Should History be airbrushed/side stepped because of the Black Lives Matter movement?

[@Lee]

19 hours ago, skomaz said:

 

Looks like we should be able to blow up the pyramids and sphynx too...   They were built with slave labour...

 

 

15 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Not suite sure why I'm the only recent post to get a groan from Lee when other similar ones haven't - but there you go...   true to form!

Read what you posted again and try to work out why you got a groan. Pretty sure if you went to visit you'd find information on the history of the pyramids and how they were built and by whom. There's even a shiny new museum being built in Giza. In some states of the US statues commemorating slave owners have already been removed. 

I'm not quite sure what people aren't getting or understanding. They were cleared by a jury of their peers. That's how the jury system works.
People can bitch and moan about it all they like but they were cleared. What do people want? Keep on trying them until they get the result they want? Where have I heard that suggestion before? People should move on and get over it  

MPs and other folks going on TV and spouting crap such as 'this sets a precedent' and 'whatever next?' aren't helping matters in the slightest and are only fanning the flames. It does not set a precedent in any way. A different jury could have reached another verdict. 

Perhaps we should reinstate the statue of Jimmy Savile? Never mind the kiddy fiddling he did. I know it was terrible but they were different times and he was a bit of a philanthropist. I know, ridiculous isn't it!

[skomaz]

1 hour ago, @Lee said:

 

Read what you posted again and try to work out why you got a groan. Pretty sure if you went to visit you'd find information on the history of the pyramids and how they were built and by whom. There's even a shiny new museum being built in Giza. In some states of the US statues commemorating slave owners have already been removed. 

I'm not quite sure what people aren't getting or understanding. They were cleared by a jury of their peers. That's how the jury system works.
People can bitch and moan about it all they like but they were cleared. What do people want? Keep on trying them until they get the result they want? Where have I heard that suggestion before? People should move on and get over it  

MPs and other folks going on TV and spouting crap such as 'this sets a precedent' and 'whatever next?' aren't helping matters in the slightest and are only fanning the flames. It does not set a precedent in any way. A different jury could have reached another verdict. 

Perhaps we should reinstate the statue of Jimmy Savile? Never mind the kiddy fiddling he did. I know it was terrible but they were different times and he was a bit of a philanthropist. I know, ridiculous isn't it!

 

Ok noted...   re-word it if you must:

 

Looks like we should be able to blow up the pyramids and sphynx too...   As they are monuments to people who kept and used slaves and forced labour...

 

It amounts to the same point.

Edited 10 January, 2022 by skomaz

[@Lee]

37 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

Ok noted...   re-word it if you must:

 

Looks like we should be able to blow up the pyramids and sphynx too...   As they are monuments to people who kept and used slaves and forced labour...

 

It amounts to the same point.

Quote

While it was unclear if the comments were sarcastic, they provoked a backlash from critics who refuted the fallacy, with some urging the social media users spreading such ideas to "read history."

Dismayed Egyptians chipped in defending the funerary monuments that are an important part of their cultural heritage and history against what some perceived as real threats.  

Skeptics, meanwhile, suggested that the misconception was deliberately circulated to vilify the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests decrying racism and police brutality.

"The Egyptian Pyramids are now being used to discredit protests against racism, colonialism and slavery with the argument they have been built exploiting forced slave labor. They were not," Jens Notroff, a German archaeologist, counter-argued on his Twitter account.

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2020/06/blm-black-lives-matter-activists-pyramids-george-floyd.html
 

Quote

There is a consensus among Egyptologists that the Great Pyramids were not built by slaves. Rather, it was farmers who built the pyramids during flooding, when they could not work in their lands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt
https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids
 

Quote

VERDICT

False. There is no evidence to prove that British anti-racism protesters have called for the destruction of the Giza Pyramids. This claim likely refers to satirical comments on social media.

Maybe you're one of those sarcastically or satirically saying that the Pyramids should be blown up?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-destruction-giza-pyramids-idUSKBN23M2DI


Perhaps you can explain how blowing up the Pyramids will help the BLM movement?

[skomaz]

Calm down...   I didn't and never have linked it to BLM...   So please don't try and imply that I did as you are conflating issues again.

 

And just for the record your post the the linking such comments to racism and BLM are the first links of that type I've seen.

 

My comments were related to people doing criminal damage with no consequences.  End of story.

 

And just to be clear I object very strongly to any suggestion or implication that I am racist and have reported your post.

Edited 10 January, 2022 by skomaz

[@Lee]

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

And just to be clear I object very strongly to any suggestion or implication that I am racist and have reported your post.

Where did I suggest or imply you were?

I think you might want to take that back.

