|
|
|
Cancel culture
- Thread starter jc100
- Start date
I see some worried about rampant victimization. Are you simultaneously worried about being victimized by "cancel culture" ? 
Societal norms change. If you are saying dumb ****, stop it. If you said dumb **** 30 years ago, self-reflect and move on. If you said dumb **** on video 30 years ago and are somehow famous enough for anyone to give a **** - self-reflect, apologize for it, and move on. It's not hard.
Get with it or get out of the way
Societal norms change. If you are saying dumb ****, stop it. If you said dumb **** 30 years ago, self-reflect and move on. If you said dumb **** on video 30 years ago and are somehow famous enough for anyone to give a **** - self-reflect, apologize for it, and move on. It's not hard.
Get with it or get out of the way
Some people go with the apology without the self-reflection nor any change in future behaviour. Some do this over and over with no change in behaviour but a string of apologies longer than Pinocchio's nose. Those people deserve everything they get. For whatever reason, society allows some people to get away with numerous infractions and others get torpedoed for a single bad idea long ago. That's the real problem imo. Torpedo them based on a lack of change in behaviour, not based on the past action (I am referring to bad taste when viewed through the current lens not horrible crimes).
Priller
Well-known member
I totally get where you're coming from, but I think if you get past the instinctive resistance to the things we held as unmovable suddenly being questioned, it quickly gets a lot more nuanced than that. History is a complex study, with much of it based on interpretation rather than simple facts. A lot of what we were taught is either downright wrong, or at best omits some pretty large elements. See Columbus, for example. Whether he actually did all the awful stuff he was accused of (contemporaneously, to be fair), or whether it was the product of anti-Catholic sentiment in Northern Europe (particularly England), at a minimum there's a lot more complexity to the story than a guy who showed that the earth was round. For starters, most already knew the earth was round...
First off, yes, absolutely, undoubtedly, if it did come out that Jack Layton led what you say, he absolutely should be scrubbed from all the stuff named after him, and with vigour. That wouldn't be a new phenomenon or an example of 'woke' cancel culture, but rather a retrospective change in our collective understanding of who he was and how he should be remembered. I don't think that would be controversial at all, nor would it have been 40 years ago.
And to your second example, there are some huge contextual issues that make slavery in the ancient world (and Rome in particular) so different from the slavery practised in the 16th through 19th centuries, particularly in the Americas. Almost all evidence suggests the ancient Romans didn't see race in the same way we do, with recorded prejudices being about where people were from rather than specific racial cues in the way we see them today. This means their version of slavery wasn't comparable to the version that is a stain particularly on American history, which was rooted specifically in the belief that African and indiginous people were intrinsically lesser than Europeans. Where the ancient Romans would enslave people from anywhere as long as they had been conquered (which was hardly unique to them at that time), and it was entirely possible to become a freedman under the right circumstances, the slavery practised in the colonies was specific to the colour of a person's skin and an irrevocable status as an object (rather than subject) therein. That makes it massively different, both in the modern and contemporary context. At the time, so many people had decided that American racial slavery was immoral that it was the primary reason for a bloody civil war. Hardly anybody in the ancient Mediterranean world was arguing against slavery, with most of the debate revolving instead around poor treatment of slaves. One interesting ongoing debate is whether Julius Caesar's invasion of central and northern Gaul and Belgium were genocidal, considering the millions who died as a result. Again, he was criticised fiercely at the time, though it's always hard to parse the political outrage from the true moral outrage.
Some figures in the news lately are much more complex than Confederate Generals who fought to maintain an economic system almost entirely based on enslavement of people due to their pigmentation, though. Churchill, MacDonald, Ryerson, Dundas, all have some pretty dark moments in history tied to their names. Whether it's a questionable response to the deaths of thousands (or millions) due to famine in the cases of MacDonald or Churchill, or involvement in legislation that resulted in some pretty heavy duty suffering in the cases of Ryerson and Dundas, there's some pretty big areas of grey there. Weirdly, the only one I'm in support of scrubbing is Dundas, and mostly because the consensus is he was just a career politician more interested in political maneuvering than building any sort of legacy. His actions on slavery are mixed, again likely because he only cared about power rather than any sort of moral stance, and what he built is negligible beyond political expediency. At least Churchill, MacDonald and Ryerson have positive legacies to balance their potentially negative ones...
Applying modern understandings of morality to historical figures is ridiculous, but if someone was considered awful by their contemporaries, it gets a lot more complex. At a minimum, I think it only highlights the need for a better history curriculum in schools that works more in nuance than certainty. And building statues of people and holding them up as paragons is a dangerous game, as all of us have human failings...
Many early proponents of universal healthcare were also strong proponents of eugenics, and that a universal healthcare system could be used as a means to carry out eugenics programs. Eugenics in general was actually a popular belief in the 30s until the Nazis ran wild with it during WW2. After '45 a lot of those previously held beliefs were quietly swept under the rug.
Why wait for any dirt to show up on Layton? Cancel him now on account of him and his wife living in subsidized housing with a combined income probably north of $400K.
