Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
so bitter
Add sugar
so bitter
Just goes to prove that without tone of voice you just don’t get it.
And I’m always cracking jokes.
It’s a shame you’re so uptight today.
People love their heroes and super-villains. In a world gone binary, the nuanced approach we favour is out of style and too taxing for many.
This also applies, of course, to people who only want to see the bad.
It was a solid post, it just ignores the part where we're not required to display shitty historical baggage in public spaces for no real reason. We shouldn't judge Lee (just for example) by today's morality, but we also shouldn't celebrate him if we find him wanting through that same lens. Discuss him within the context of his time as is regularly done with most historical figures, and analyze him fairly, again within that context. Don't expect people (legitimately) offended by what he fought for to want public reminders of his acts. Like I've said previously, this isn't a guy who we can hold up his other accomplishments and say...well he was the best general fighting for a slave state, but look at all of this other worthwhile shit he did. That's his only legacy. Even a pile of the slave holding lesser FF's left lasting additions to political philosophy that are still relevant to the cause of free societies today, never mind the titans among them and the contributions they made that still resonate a few hundred years later.
I generally agree with all of that, but have a question.
Why is it not okay to remove a statue honouring said person, if societies norms have shifted far enough from those existing in the time said person was venerated? We're not talking about rewriting history books to tell a different narrative and proclaim the person a monster given the benefit of a 150 year old lens, we're talking about removing a public reminder of a morality considered abhorrent in modern times. Do we need public reminders of slavery?
and inb4 "founding fathers"...Lee is low hanging fruit here, on the wrong side of an ugly war with ugly causes. Very different than the reason the FF's have lasting notoriety. Lee is only remembered by history for being the greatest general of the slave state's army, he's inextricably linked to slavery historically, there is no way to rationally separate him from it. Jefferson, Washington, etc, etc all have massive accomplishments not directly connected to slavery. They're simply not the same thing here, despite their venn diagrams all linking up over slavery.
Funny how time changes a person.Yep, don't care.
Where I appreciate his place in the history of the country, I don't blame people from different backgrounds for not viewing him the same (through his own opinions and actions) and I think we're beyond the time and place where it's cool with just shrugging and saying "well for his time he wasn't bad". There's no sense in carrying around certain types of historical baggage just for the sake of it. Teach the history accurately, discuss the good and bad, but I think we should be adult enough to realize that people from past eras had some really, really bad ideas that went along with their ideas about certain types of political/social freedoms that were trail blazing for the time period. I also think that minorities who may view some of those historical figures differently, have the right to not have to be reminded of some of the darkest times their people have endured when they're accessing public buildings/services that their tax money helps to pay for.
If private historical societies want to purchase land and put up statues, give'r. But public money shouldn't be going towards it imo.
Funny how time changes a person
We shouldn't judge Lee (just for example) by today's morality, but we also shouldn't celebrate him if we find him wanting through that same lens. Discuss him within the context of his time as is regularly done with most historical figures, and analyze him fairly, again within that context. Don't expect people (legitimately) offended by what he fought for to want public reminders of his acts.
Why is it not okay to remove a statue honouring said person, if societies norms have shifted far enough from those existing in the time said person was venerated? We're not talking about rewriting history books to tell a different narrative and proclaim the person a monster given the benefit of a 150 year old lens, we're talking about removing a public reminder of a morality considered abhorrent in modern times. Do we need public reminders of slavery?
**** me, even in the second quoted passage I said this:
How is this philosophically inconsistent with what I said today? I'm not trying to draw an equivalent between Sir John A, and Confederate racists (not that I should have to point that out, but here it is just in case), but the philosophy is consistent.
Short version.
Mindzeye a year ago-historical people need to looked at in a nuanced view, if the good outweights the bad, and they have legitimate significant accomplishments outside of the bad things they may have done by our standards then we should continue to celebrate those people and their accomplishments.
Mindzeye today. -**** it. If someone is offended by them, no matter what good they have done, and what they may have acheived then get rid of it. I don't care.
My take on it.
Ahh, so you're reading what you want to read then.
Carry on.
is it fair to say now though that if someone is offended by George Washington or Tom Jefferson statues, because they were slaveholders, that you would be fine with them being taken down?
I do not believe in the whitewashing of history. Doing so will cause it to repeat.
I'd be fine with having the conversation to measure their accomplishments against the damage they did, yeah.
So if you're looking for a blanket yes or no, I don't have one.
If all my opinions were the same today as they were a year ago, I'd be pretty disappointed in myself.
Now I'm being told that its ok to go after John Mac. Its not a matter of opinions changing, its make up your damn mind. Either mindz was wrong then or he's wrong now.
A row over human rights in Saudi Arabia will not have any impact on Saudi oil supplies to Canada, its energy minister said on Thursday, reassuring customers after Riyadh froze new trade with Canada and ruled out mediation efforts.