Cancel Culture?

[Elen1107]

On 7/5/2020 at 1:50 PM, JosephM said:

On the lighter side ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,    Joseph  😃😄

I went and looked up this on Ben Franklin 

How does this all work for one who has changed and "turned the corner" so to speak?

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/slavery-abolition-society/

[Elen1107]

The person that always "gets" me on this topic is George Washington. Yes he "owned" people. Yes this is terrible and horrible.

At the same time, he is "The man who would not be king". Looking at this from today's perspective and with a legacy and/or heritage of 250 years of democracy one might feel like; yeah well... so what. But try to see what it meant at the time.

That was all there was; the divine right of kings, pharos, emperors, czars, what have you.

To me it seems like it was a real and big thing that G.W. did that and that it does say something about the man.

Thanks for reading

[Elen1107]

I'm thinking that I might agree with Joe Biden on this subject, that some of these statues of people who really fought to maintain slavery should moved to a museum or something. I think that I myself might be offended by them if I had to walk past them every day on my way to school or work or something, & I myself don't have any ancestry that was in bondage that I know of, (though I do have some ancestors that were servants, which was much more like slavery than people nower days realize).

The thing is how far do we take this sort of thing? Slavery has existed in many cultures on most contents since before written history. There are prophets and patriarchs that have "owned" people. King Solomon and Mohamad "owned" people and never set them free during their lifetimes. 

Do we rip down all the churches and mosques and temples that talk about and refer to these people? 

Do we rip down Michelangelo's statue of David in the Louvre? There are somethings that stand as art, whether people like that person or not.  

Just some thoughts. Thanks for reading

[PaulS]

They are all good points Ellen.  It might be a bit simplistic but I see people around this matter in three broad groups - those that are happy with the status quo (which personally I think is becoming an out-of-date way of looking at the matter), those that will never be happy no matter how far things are taken (and probably sit in the group who are violent and destructive), and those that sit somewhere in the middle that perhaps say "we recognize that things can still be improved when it comes to race relations.  Things are better, but they could still be improved - let's have the discussion".  Personally, I'd like to see that group prevail.

From my personal experience, I have found many people who feel agitated, angry, or distressed about something, really just want to be heard.  I think there is a large element of the black community in the US and the indigenous community in Australia, that just want to be 'heard' on these matters.  To have their hurt and offence recognized.  To feel like they can be respected rather than ignored or expected to 'harden up' over history.  I don't think it is a big ask and perhaps is an even greater demonstration of who is the bigger person for those who currently argue to keep such memorials and statues, to recognize that letting go could in many ways help heal and bring people together.

[Elen1107]

On 7/21/2020 at 6:41 AM, PaulS said:

They are all good points Ellen.  It might be a bit simplistic but I see people around this matter in three broad groups - those that are happy with the status quo (which personally I think is becoming an out-of-date way of looking at the matter), those that will never be happy no matter how far things are taken (and probably sit in the group who are violent and destructive), and those that sit somewhere in the middle that perhaps say "we recognize that things can still be improved when it comes to race relations.  Things are better, but they could still be improved - let's have the discussion".  Personally, I'd like to see that group prevail.

 

I agree, we should have the discussion. I think that one of the goals of the discussion(s) should be that all peoples should be able to have a decent, healthy, stable and celebrated future. No one should feel bad about who they are, and no one should feel like their identity should be buried alive or not allowed to exist.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:41 AM, PaulS said:

From my personal experience, I have found many people who feel agitated, angry, or distressed about something, really just want to be heard.  I think there is a large element of the black community in the US and the indigenous community in Australia, that just want to be 'heard' on these matters.  To have their hurt and offence recognized.  To feel like they can be respected rather than ignored or expected to 'harden up' over history.  I don't think it is a big ask and perhaps is an even greater demonstration of who is the bigger person for those who currently argue to keep such memorials and statues, to recognize that letting go could in many ways help heal and bring people together.

I'm wondering if there might be more hard feelings than that, but I see what you are saying. People should certainly be heard.

I've been wondering what I would want done to or with a statue of Hitler, if I had the choice and the opportunity. Don't know if I'd destroy it, but I certainly wouldn't celebrate or glorify it either, NO, not ever!

---------------

What I get from white people in the American south is that they are genuinely afraid of being overwhelmed. Is this fear justified? With mass immigration to the US and Europe does this add to the concern or this issue?

This is a big topic. The US is only about the size of Brazil, and Europe is not one of the earth's bigger contents. Are these real concerns here? Is this something that needs to be addressed along with the other issues?

---------------

Apologies for not getting back to this reply of yours to me sooner. I only have so many comments in a 24 hr. period and I got caught up in an exchange on another thread. Also your comment didn't come up in my notifications as "quoting" me, those tend to be the comments that I try to follow up on first. Maybe I'll change my approach on this.

