Gryzemuis on 12/6/2020 at 14:36
There is one sentiment where I probably kinda agree with Icemann.
It's just words. People are now fighting over words. Over symbols. Over images. This whole BLM thing started because innocent people were killed. Frequently. Without trial, without jury. By the police. Just because they did something small (like "a broken taillight"), and because they were black. George Floyd is dead.
But now the problem is that the old colonel in Fawlty towers (a character, played by an actor) has said "wogs". BAN FAWLTY TOWERS ! Here in NL we now want to tear down all statues of our old sea-heroes. Sure, they were pirates, they were murderers, they did a lot of things wrong. They were racists too. But so was 99.9% of the people at the time. I read that Churchill's statue in London is now under attack. WTF ? Something different but related, is that JK Rowling is now under attack because she has said "sex is real". I wish transgenders (and everybody else) the best, I do. But in a way, if we all are going to pretend that sex isn't real, we've just culture-cancelled feminism. And the feminism-battle is far from won yet. Do you really wanna do that ?
And again, the fight these days seems mostly about words and symbols. I don't know why. Maybe because that allows for nice tweets and cool pictures on Instagram ? I'm more left-wing than most people, and getting more extreme every year. The real problem in the world is money. Inequality of wealth and income. You know, capitalism ("everyone without money can go fuck themselves"), the 1% (aka the new aristocracy). But nobody talks about that. Racism and race-inequality is largely caused by poverty. But in the US, everybody thinks that helping poor people is socialism. "Helping poor people is bad, Jesus would never have helped poor people !". Supposedly we should accept the fact that poor people can only be helped by the rich people doing charity ("thank you masta for your kind heart"). Not because together we do useful and good things with our tax money. Nope. Doing things together is "socialism". Can't have that. Can't have proper education for all kids. Can't have proper healthcare for everybody. Can't have decent housing for poor people.
That's the real problem. Money. I don't really care about words. But it looks like everybody else does. Politicians don't want to talk about inequality, because it won't get them votes. Voters don't want to talk about it, because .... I really don't know why the voters don't seem to care.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 14:47
Gryz: there's more nuance to some of these issues than you're talking about, and I'd prefer if you do that groundwork first. The (
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313) JK Rowling thing, specifically, relates to her not understanding that trans people menstruate as well; it's not as simple as 'sex is a thing'.
We've addressed products of their time and place in the previous pages. I think most of us are being reasonable - what do people want to do about problematic media? There's an entire flowchart of possibilities we've already discussed.
Jeshibu on 12/6/2020 at 14:58
Quote Posted by icemann
Please, listen to people when they talk to you - See this one I do. It's just that I have the habit of not responding to specific stuff they have said (like Sulphur said earlier). This I plan to work on.
I got bullied badly in high school many decades ago, and ever since I go into a stubborn headspace in debates / arguments. Rather than avoid them, I've been using them as a way to try and advance and be able to have a proper confrontation and not go into that place. It's the only situation where I'm a bit of a nutcase, and I freely admit that.
I lost it, after reading Thirith's post. That post was just brutal harsh and cut deep. I don't normally react like that. But this place just holds a special connection for me, since I've been here so long. If this'd been on the RPS forums, or Facebook or whatever I'd have been like meh whatever, but when it's stuff said dating back years then it cuts deeper.
It's good that you acknowledge the problem, and I hope this helps you work on it. For all our sakes, but especially yours.
Since you say this is such a deep-rooted issue going back to childhood bullying, I think you would benefit enormously from therapy. I know people say this in jest or as a putdown, but I promise this is heartfelt advice.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
There is one sentiment where I probably kinda agree with Icemann.
It's just words. People are now fighting over words. Over symbols. Over images. This whole BLM thing started because innocent people were killed. Frequently. Without trial, without jury. By the police. Just because they did something small (like "a broken taillight"), and because they were black. George Floyd is dead.