Layton is like JT. The number of fanboys in their camp and commensurate slipperiness in the face of ethical violations is shocking. It's the opposite of a moron getting drunk and yelling something offensive and getting fired (potentially with life long consequences). These turds normally escape any consequences and if they are are administered they are meaningless (eg. $500 fine for every ethics conviction when the number should be at least a few orders of magnitude higher for the first conviction and going up exponentially from there).
Last edited:
@Priller, your response is very well written and your an educated guy. You present some excellent counterpoints.
My take ( possibly oversimplified) , is while the Romans didnt pick on the blacks, like the Americans , British, Dutch and Belgians did, they enslaved anyone they conquered. Anyone that wasn't Roman. They may have just used a broader brush.
I'm fascinated by history and I think we need to learn and understand from it, not obliterate it. If its wiped from all visibility we may have the opportunity repeat the same mistakes. The old adage 'history repeats itself' may never have been more relevant, specially when there is no visible reminder of what happened last time.
The Utopians scare me.
My take ( possibly oversimplified) , is while the Romans didnt pick on the blacks, like the Americans , British, Dutch and Belgians did, they enslaved anyone they conquered. Anyone that wasn't Roman. They may have just used a broader brush.
I'm fascinated by history and I think we need to learn and understand from it, not obliterate it. If its wiped from all visibility we may have the opportunity repeat the same mistakes. The old adage 'history repeats itself' may never have been more relevant, specially when there is no visible reminder of what happened last time.
The Utopians scare me.
He lost and is now fighting for his career. Party wants blood and he’s the easiest target.
He's also a reasonable target. He proved that he didn't have what it takes to win and nothing he has done since has provided any evidence that things would be different if he led another election (which could happen at any time).
Priller
Well-known member
Yes, but what I think I really failed to get across in my overly complex response is that slavery in the ancient world was fluid and could apply to anyone, as selling yourself into slavery was something people did to get out of debt or avoid starvation.
Conversely, buying your way out of slavery was possible for some, as was gaining freedom either out of appreciation from an owner or on their death if they willed it. This all assumes a decent situation (it wasn't all cheery, though, as some slavery roles like mining were usually about literally working people to death). Some freedmen went on to do quite well for themselves, including a huge villa we saw in Herculaneum that preserved court documents show was owned by an ex-slave.
The primary difference with colonial slavery was that people were permanently enslaved purely because of their race/ethnicity/skin colour, and not only was there no hope of being freed, it was often believed by those in control that their biological inferiority made enslavement a natural role ordained by God. This is a huge practical contrast that totally changes the shape of the conversation, and also resonates much differently today for someone of African ancestry who would have been automatically enslaved simply because of their genetic makeup.
That's not a broader brush, it's an entirely different set of rules...
I couldn't agree more, though it's important to understand that much of our common belief around history is coloured by past assumptions that are now often well outside consensus academic belief.
A good example is the so-called 'Dark Ages', which is now known to be a much more vibrant era than once assumed. The lack of written record compared to Imperial Rome, as well as some assumptions formed at a time when in was in vogue among many historians to venerate the classical pagan world (Gibbons being the most obvious example), resulted in a story being told about the Middle Ages that have mostly been discarded by modern historians. As I stated earlier, 'history' is moving target based on a lot of interpretation. Sources are notoriously unreliable (and often written with political agendas), often not contemporary, and we bring all sorts of unconscious cultural baggage to our understanding.
And erecting statues of political figures was a form of propaganda in ancient Rome that came to be aped in Europe and elsewhere later. Augustus had more statues than anyone in history as far as we know, and all were expressions of his power. By erecting a statue of a political person, the implication is that these people are to be venerated, and that adds a layer of complexity to how we record some very flawed individuals.
Also, renaming Dundas doesn't wipe out history, as I guarantee almost nobody had a clue who he was at any point, and the last time I saw a statue of John A. was at Parliament Hill, and it changed nothing about what little I know about him.
I guess my point is that while it's really important to preserve history, and not throw everything out just because our understanding has changed, it's equally important not to simply oppose change by default. Doing that is just as dishonest as projecting modern morality onto historical figures.
Me too, but so do those who believe 'fend for yourself' is a productive social model...
There's one in Gore Park at King and John in Hamilton. It was defaced a few weeks ago.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Priller
Well-known member
So there is! I've driven past it a bunch, but never noticed who it was.There's one in Gore Park at King and John in Hamilton. It was defaced a few weeks ago.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
As an aside, I love how the Google algorithm has fuzzed out his face...
In another take on history repeating itself, highway 6 in Caledonia is closed again in this weeks uprising.
The OPP have been sued several times now, successfully by residents and business owners over access to homes, disruption of business. It gets settled quickly since its not actually the OPP's money ......
The OPP have been sued several times now, successfully by residents and business owners over access to homes, disruption of business. It gets settled quickly since its not actually the OPP's money ......
Is this what you really meant?
Mostly. Not just him but he is the most egregious current example. Trying to avoid thread lock for political commentary. Lets be honest, the colour of your political banner has very little to do with your ethics/morality.
Imma just leave this here
www.news18.com
JK Rowling Excluded from 'Harry Potter Reunion' Show on HBO, Fans Express Solidarity - News18
The author of the Harry Potter series, JK Rowling, was criticised on social media a few months ago due to comments that were deemed harmful for the transgender community.
www.news18.com
|
|
|
|
|