Thanks again for reading

[PaulS]

On 7/22/2020 at 11:36 PM, Elen1107 said:

Apologies for not getting back to this reply of yours to me sooner. I only have so many comments in a 24 hr. period and I got caught up in an exchange on another thread. Also your comment didn't come up in my notifications as "quoting" me, those tend to be the comments that I try to follow up on first. Maybe I'll change my approach on this.

No stress.  Sometimes I go days at a time without checking in, so I hardly expect others to respond or contribute immediately.

[Elen1107]

16 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No stress.  Sometimes I go days at a time without checking in, so I hardly expect others to respond or contribute immediately.

It seems that I've also got to avoid making short little replies that just say I got a person's comment or just say that I agree with them or something.

I feel like I've got to save them for when I really have a lot to say, or something with a bunch of content. So if I sometimes appear to be discourteous, Sorry

I'm still trying to figure this all out.

I think I've also been trying to play a bit of the other side of the coin here on this thread, perhaps it been a perspective that I myself didn't see at one time and I'm trying to figure out it's value. Don't ness. know what I think about it myself  

Edited July 24, 2020 by Elen1107
added last paragraph

[JosephM]

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

 

[Burl]

Cancel Culture is bullying plain and simple.  

[Elen1107]

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

 

My question is, are some of these statues really doing no harm?

I'm going to assume for right now that you are Italian or have an Italian heritage because of your name. Say there was an ideology that said that Italians should be enslaved and that the enslavement of Italians was ok. Say there was a statue in the middle of your town of a big hero who advocated for and fought for the enslavement of Italians. Everyday you wake up and think about where you are and the town you live in, and you think of that statue. Would this effect you in a negative way? Would you find this something you could ignore? Is it ignorable?  Would this effect the quality of your life? Is this really doing no harm?

PS I do not believe in or advocate the enslavement of Italians or any other people, this is just a big what if so people might understand how that might feel and how it effects people. One could insert any heritage in that place  in order to make the same point.

I do agree that there are people who get offended by everything and anything, and they actually seem to be going around looking for things to be offended by. Some of this mentality may be part of the Cancel Culture mentality. But in terms of certain statues and say, the Confederate Flag, they may well have a good point that should be understood and looked at.

Thanks for reading

Edited July 24, 2020 by Elen1107

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

My question is, are some of these statues really doing no harm?

I'm going to assume for right now that you are Italian or have an Italian heritage because of your name. Say there was an ideology that said that Italians should be enslaved and that the enslavement of Italians was ok. Say there was a statue in the middle of your town of a big hero who advocated for and fought for the enslavement of Italians. Everyday you wake up and think about where you are and the town you live in, and you think of that statue. Would this effect you in a negative way? Would you find this something you could ignore? Is it ignorable?  Would this effect the quality of your life? Is this really doing no harm?

PS I do not believe in or advocate the enslavement of Italians or any other people, this is just a big what if so people might understand how that might feel and how it effects people. One could insert any heritage in that place  in order to make the same point.

I do agree that there are people who get offended by everything and anything, and they actually seem to be going around looking for things to be offended by. Some of this mentality may be part of the Cancel Culture mentality. But in terms of certain statues and say, the Confederate Flag, they may well have a good point that should be understood and looked at.

Thanks for reading

First of all i am a human being. Second i am an American and of least importance i am an Italian. To me my ethnic background is of trivial importance to me at this stage of life. A statue if historical, does no harm to me and if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated. . In your hypothetical my answer would be i would be wisest to get over it and  i would benefit by ignoring and not giving the inanimate object power over me. 

In America we have freedom of speech and expression and that goes whether i agree with what is being expressed or not. If my neighbor wants to fly the Confederate flag next door, that is his right that i paid for with 4 years of my life. I don't have to agree with him but i respect his right to express himself. However, If he brings physical harm to my house i will exercise my rights that i sacrificed 4 years for to bring an end to his/her harm.

What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.

[Elen1107]

34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

First of all i am a human being. Second i am an American and of least importance i am an Italian. To me my ethnic background is of trivial importance to me at this stage of life. A statue if historical, does no harm to me and if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated. . In your hypothetical my answer would be i would be wisest to get over it and  i would benefit by ignoring and not giving the inanimate object power over me. 

 

Ok, what if this was done to Americans. There was some flag and some statues that basically stood for the enslavement of Americans and that the enslavement of Americans was ok and just a fine thing to do. This flag was on the top of most state capital buildings, public squares and was being hung on a number of your neighbors front porches. How would you feel about it then?

You say that, "if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated". Thing is this guy, and many of these statues, are set up to show that this was a really great guy and a real and true hero. He's a wonderful man and someone who should be respected and honored. Not a symbol of how this and these things should "not be repeated". There is a real difference here.