But now the problem is that the old colonel in Fawlty towers (a character, played by an actor) has said "wogs". BAN FAWLTY TOWERS ! Here in NL we now want to tear down all statues of our old sea-heroes. Sure, they were pirates, they were murderers, they did a lot of things wrong. They were racists too. But so was 99.9% of the people at the time. I read that Churchill's statue in London is now under attack. WTF ? Something different but related, is that JK Rowling is now under attack because she has said "sex is real". I wish transgenders (and everybody else) the best, I do. But in a way, if we all are going to pretend that sex isn't real, we've just culture-cancelled feminism. And the feminism-battle is far from won yet. Do you really wanna do that ?
And again, the fight these days seems mostly about words and symbols. I don't know why. Maybe because that allows for nice tweets and cool pictures on Instagram ? I'm more left-wing than most people, and getting more extreme every year. The real problem in the world is money. Inequality of wealth and income. You know, capitalism ("everyone without money can go fuck themselves"), the 1% (aka the new aristocracy). But nobody talks about that. Racism and race-inequality is largely caused by poverty. But in the US, everybody thinks that helping poor people is socialism. "Helping poor people is bad, Jesus would never have helped poor people !". Supposedly we should accept the fact that poor people can only be helped by the rich people doing charity ("thank you masta for your kind heart"). Not because together we do useful and good things with our tax money. Nope. Doing things together is "socialism". Can't have that. Can't have proper education for all kids. Can't have proper healthcare for everybody. Can't have decent housing for poor people.
That's the real problem. Money. I don't really care about words. But it looks like everybody else does. Politicians don't want to talk about inequality, because it won't get them votes. Voters don't want to talk about it, because .... I really don't know why the voters don't seem to care.
I don't think Fawlty Towers should be banned, but the statues really do have it coming. Monsters should not be venerated in public. "Everyone did it" is an indictment of those times, not an excuse to keep honoring mass-murderous assholes.
You're right that a lot of it is just symbolic politics that don't do much for the average joe, but I'm not sure those are related. The right has been in power for ages now in the Netherlands, and has been on an upswing for the past decade or two worldwide.
Harvester on 12/6/2020 at 15:12
I don't think Rowling's snarky tweets are the best way of going about these things. She has written an (
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/) essay about how she feels about the issue. The subject is very sensitive and I'm still in the learning process of becoming more sensitive about trans and feminist issues so any opinion I could voice would come from a place of limited knowledge. According to trans activists Rowling gets it massively wrong, and for now I'm going to take their word for it.
However, there were some side points in the essay that triggered a response in me. She said that some activists now refer to cis women as 'menstruators' or 'people with vulvas' and that this kind of language comes across as hostile and alien to some women. Now I know people are trying to be inclusive, but to be honest, I can also see why being referred to by these terms bothers some women. Rowling also says she get hundreds of e-mails of women saying they feel threatened by modern activists, and assuming Rowling isn't lying and while maybe there really isn't much cause for feeling threatened, I do think we shouldn't dismiss
these women's feelings immediately either. At least listen to why they feel that way.
But overall, I think Rowling would do wise to lay low and apologize for any (maybe unintended, but still) mental harm caused by her careless remarks.
Jeshibu on 12/6/2020 at 15:47
Quote Posted by icemann
Maybe I'm being stubborn on the topic (as I've been known to be). But I just feel that racism is subjective. Offensive content is subjective. All down to the individual. That's all I was trying to say. If you, or someone else finds something offensive no worries. But what is wrong, or right changes with time, which was why I used the Song of the South example earlier as that at the point in time that it was made was not deemed racist, where as now it TOTALLY is. And that is completely justified. I just think that such things should not be removed for people to view.
Have a opening bit at the start explaining exactly what's wrong with it, what the views were back then, why it's wrong now. Etc etc. Then have it shown as is.