Edited 10 January, 2022 by @Lee

[john999boy]

6 hours ago, @Lee said:

I'm not quite sure what people aren't getting or understanding. They were cleared by a jury of their peers. That's how the jury system works.
People can bitch and moan about it all they like but they were cleared. What do people want? Keep on trying them until they get the result they want? Where have I heard that suggestion before? People should move on and get over it  

Maybe they were cleared but I still think that people who watched the event with their eyes open would have thought them guilty.

OT but as for repeatedly doing something until the correct decision is reached - think of a recent football stadium tragedy and how long that took!

 

Can we also please take a 2022 breather to reset how Briskoda members used to interact with each other. 🏳️

[mac11irl]

im not re-reading all this thread, its too long and too b1tchy (all sides..)

here is my opinion though - 

no, history shouldnt be airbrushed, but it already has been. media coverage, government narratives AND the narrative of the oppressed group in past events have always been presented to make sure the "correct" people look good, and when its not possible it just gets side stepped and ignored.

examples below -

Alan Turing - credited with saving potentially 20odd million lives by cracking the enigma code is barely mentioned in many history school history books because he was gay and that was illegal. 

equally though -

Rosa Parks wasnt the first black lady to refuse to move on the bus. another teenage girl did it before her, but... because she was either a single mother or had been arrested (cant remember which tbh) her "social credit" for the civil rights movement wasnt quite high enough so Rosa gets the spot in history as she was the better "character".

 

 

it doesnt seem to be the case of removing statues etc so past bad actors cant be celebrated, instead its removing the bad actors so their actions are forgotten and not discussed which will lead to the information of the past not being given to future generations to help avoid the inevitable repeating of history. what needs to be done instead is the real and complete stories of the people and events needs to be shown to people and educate people.

 

if the above has been said previously, sorry for repeating but, as i said i aint trawling through this thread to pick it out if it has been. 

 

on the trial topic - its getting more and more difficult to have a truly impartial jury, as every court case is swamped in media coverage long before a trial, and people will have opinions formed before actual evidence is presented based on the character assination that probably happens in the lead up. This is especially true when its something like a political/social trial as they are so divisive. clear cut cases are muddied just because of the context. if the people in the statue case had been arrested for throwing bus stops into the river - they would've been found guilty, but because it was a statue of an historical ***** they were found not guilty as that verdict is equally part of the protest like those who voted BNP just because its not tory/labour. or in the ROI voted for the People before Profit crowd of anti establishment shouters. its the same thing.

[StevesTruck]

I'm with you on that. If you don't put history in front of people, they don't think about it. If they don't think about it, then they can't learn from it. If they don't learn about it, then there's less to stop the same bad things happening. 

 

 

[skomaz]

43 minutes ago, mac11irl said:

it doesnt seem to be the case of removing statues etc so past bad actors cant be celebrated, instead its removing the bad actors so their actions are forgotten and not discussed which will lead to the information of the past not being given to future generations to help avoid the inevitable repeating of history. what needs to be done instead is the real and complete stories of the people and events needs to be shown to people and educate people.

 

on the trial topic - its getting more and more difficult to have a truly impartial jury, as every court case is swamped in media coverage long before a trial, and people will have opinions formed before actual evidence is presented based on the character assination that probably happens in the lead up. This is especially true when its something like a political/social trial as they are so divisive. clear cut cases are muddied just because of the context. if the people in the statue case had been arrested for throwing bus stops into the river - they would've been found guilty, but because it was a statue of an historical ***** they were found not guilty as that verdict is equally part of the protest like those who voted BNP just because its not tory/labour. or in the ROI voted for the People before Profit crowd of anti establishment shouters. its the same thing.

 

Hi Mac,

 

Your two points above are key and are ones that have already been made.  The first against removal of statues as removal is the first step towards forgetting and repeating - that point has been made many times - the key is therefore educating and educating in a way that is visible and not tucked away in a museum that only a few people will visit.  That is why many people do not want the statues removed and, instead, want them used to educate in-situ.

 

On the trial topic - that is exactly the issue that is in the mind of those questioning the result - they are not asking for a re-trial, or for the verdict to be changed, but how and why the outcome was reached, and expressing concern whether it was influenced by external factors when it shouldn't have been.

 

Unfortunately the follow-on has simply been muddying the waters and connecting of issues that were never part of the initial concerns but 'serve a purpose' for some parts of society (apparently on both sides of the arguments).  If people could see through a different lens they'd understand but some can't.

[@Lee]

13 hours ago, skomaz said:

 

Hi Mac,

 

Your two points above are key and are ones that have already been made.  The first against removal of statues as removal is the first step towards forgetting and repeating - that point has been made many times - the key is therefore educating and educating in a way that is visible and not tucked away in a museum that only a few people will visit.  That is why many people do not want the statues removed and, instead, want them used to educate in-situ.