What if it was the Nazi flag that was being hung half of everywhere you had to go to get through your daily life? Or statues of Hitler, making him look like such a wonderful and glorious person? Would you be ok with that? It's "free speech" on the same principals that you qualify it.

35 minutes ago, JosephM said:

In America we have freedom of speech and expression and that goes whether i agree with what is being expressed or not. If my neighbor wants to fly the Confederate flag next door, that is his right that i paid for with 4 years of my life. I don't have to agree with him but i respect his right to express himself. However, If he brings physical harm to my house i will exercise my rights that i sacrificed 4 years for to bring an end to his/her harm.

 

I'm assuming that you served in the armed services. Thank you for your service. Can I ask when you served and what conflict(s) you might have served in?

We have free speech in this country, but there are also limits to that free speech. Things like; criminal threatening, inciting a riot, slander, defamation of character, bearing false witness and hate speech. If a statue or a flag rubs or touches on all these things, should it be flown or left standing in public?

35 minutes ago, JosephM said:

What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.

I agree with you here. Question is, what things are making ethnicity and heritage stand out and become more important than our common humanity? Is it the objections to the confederate flag, or the flag itself?

[thormas]

4 hours ago, Burl said:

Cancel Culture is bullying plain and simple.  

I know - the trumpeter's cult use it that way to bludgeon the opinions of others :+}

[thormas]

7 hours ago, JosephM said:

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

It is obvious that many black men and women (and numerous white men and women) find certain statues a celebration or commemoration and reminder of slavery and those long dead who fought to keep their ancestors slaves. In addition, as has been established, many of these statues were erected during the Jim Crow era.  Were they put up simply to 'remember history' or, given what Jim Crow was, did the statues make a further statement? Do they make that same statement (the wrong statement and one harmful to the country) today for some who march for white power and wear Nazi symbols? 

This is not a matter of over sensitivity or offense at 'the slightest thing' ....... such a comment in itself does harm. Such a statement is over simplistic. 

The statues 'do harm' to many of your (our) fellow citizens! Would it cause you equal or greater harm to allow these statues and the flag to be removed and placed in a museum of HISTORY?  

Whose harm is greater? Yet to do no harm is not enough for the Christian or for she who is enlightened - rather we are called to DO, to love, to have compassionate care for others. One would think that such history could be 'remembered' in a museum and our public areas could be free of such reminders that caused untold pain in the past and continues to cause pain today - and, sadly, inspire some to still look upon black men and women as lesser. 

I (one who has always been interested in the history of Civil War), like many others, have no problem going to a museum to admire and learn about great Art or going to a different kind of museum to study and learn about this period in our history.

 

As to where to draw the line - how easy is this? If statues commemorate and celebrate those who committed treason against the United States or who committed genocide against a people - let's stop honoring them. We have enough genuine heroes and good men and women to celebrate who have made and still make this country a land and an idea where indeed 'all men are created equal."  Somethings, as we all should know, are worth changing, especially if the result is less harm and more compassion.  

'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me"....... the reality is that 'you' (generally speaking) are doing harm and it is not merely bothering people, it is causing harm - and also encouraging some present day idiots who desire a world long dead that should be remembered but never celebrated.

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

53 minutes ago, thormas said:

I know - the trumpeter's cult use it that way to bludgeon the opinions of others :+}

Example please.  Someone whose career has been destroyed because they did not line up with the Trimpeter’s virtue signaling.  Preferably an academic.

[thormas]

2 minutes ago, Burl said:

Example please.  Someone whose career has been destroyed because they did not line up with the Trimpeter’s virtue signaling.  Preferably an academic.

Please note the :+}

Although I would offer up Hannity and Tucker as those who bludgeon others in the name of their most high :+}

Edited July 24, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

There are genuine reasons to criticize Trump, but Cancel Culture is not one of them.  That is a purely anarchist phenomenon.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/05/math-professor-mocks-a-leftist-belief-and-gets-fired/

[thormas]

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.

It is the case that for many/most black men (especially) and women their ethnicity (the fact that they are African, black) has been made more important than a true recognition of their shared humanity........... by others. I suspect that many black Americans would be only too glad if their humanity (and in that their true equality as Americans, as citizens, as human beings) were truly recognized and valued by ALL - then they, then we all (of those who truly care) would have peace!

[PaulS]

22 hours ago, JosephM said:

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

 

Firstly I would point out that ‘cancel culture’ is a colloquialism, it’s not a defined rule set.  We humans like to put things in boxes, and from some sides now we see that anybody who questions whether it is perhaps time to review how we do some things, can easily be dismissed by others because their thoughts are derided as ‘cancel culture’.  We can use words as weapons or we can use them to try and better understand the other.  My hope is that people discuss this issue more rather than dig in and take sides.