On symbols, take the Nazi symbol. It's origins pre-date the Nazi's back to (according to (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) Wikipedia) Hinduism. It was NEVER intended as a source of evil and racism, but now it is as the Nazi's used it. Things change. If you had a movie produced prior to the rise of Nazi's with the symbol in use, but then it was viewed today with our knowledge of what happened after. Is that racism? And that's an open question, I'm not going in there with an assumed answer. I'm curious as to opinions there.
Song of the South was always racist. Yes, cultural attitudes towards racism change, but that just means that racism was more acceptable then and there, not that it was not racist for the time. At least, supposing we accept that we are more correct about what is and is not racist than we were in the past. I don't really want to have to specify that with every discussion:
"Hey bro that's totally racist (USA 2020)"
"Nah bro it's not racist (DE 1934)"
The other thing you mention, the Swastika and the definition of words, is just accrued baggage for symbols being deemed too excessive. The Swastika and words like "retard" or "negro" have gotten negative connotations that they didn't always have. That doesn't mean much, and shouldn't result in the censoring of uses of that word/symbol from before that baggage was attached (or way elsewhere like Swastikas in south Asia).
Thirith on 12/6/2020 at 15:53
Quote Posted by icemann
But what is wrong, or right changes with time, which was why I used the Song of the South example earlier as that at the point in time that it was made was not deemed racist, where as now it TOTALLY is. And that is completely justified. I just think that such things should not be removed for people to view.
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were protests at the time. And the reasons *why* the film is racist were racist back then. What has changed isn't whether the film is racist or not, it's whether people with power or money or the ability to speak their minds care enough or not. If you are truly interested in the issue, there's a very well researched, well written podcast series called
You Must Remember This that did an entire season on
Song of the South. But saying that the film wasn't racist at the time is naive, ignorant or disingenuous. You tell me.
What you're saying is akin to, if not quite as bad as, saying that in the 1930s Germans not liking Jews was just what things were like, and obviously we think that's offensive now, and that's perfectly justified, but- No. Because these things are not just attitudes or opinions. They feed into social systems, they create social realities, and that was the case 'back then' as much as it is now. Apart from anything else, the views you've expressed in this thread on what history was like are largely ahistorical. If you want to use history to back up your argument, you need to know history better.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 15:55
Quote Posted by icemann
On symbols, take the Nazi symbol. It's origins pre-date the Nazi's back to (according to (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) Wikipedia) Hinduism. It was NEVER intended as a source of evil and racism, but now it is as the Nazi's used it. Things change. If you had a movie produced prior to the rise of Nazi's with the symbol in use, but then it was viewed today with our knowledge of what happened after. Is that racism? And that's an open question, I'm not going in there with an assumed answer. I'm curious as to opinions there.
Sigh.
The swastika that the Nazis adopted was, firstly, reversed, which shows you how well they got things. We still use the swastika today, dude. You'll find it swinging from a rickshaw mirror in India from time to time amongst other places. It's not changed its meaning in its original culture because racists made a bad copy of it.
Not only did the Nazis attempt to co-opt a religious symbol that has
nothing to do with race or Nordic superiority, the entire Nazi ideology was (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration#%22Aryan_invasion%22) based on a racist colonial theory to justify the UK's stance on occupying India. I don't need to tell you it's not true, but then you can't be too sure in this the year of our lord 2020. (
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/09/06/new-study-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory.html) Evidence.
Fingernail on 12/6/2020 at 16:01
Big topic. Not going to solve it with this post for sure!
On Fawlty Towers for instance, is the Major celebrated for his views? I think if anything the show makes him out to be a daft old bugger and all his views are portrayed as fairly questionable. And when Basil attacks the Germans, or is shocked to see a black doctor, I've always thought the joke was how intolerant he was. The problem with this kind of humour though, is that it also works for people who think it's fun to make light of Hitler to Germans, or that it is shocking to see a black doctor. Maybe that's what some people laugh at. It's a tricky one. Another programme recently removed was the League of Gentlemen, which has the Papa Lazarou character, which is an example of blackface, but I've always thought more of a mockery of the style of blackface rather than an attempt to portray an actual black person. I suppose this still could be offensive, however. I do think it's in a different League (alol) to Little Britain and its ilk though.