 

On the trial topic - that is exactly the issue that is in the mind of those questioning the result - they are not asking for a re-trial, or for the verdict to be changed, but how and why the outcome was reached, and expressing concern whether it was influenced by external factors when it shouldn't have been.

 

Unfortunately the follow-on has simply been muddying the waters and connecting of issues that were never part of the initial concerns but 'serve a purpose' for some parts of society (apparently on both sides of the arguments).  If people could see through a different lens they'd understand but some can't.

Hi @skomaz A couple of points if you'd be so kind?

You say 'That is why many people do not want the statues removed and, instead, want them used to educate in-situ'. 
By that rationale, should the statue of Jimmy Savile be reinstated?  
Perhaps it would be better if the people who live in, work in and pass by on a daily basis statues had more say in their area and were actually listened to. Sadly they were not for many years. How often do you pass by a statue and take any notice of who it is or what they did? Be honest.  I know I've passed many and thought nothing more than how happy that pigeon looks. Surely the history could equally be told if they were in a tourist attraction such as a museum? They'd also gain some degree of protection from the general public and be visited by school trips for education and the museum would benefit from visitor fees.

You seem to want to know why the jury came to the decision they did. Sadly, what's said in the jury room stays in the jury room. Kinda like first rule of Fight Club. Or do you think the system which has served us well for so long should be overhauled just because some people don't like the verdict reached?

You end by saying "If people could see through a different lens they'd understand but some can't.".
Surely that cuts both ways doesn't it unless you think people should only think in a certain way?

<humour>

 

Edited 12 January, 2022 by @Lee

[AnnoyingPentium]

On 11/01/2022 at 09:59, mac11irl said:

im not re-reading all this thread, its too long and too b1tchy (all sides..)

here is my opinion though - 

no, history shouldnt be airbrushed, but it already has been. media coverage, government narratives AND the narrative of the oppressed group in past events have always been presented to make sure the "correct" people look good, and when its not possible it just gets side stepped and ignored.

examples below -

Alan Turing - credited with saving potentially 20odd million lives by cracking the enigma code is barely mentioned in many history school history books because he was gay and that was illegal. 

equally though -

Rosa Parks wasnt the first black lady to refuse to move on the bus. another teenage girl did it before her, but... because she was either a single mother or had been arrested (cant remember which tbh) her "social credit" for the civil rights movement wasnt quite high enough so Rosa gets the spot in history as she was the better "character".

 

 

it doesnt seem to be the case of removing statues etc so past bad actors cant be celebrated, instead its removing the bad actors so their actions are forgotten and not discussed which will lead to the information of the past not being given to future generations to help avoid the inevitable repeating of history. what needs to be done instead is the real and complete stories of the people and events needs to be shown to people and educate people.

 

if the above has been said previously, sorry for repeating but, as i said i aint trawling through this thread to pick it out if it has been. 

 

on the trial topic - its getting more and more difficult to have a truly impartial jury, as every court case is swamped in media coverage long before a trial, and people will have opinions formed before actual evidence is presented based on the character assination that probably happens in the lead up. This is especially true when its something like a political/social trial as they are so divisive. clear cut cases are muddied just because of the context. if the people in the statue case had been arrested for throwing bus stops into the river - they would've been found guilty, but because it was a statue of an historical ***** they were found not guilty as that verdict is equally part of the protest like those who voted BNP just because its not tory/labour. or in the ROI voted for the People before Profit crowd of anti establishment shouters. its the same thing.

 

Well said.

[KenONeill]

On 11/01/2022 at 09:59, mac11irl said:

no, history shouldnt be airbrushed, but it already has been.

Indeed; the critical point is not whether (or not) history has been airbrushed but whether or not at least some of the people are aware that it has been.

[john999boy]

Ebay has been in touch due to this:- We recently updated our Offensive Materials Policy to prohibit items that portray negativity or stereotypes based on race or ethnicity. Some item(s) you listed related to Black Americana are now covered under that policy and are no longer allowed on eBay.

 

They go on to add flesh to the bone with this:-

 

- Listings that promote, perpetuate, or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination, including on the grounds of race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, aren’t allowed. This includes, but isn't limited to, the following:
-- Slurs or epithets of any kind
-- Items, including figurines, cartoons, housewares, historical advertisements, and golliwogs with racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise demeaning portrayals, for example through caricatures or other exaggerated features
-- Black Americana items that are discriminatory
-- Slavery items, including reproductions, such as tags, shackles, documents, bills of sale, etc.
-- Confederate battle flag and related items with its image
-- Historical Holocaust-related items, including reproductions
-- Any item that is anti-Semitic or any item from after 1933 that bears a swastika
-- Media identified as Nazi propaganda
-- Listings that imply or promote support of, membership in, or funding of a terrorist organization

 

All very laudable but the reason I am posting here will become apparent when you look what had been for sale and remember the title of this thread!

