) is what the aforementioned certain people regard as "triggering."

Which I think is a new euphemism for "Something that forces you to think something that you might find new, different, possibly difficult and uncomfortable, and that will never equip you for a full life out in the real world."

[jeremyp]

[Triggering] I think is a new euphemism for "Something that forces you to think something that you might find new, different, possibly difficult and uncomfortable, and that will never equip you for a full life out in the real world."

The term originally comes from the idea that discussing certain topics might trigger PTSD or panic attacks in people who had been through some sort of trauma. As such, it is a genuine thing and so called "trigger warnings" were used prior to discussing edgy topics to warn such people that they might have problems.

Unfortunately, triggering has now become a tool to shut down a conversation that you don't like.

Furthermore, the mere discussion of an idea is often seen to be endorsement of the idea and sometimes seen to be hate for the people who oppose the idea. The kerfuffle over Germaine Greer was over some comments she made where she questioned whether a trans woman could be called a woman on the grounds that they don't have the "shared experience" of people who have been women from birth. At no time did she claim that trans-women should not be treated fairly or should not have the same rights as everybody else but she is labelled a hater for bringing up a subject that really does need to be discussed.