The death of George Floyd, and aftermath

[Nearly Sane]

In some ways the fuss over names, statues, blackface and so on seems too much of a diversion - getting stuck on a symbolic level.

It would be better if people concentrated on actual day to day discrimination, injustice or just racist assaults. The other thing is that slavery still exists, including in the UK and Europe. In fact reports on modern slavery suggest there is more slavery now than in the 17th or 18th centuries.

Use the symbols to make a point - but fix the actual problems?

I don't think it is that easy to see a society as different from its presentation. People see what is approved and then accept that surely?

[Nearly Sane]

Goodbye Gladstone

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/university-rename-student-halls-named-18387566.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3P2u1x3TXSfJsqpAc21frGZee8yZQIKIXFgcz4g6pnHDvb7DfD7fbFx-0

[jeremyp]

Anyone who was actively involved in slavery, an atrocious blot on history, should have their memorials removed, even if they did things, which were also regarded as good.

George Washington?

[jeremyp]

I don't think it is that easy to see a society as different from its presentation. People see what is approved and then accept that surely?

But why is an actor putting make up on to look like somebody else bad in some cases but not bad in others?

[Roses]

George Washington?

Everyone who supported slavery should have their statues removed.

[jeremyp]

Everyone who supported slavery should have their statues removed.

So any statues of George Washington must go. In fact, the same applies to several of the founding fathers of the USA who supported slavery.

[Nearly Sane]

But why is an actor putting make up on to look like somebody else bad in some cases but not bad in others?

The motivation behind it, what it portrays, and its possible effects.

[Roses]

So any statues of George Washington must go. In fact, the same applies to several of the founding fathers of the USA who supported slavery.

Absolutely. The way the native Americans were treated by the white settlers was a disgrace.

[jeremyp]

The motivation behind it, what it portrays, and its possible effects.

"possible effects" is weasel words. You could justify any offence taking by talking about "possible effects". So let's drop the word "possible".

"The motivation behind it, what it portrays, and its effects."

So let's take the example of Orson Wells playing Othello, or the Olivier version, if you prefer. Can you explain why either of those two actors putting make up on to look like a black man is so bad in terms of your criteria?

[Nearly Sane]

Absolutely. The way the native Americans were treated by the white settlers was a disgrace.

So the US will have to change the name of its capital. I am scared by 'Absolutely'. This needs society to consider what it wants to accept.

To quote George Orwell

'Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.'

I don't think that means everything has to be saved as in itself that is not a neutral position but we need to be able to take a nuanced and considered position.

[Roses]

"possible effects" is weasel words. You could justify any offence taking by talking about "possible effects". So let's drop the word "possible".

"The motivation behind it, what it portrays, and its effects."

So let's take the example of Orson Wells playing Othello, or the Olivier version, if you prefer. Can you explain why either of those two actors putting make up on to look like a black man is so bad in terms of your criteria?

White actors should never play the part of the black person, that is racist. I remember how the Black and White Minstrel show was castigated years ago as white people blacked their faces instead of using black musicians.

[Roses]

The US needs to get to grips with its racist past and present.

[Nearly Sane]

"possible effects" is weasel words. You could justify any offence taking by talking about "possible effects". So let's drop the word "possible".

"The motivation behind it, what it portrays, and its effects."

So let's take the example of Orson Wells playing Othello, or the Olivier version, if you prefer. Can you explain why either of those two actors putting make up on to look like a black man is so bad in terms of your criteria?

Let's not drop the word possible since it would be impossible to consider whether something is good or bad beforehand. Whenever you weigh up options on decisions, surely you consider the possible effects?


As to Welles or Olivier, nothing I wrote implied whether I thought Welles or Olivier's actions were 'so bad'.

[Nearly Sane]

White actors should never play the part of the black person, that is racist. I remember how the Black and White Minstrel show was castigated years ago as white people blacked their faces instead of using black musicians.

So can black actors play white characters?

How about men playing women?

[jeremyp]

Absolutely. The way the native Americans were treated by the white settlers was a disgrace.

George Washington owned slaves. I'm not aware that he treated native Americans badly (although, of course, it's possible). Most of the worst behaviour towards the natives was done by later Americans.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of people in our past that we celebrate now also did some atrocious things. Washington owned slaves. Darwin was racist by modern standards. Churchill did some pretty bad things before saving us from the most racist regime of the 20th century.

I really hate these blanket rules that people keep proposing that fail to take into account the nuances of individual cases.

[jeremyp]

White actors should never play the part of the black person, that is racist.

The whole point of acting is to pretend to be something you are not. If we applied your rule even handedly, there would be no acting. People would only be allowed to portray themselves.

[jeremyp]

Let's not drop the word possible since it would be impossible to consider whether something is good or bad beforehand. Whenever you weigh up options on decisions, surely you consider the possible effects?

No let's drop it. If you are allowed "possible" you can make up anything. A possible effect of me taking my car to the shops this afternoon is that somebody steps into the road in front of me and gets killed. Does that mean I'm bad for wanting to drive to the shops?