In terms of Gone With the Wind, I think there's little doubt that it romanticises and even celebrates a vision of the old South (which is not a realistic portrayal of history anyway), and I think black people may well have considered that offensive then as well, but either didn't have the voice to express it (any who actually would have had a platform to speak, eg. actors, would have had to be extremely careful about speaking out on such issues for the sake of their careers), or were so used to such portrayals that it wasn't viewed as unusual. That doesn't mean they weren't hurt or offended, or that it didn't do damage. The damage in that case is also related to the white audience's perception of that period of history, because despite the fact that educated people might "know" it's not accurate, powerful stories really get under people's skin and do meld their perceptions. And yes, even a "positive" portrayal such as Mammy does damage (ooh look first black woman to win an Oscar, clap clap clap), and all the happy slaves... it's not great however you look at it.
Icemann, you say about Song of the South not being deemed racist at the time... by who? Who had a voice at that time to express such opinions? Who would have dared? And did they think it would accomplish anything? Best not get uppity, after all. I think when you're an oppressed minority you probably have to pick your battles, and maybe at that time there were bigger issues around segregation to worry about rather than portrayal in the media.
Gryzemuis on 12/6/2020 at 16:02
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
the statues really do have it coming. Monsters should not be venerated in public. "Everyone did it" is an indictment of those times, not an excuse to keep honoring mass-murderous assholes.
If you want to do something against "mass-murderous assholes", then let's put Henry Kissinger in jail (because Vietnam and because Cambodja). Let's put GW Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney in jail (because Iraq, and in a way, also IS and Syria). Heck, put Obama and Hillary in jail for letting the whole mess in Libya and Syria happen under their watch.
That would be real action. That would have a real impact. On today's politics, and on tomorrow's politics.
But no. Let's tear down old statues. Like that's gonna help.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Gryz: there's more nuance to some of these issues than you're talking about, and I'd prefer if you do that groundwork first. The (
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313) JK Rowling thing, specifically, relates to her not understanding that trans people menstruate as well; it's not as simple as 'sex is a thing'.
I admit that I just read about the Rowling thing 10 minutes before posting this.
I'm not going to look into the issue, because I really couldn't care less about transgender issues. Again, I wish everybody all the luck and prosperity and freedom in the world. But I don't think transgender issues should dominate national news. To me, a lot of these "new left" issues are just issues to keep the people distracted from the real problem: wealth inequality. Everybody probably means well, but they don't seem to realize they are being used as a distraction from the real important issues.
You mention the word "nuance". The thing with the counter-culture is that it seems that as soon as you don't fully agree with today's populair opinion, or use the wrong linguo, or make any misstep, you are directly placed in the camp of the enemy. Without nuance. "Either you are 100% with us, or you are against us". There seems so little room for discussion. So little room for nuances. Now the right-wing media have picked up on this. And they exaggerate it. But imho there is some truth to it.
Like I said, I'm more left-wing than most people. But I think that if I have to discuss with current-day progressive people, they will very quickly call me an old right-wing fascist. And there will be no opportunities for nuances. Probably more so in the US, but I think even in NL we're going into that direction.
Fingernail on 12/6/2020 at 16:06
Gryzemuis, bit of Whataboutery, we can take down statues AND work towards better things in politics.
Interesting article about the Edward Colston statue that was torn down here: (
https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/?fbclid=IwAR1kOXRiIFBvNnYgCyT-OO_18KKUcvyc-8ry9tKkgWVLpG2B0Aj3M_pMZzY)
Turns out it was a struggle for them to raise the funds to erect it even in Victorian times (170 years after his death btw), there was a certain amount of invention of his myth to suit the mores of the day, and the campaign to remove it or alter the plaque has been going on for years without success (the so-called "legitimate" means certain politicians were encouraging everyone to use).