 

The world has gone PC crazy!.

 

 

[cheezemonkhai]

I guess they just turned off eBay India then with the swastika point…. Purely because it came from india and has a very different meaning there.

 

Sadly why the aim is laudable, the broad brush approach might not be the right one.

[PetrolDave]

14 hours ago, john999boy said:

Ebay has been in touch due to this:- We recently updated our Offensive Materials Policy to prohibit items that portray negativity or stereotypes based on race or ethnicity. Some item(s) you listed related to Black Americana are now covered under that policy and are no longer allowed on eBay.

 

They go on to add flesh to the bone with this:-

 

- Listings that promote, perpetuate, or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination, including on the grounds of race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, aren’t allowed. This includes, but isn't limited to, the following:
-- Slurs or epithets of any kind
-- Items, including figurines, cartoons, housewares, historical advertisements, and golliwogs with racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise demeaning portrayals, for example through caricatures or other exaggerated features
-- Black Americana items that are discriminatory
-- Slavery items, including reproductions, such as tags, shackles, documents, bills of sale, etc.
-- Confederate battle flag and related items with its image
-- Historical Holocaust-related items, including reproductions
-- Any item that is anti-Semitic or any item from after 1933 that bears a swastika
-- Media identified as Nazi propaganda
-- Listings that imply or promote support of, membership in, or funding of a terrorist organization

 

All very laudable but the reason I am posting here will become apparent when you look what had been for sale and remember the title of this thread!

 

The world has gone PC crazy!.

 

 

 

Reminds me of my ex-stepsons refusing to retake ownership of the paper tokens of a human like shape they enthusiastically collected in their younger years from marmalade jars made by Robinsons - those of you 'of a certain age' will know what I'm referring to...

[john999boy]

4 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

those of you 'of a certain age' will know what I'm referring to...

Exactly.

I have some nicely framed on the wall.

Embrace the past - not cancel it!

Edited 19 January, 2022 by john999boy
Clarification

[Lady Elanore]

I genuinely don't know what to think about the black dolls on the Marmalade jars. When young I thought of them merely as a black, moon faced doll and didn't associate them with race at all, never occurred to me in the slightest. The name also had no power to me, it was just the name used for a certain type of flat faced black doll, a doll I thought of like a happy dark sunflower. I also had a cuddly toy rabbit with a flat round face when I was young and the Robinson's doll seemed a good companion for it (you can sleep on top of a flat bed toy without waking up  ). So I wondered if we should have carried on with the doll as it's common usage would devalue the racist connotations of it, in the same way I hadn't associate any race connotation with it when I was young.

 

But, I'm not black, I haven't walked a mile in a black woman's shoes, I can't know what it feels like to see a black doll and it's associated name. Perhaps the black community is more sensitive to these dolls nowadays, or more likely they feel strong enough to have a voice and say "enough!".  I think it's probably for the best that the name has gone and the doll no more, as it caused offence and after all it's only a doll. The marmalade still tastes yummy  

[mac11irl]

over here we had the "Lyons Tea Minstrels" who were... well...  google it. but that is part of advertising history now. along with "Golly Bars" a plain vanilla icecream bar that also used the minstrel type adverting mascot. 

i never realised they were controversial 😳 i dont think anyone in Ireland did, as racism was something we only knew of in terms of being oppressed in our own hostory by "The Crown"...a whole different novel (800yrs is more than a chapter...)  but we arent looking to have that scrubbed or forgotten as its part of our nations history too.

 

Edited 21 January, 2022 by mac11irl

[OldTrilobite]

There is a rumpus going on in one of the colleges of Cambridge University.  There is a marble memorial in the college chapel to one of the university's and college's major benefactors: a Tobias Rustat.  An activist group wants the memorial removed from the chapel because it upsets them. They assert that his money was 'dirty': that he made his fortune from the slave trade. He was an investor in the Royal Africa Company - a major shipper of slaves to the West Indies.  However, if one checks the facts (I trust Wikipedia here) one finds that he made his fortune because he was a courtier in the court of Charles II, who was the 'Royal' behind the Royal Africa Company. The slave trading was largely run by Charles's brother James (who became James II).  Rustat did play some role in the Royal Africa Company (as a courtier to Charles II it is likely that the King expected him to) but Wikipedia estimates that less than 2% of his wealth came from it. A position at a monarch's court was, in those corrupt times, a guarantee that one would become rich. It seems that the college activists have been spreading much misinformation about Rustat, according to recent reports.

 

As the Royal Africa Company had the King's backing, (and much of his investments) then surely every art gallery in Britain should be removing every portrait of Charles II, and his brother James, and putting them out of sight in the basement.