"possible" is weasel words.

As to Welles or Olivier, nothing I wrote implied whether I thought Welles or Olivier's actions were 'so bad'.

I never suggested you did. I'm exploring the thesis that "blackface is racist by definition".

[Nearly Sane]

No let's drop it. If you are allowed "possible" you can make up anything. A possible effect of me taking my car to the shops this afternoon is that somebody steps into the road in front of me and gets killed. Does that mean I'm bad for wanting to drive to the shops?

"possible" is weasel words.

I never suggested you did. I'm exploring the thesis that "blackface is racist by definition".

  You are  just being illogical. You weigh up possibilities all the time and that informs what you and what society thinks should happen. Your example actually shows you do that.

 And what you said was
'So let's take the example of Orson Wells playing Othello, or the Olivier version, if you prefer. Can you explain why either of those two actors putting make up on to look like a black man is so bad in terms of your criteria?'

 Why would I be 'explaining' what was 'so bad' ?

[Aruntraveller]

SO having read a lot in the past about Indian history under British rule and after, we really need to talk about Churchill:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

[Roses]

The whole point of acting is to pretend to be something you are not. If we applied your rule even handedly, there would be no acting. People would only be allowed to portray themselves.

Oh come on that is an excuse for racism!

[Udayana]

SO having read a lot in the past about Indian history under British rule and after, we really need to talk about Churchill:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

Sashi Tharoor's book "Inglorious Empire" is a great read. The way to put right effects of Churchill's past misdeeds is by cooperative working and constructive fair trading  - not chucking out his statues whilst still following his methods.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh come on that is an excuse for racism!

No, jeremyp is pointing out that the reduction ad absurdum of your position.  Should a black person play Iago?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If removing statues of racist people does not harm/ have a negative impact on anyone, why do we need to be so attached to tradition and history, given the positive impact that removing statues will have on people affected by systemic racism? We often update our views and let go of tradition.

Other countries (including African countries where slavery was normal) might not remove their statues as they have decided as a society that they can live with the harm those people carried out in those societies. It's up to British society to decide on the statement they want to make.

It appears that those who want to remove statues want to make a statement about the effects of historical slavery on today's society. It has a symbolic effect of focusing the issues on the inequalities. If race is just a cultural creation and people were discriminated against for centuries in terms of housing, education, jobs, ability to create and accumulate wealth based on their race, which has created the inequalities we see today, why not draw attention to a historic wrong by removing statues to acknowledge the reasons for today's inequalities? Especially if the statues represent wealth created for white Britain at the expense of slaves, who had few if any human rights as they were considered property and not people. Maybe it depends on whether people think the achievements of slave owners can blot out the historical wrong of slavery. Because I think that is the impression created if the statues remain in place rather than being moved to a museum. I personally am not affected by the statues as I have a comfortable middle-class life, but I can understand why they would be problematic for many black people facing systemic racism.

[Aruntraveller]

Sashi Tharoor's book "Inglorious Empire" is a great read. The way to put right effects of Churchill's past misdeeds is by cooperative working and constructive fair trading  - not chucking out his statues whilst still following his methods.

I don't disagree, but how do you even get to a point where people accept a need for change. While ever they view Churchill as our saviour in the 2nd world war and disregard his abhorrent views I think it unlikely change can be effected. Education is where it needs to start. Teach about the whole person not just the World War 2 leader.

For those of you who doubt Churchill's thorough nastiness and hatred:

“Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged” — Winston Churchill on how to deal with Egypt in 1951.

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion”

[Nearly Sane]

If removing statues of racist people does not harm/ have a negative impact on anyone, why do we need to be so attached to tradition and history, given the positive impact that removing statues will have on people affected by systemic racism? We often update our views and let go of tradition.

Other countries (including African countries where slavery was normal) might not remove their statues as they have decided as a society that they can live with the harm those people carried out in those societies. It's up to British society to decide on the statement they want to make.

It appears that those who want to remove statues want to make a statement about the effects of historical slavery on today's society. It has a symbolic effect of focusing the issues on the inequalities. If race is just a cultural creation and people were discriminated against for centuries in terms of housing, education, jobs, ability to create and accumulate wealth based on their race, which has created the inequalities we see today, why not draw attention to a historic wrong by removing statues to acknowledge the reasons for today's inequalities? Especially if the statues represent wealth created for white Britain at the expense of slaves, who had few if any human rights as they were considered property and not people. Maybe it depends on whether people think the achievements of slave owners can blot out the historical wrong of slavery. Because I think that is the impression created if the statues remain in place rather than being moved to a museum. I personally am not affected by the statues as I have a comfortable middle-class life, but I can understand why they would be problematic for many black people facing systemic racism.

Completely agree - I've seen the argument that in removing/moving the statues that we are retrofitting our morals on people in the past - the problem to me is that in simply keeping the statues we are then imposing the morals of the past upon people today. I get the idea of using the statues to educate but Colston is now a lot better known, and many more people are educated about him than when the statue was standing.