E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
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.
Indeed. But getting rid of the statues, whilst removing a daily affront, does not end racism. It would be better to have them covered up, educate people on the ways the actions of those empire builders and pirates caused the injustices of today. Then fix those injustices - once eliminated, by all means destroy the statues if you like.
Some interesting debates in Benin about its role in the Atlantic slave trade and how to remember those involved: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-country-reckons-with-its-history-of-selling-slaves/2018/01/29/5234f5aa-ff9a-11e7-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.htmlhttps://www.pri.org/stories/2019-08-20/willful-amnesia-how-africans-forgot-and-remembered-their-role-slave-tradeAnd a slightly more cynical view that apologies could have an element of political self-interest: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/how-to-apologize-for-slavery/375650/
The US needs to get to grips with its racist past and present.
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' ?
Oh come on that is an excuse for racism!
No I'm not. I'm the one being logical.But I discount most of them as absurd and not worth worrying about. Because I asked you to. If you think there's nothing bad per se, that's fine, but some people seem to have labelled the mere act of a white person pretending to be a black person (i.e. acting a part) as a heinous crime. I'd like to know why.
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.
Ask the people who think it is a heinous crime. I think there's a discussion to be had about black roles and blackface but I'm not getting into a defence of something I haven't said.
And do you really think that tearing down Washington statues is going to do the trick? It wil of course do nothing of the kind.
I don't think many people are more educated about him than were before. Everybody now knows he was a slave trader but that's just one fact. That's not really education. I doubt if many people could actually tell you what he actually did in the slave trade or even where he lived. They certainly couldn't tell you how much of his fortune came from the slave trade because nobody knows.If it were up to me, I'd have the statue recovered from the floating harbour and put on display in a museum as it is without cleaning off the graffiti or repairing it. The plaque next to it would describe exactly who he was and why the statue was removed and dumped in the water.
I didn't ask you to defend anything, I asked you to express an opinion. If you don't want to, that's fine with me.
Not sure. I have certainly learned more about Colston, Columbus, and Rhodes, than I did before. I think statues and monuments make history opaque. The black historian (Olusoga), said that pulling down Colston is itself a historical act, a bit like the Boston Tea Party.
Of-course. If the statue is ever displayed again, maybe it can be accompanied by a video of it being pulled down, and explanatory discussion.
Don't forget brownface.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_brownfaceI don't think there is anything heinous about anyone acting a part but quite often these roles are intended to alienate or humiliate a minority: eg re. B&W Minstrels: "to reinforce stereotypes, portraying brown people as lazy, stubborn, and unable to assimilate into American life" - so people are bound to be offended.Also consider Hank Azaria on Apu:https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/hank-azaria-based-apu-racist-peter-sellers-character-1202213323/In my youth I quite enjoyed Peter Sellers in The Millionairess and The Party, however, looking back, there were plenty of Indian actors that could have played those roles much better.
There's going to be a lot of films needing discussion, not just Gone With The Wind. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52990714