-
The erasing history was frustrating. I tried to give current examples of actually erasing history - eg the repetition of the statement that Britain was the first country to abolish slavery.
Part of the challenge is I think that these arguments come from an emotional place of a feeling of loss and attack. Being attacked triggers a base response which is hard to defused. Is the best way to counteract that to explain that there is no loss? The problem there is that once the primeval part of your brain is engaged you need an emotional angle - ideally another fear or danger. The status quo self evidently can't provide that.
(thinking aloud here).
@Dramatic_Hammer - I reckon Saville is the one to use. Hilter comes across as too extreme on the balance sheet of history.
hugo7-
Don’t think even for a second that the abolition of slavery had anything to do with humanity.. in fact it wasn’t even an overnight transition on Britain’s part, the word gradual comes to mind.
Look at our colonial history, America’s independence, the industrial revolution, the machine age.
Slaves just became obsolete, it’s not what we were taunt in school in the 80s, might be different today. William Wilberforce credited for the change through Parliament, but not at the expense of those in power.
-
Part of the challenge is I think that these arguments come from an emotional place of a feeling of loss and attack.
Totally agree with this, especially with older people who have few things they hold dear. Kind of want to write more about my dad but feel like it's too much personal information.
almac68
hoefla
Well, the Bristol statue was really just a kind of starting-gun. It was an event that broke the mould of how these things usually happen, but you don't keep firing the starting-gun throughout the race, is how I'd put it.
Sometimes in politics, you need someone to cut the proverbial Gordian knot; in fact, this happens in politics all the time, although mostly in repressive and negative ways. If a powerless rabble does it, it's pretty startling, and no more right or wrong than when those in power do it, but it can be pretty inspiring, and let's face it, it's rare enough.
This is a nonsensical argument, of course. Nobody's doing that. The only historical act that's getting negated is the act of those who put up the statue, which in most cases will be some town dignitaries gathered to cut a ribbon or pull down a cloth covering the statue to unveil it. These are not important historical acts, but what goes with them is the ignorance and partiality that causes those enacting them to disregard the damage done to the exploited. Obviously, there's also a good deal of damage to the sculptor's work, but there you go.
I'm still chuckling over the Confederate statue that 'sucks so much ass it inadvertently subverts white supremacy' and should therefore remain, in the opinion of one on-line commenter.