Secondly, we are simply not talking only about ‘history’ here.  There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure.  Statues are displayed to ‘honour’ those represented.  When you honour people who promoted, and even fought to retain the right to enslave a certain group of people, then there is more to it than just history.  If it was just history, capture it in books or move memorials to museums with an explanation of all sides of the discussion.

You ask about the lyrics - well in my mind they are an inspiration, not a dogma, about considering what harm we may be doing to others in our lives and to consider how we can cause less harm (no harm would be preferable).  Would it cause you harm to remove statues honouring those who fought to keep blacks enslaved?  You really couldn’t get your history any other way?  And in the process, you wouldn’t feel that if removing statues helps in any way to further heal race relations, as is being asked for by many, that you may be contributing something positive to the conversation?

Of course defining harm is an opinion.  Surely you understand that’s why so many hold different views about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in life.  We all hold different views but our challenge is to get along in the best way possible.  Could removing statues and naming rights of those who wanted to harm black people be a step forward for our countries - I think so.

 

 

[Burl]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

Firstly I would point out that ‘cancel culture’ is a colloquialism, it’s not a defined rule set.  We humans like to put things in boxes, and from some sides now we see that anybody who questions whether it is perhaps time to review how we do some things, can easily be dismissed by others because their thoughts are derided as ‘cancel culture’.  We can use words as weapons or we can use them to try and better understand the other.  My hope is that people discuss this issue more rather than dig in and take sides.

Secondly, we are simply not talking only about ‘history’ here.  There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure.  Statues are displayed to ‘honour’ those represented.  When you honour people who promoted, and even fought to retain the right to enslave a certain group of people, then there is more to it than just history.  If it was just history, capture it in books or move memorials to museums with an explanation of all sides of the discussion.

You ask about the lyrics - well in my mind they are an inspiration, not a dogma, about considering what harm we may be doing to others in our lives and to consider how we can cause less harm (no harm would be preferable).  Would it cause you harm to remove statues honouring those who fought to keep blacks enslaved?  You really couldn’t get your history any other way?  And in the process, you wouldn’t feel that if removing statues helps in any way to further heal race relations, as is being asked for by many, that you may be contributing something positive to the conversation?

Of course defining harm is an opinion.  Surely you understand that’s why so many hold different views about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in life.  We all hold different views but our challenge is to get along in the best way possible.  Could removing statues and naming rights of those who wanted to harm black people be a step forward for our countries - I think so.

 

 

Not sure how much you aware of down there Paul but the Democratic party,  who were the Confederacy and fought civil rights for blacks tooth and nail into the 60’s,  are the white activists co-opting black concerns as they try to erase their racist roots.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210593.html

[thormas]

56 minutes ago, Burl said:

Not sure how much you aware of down there Paul but the Democratic party,  who were the Confederacy and fought civil rights for blacks tooth and nail into the 60’s,  are the white activists co-opting black concerns as they try to erase their racist roots.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210593.html

You're simply trying too hard Burl.

This is 2020 and the D Party is not the confederacy, is not fighting civil rights - nor are they co-opting black concerns. The trumpster and some of his cult are a totally different story.

Welcome to 2020.

[Burl]

5 minutes ago, thormas said:

You're simply trying too hard Burl.

This is 2020 and the D Party is not the confederacy, is not fighting civil rights - nor are they co-opting black concerns. The trumpster and some of his cult are a totally different story.

Welcome to 2020.

Listen to the black community.  They are fed up with white people patronizing them with what white Democrats think is best for Black people.

[thormas]

48 minutes ago, Burl said:

Listen to the black community.  They are fed up with white people patronizing them with what white Democrats think is best for Black people.

The entire black community? 

Seemingly many/most in that community see their best opportunity with matters that are of utmost concern to them with the Democratic Party..........certainly not our racist president and his white power supporters (not all but indeed enough) who is sending unidentified Feds into cities to harass mostly black citizens - when even the local, elected leaders see it as naked political ploy to his supporters.........including the racists. 

 

However I did enjoy your GOP line about patronization :+}

[Elen1107]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure.

No kidding! ... Thank You!

[PaulS]

8 hours ago, Burl said:

Not sure how much you aware of down there Paul but the Democratic party,  who were the Confederacy and fought civil rights for blacks tooth and nail into the 60’s,  are the white activists co-opting black concerns as they try to erase their racist roots.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210593.html

I think I have to agree with Thormas here Burl.  You do seem to be trying a tad too hard to tar the Democratic Party with an anti-black brush.  You really believe the Democratic Party fought civil rights tooth and nail into the 60’s?  Except maybe for that one time the Democratic President named JFK actually created and introduced the Civil Rights Act - the most-far reaching act of legislation supporting racial equality in American history.  Yep, sounds like those Democrats really had it in for African Americans. 😂