Whereas in our male-dominant society men don't get to avoid the consequences for their actions? You do say some silly things. No, Karen wears a dress because she is a woman. She is on a power trip because she's White and the object of her ire is not. Poor example. Welsh schools teaching Welsh as first language isn't ethnocentrism. It's being Welch. To object to it is ethnocentrism. (As for "preserving language": no such thing. Language evolves all the time. The native tongue that you speak now would be unrecognisable to a compatriot of 500 years earlier, and vice-versa.) We subvert and modify our nature all the time. It's almost the very definition of being human. I would invite you to read the (to me beautifully written) Sci-Fi short story I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter although it has been clear from the controversial reaction it stirred up on the internet, many people can't handle the paradigm shifts.
On "we can't just remove statues, we just need to learn from history!": Maybe what needs to be learnt from history is that when someone accrues a massive fortune from inhuman profiteering off of the suffering of other humans, and then gives a portion of that fortune away in a transparent attempt to buy positive publicity, maybe don't put up statues honouring them.
Yeah just a personal note on that, since I've heard mixed views on it, removing statues doesn't suddenly 'erase history', there aren't many (any?) statues of hitler yet people haven't suddenly forgotten him after all.
But, you can't judge the actions and morals of the past by the standards we live by today. When the statues were erected those "philanthopists" were seen as good people, to be looked up to. Now, their place is in museums.
I don't see anyone objecting to them being in history books, museums etc? I just see objection to public glorification via statues...
Just to throw a curveball in here, because I think it's pertinent and interesting (to the thread at large; nothing to do with statues, aren't we bored of talking about statues yet?) I feel naive now because I debated legalization a lot with people (I'm something of a weed advocate, with many caveats) and I always imagined it could only be good for society to legalize. Less crime, less racial and socioeconomic downtreading from the war on drugs, break the ghettoes, begin to break the vicious cycles of violence and corrupt police in places like Baltimore (yes, ackhtyually, I have watched The Wire and therefore know everything), stop funding terrorism and black markets, get more tax revenue, dismantle criminal structures and create small businesses. But surprise, idiot! It's actually just turning into the same old white tycoon monopoly game, and is structured to specifically exclude small businesses, startups and people formerly criminalized by the war on drugs. What a result.
You also need to remember that people did not feel the same way in the past, when those statues were erected. Actually being against racism, as a white British person, is a comparatively recent innovation that has only really developed, slowly, since the 50s. Consider, for example, the long, hard fight to allow black drivers on Bristol's buses (The Bristol Bus Boycott of 1963) and the ghettoisation of non-white communities in the big towns and cities, for example, St Pauls in Bristol.
Yep rampant bigotry was the norm until relatively recently (and not just racism, for example our current PM was as supportive of Section 28 as a fruit fly is of food waste). So yeah we'll be dealing with the fallout of historic bigotry for a long time to come (because it is a lot less historic than the term leads one to believe).
Yes. Let's now focus on a handful of shows being pulled from streaming because there was an episode where they did something inappropriate. Apparently Little Britain did blackface as one of their things, I wouldn't know because I didn't watch it (because IMO it was sh__). Round two: "So and so said something which in retrospect wasn't appropriate, ruin their life/career!" vs "Pulling Little Britain?? When will the madness end! They'll be banning black jacks next!" Thus giving another swathe of people an additional opportunity to entirely miss the point. I'm in to minds... I don't think old content should be pulled because it's perceived to be inappropriate in retrospect, that said I've never seen more than a couple minutes of Little Britain either, so don't have a direct opinion on that. On the other hand, there's some super-racist old Disney stuff on D+ and nobody is complaining about that. There's obviously not a clear line drawn between okay, and not-okay. I think in terms of comedy, it should have a fair crack at whatever it wants, with nothing off-limits - and this should be let to self-regulate. I've laughed my ass off at dozens of things that are deeply inappropriate - because it genuinely, legitimately, hilarious (to me anyway). Racist comedy usually amounts to cheap shots, and it's just not funny - racist or not... this seems to largely self-regulate in the world of stand-up because they're either just not funny, or they're shock-comedians that get "omg I can't believe they said that" laughs for a bit, but it gets old very quickly. But then again comedy is massively subjective... so just because I don't find someone putting on an over-emphasised accent and talking in stereotypes funny... maybe others do and it would thrive if left unchecked?
I might be mixing up my companies, but didn't a lot of the racist-y Disney stuff come with an added note at the beginning? I'm not sure where I fall on the censure of old entertainment content. On the one hand, I'm not convinced doing racist stuff should really earn anyone a wage. On the other hand, some things are a product of their era. I'm not including Little Britain in this, partly because I thought it was a pile of old guff and partly because it's recent enough that anyone suggesting black face should have been made to sit in the naughty corner to think about how racist that is. I am, however, thinking about those crows in an animated film that.. I want to say Dumbo? Buut, equally, I'm as white as the driven snow, so.
Yeah - there's a message to the tune of "This film is really old, and based on outdated stereotypes, but this is how it was released" or some such on a handful of them... Dumbo, Peter Pan, Aristocats... probably some more. There are also films like Song of the South that are entirely missing. There are no similar messages on films that portray women as mainly useless unless it pertains to cooking, cleaning or sewing, and need a prince to give their life purpose... baby steps. I don't think it should - but that's not the question. It did at one point and there's no getting around that - so either it gets erased from history, or it self-regulates. Yes, Dumbo is black crows, Peter Pan is native Americans, Aristocats is a Chinese cat... all of them are pretty cringey. Most Disney productions more than a few years old have something that's a bit cringey though, perhaps a product of their time, but perhaps shouldn't have been. The Little Mermaid was made in 1989, and looking at the story with the mind of an adult is pretty disturbing an a variety of accounts.
Change is.. Rarely as swift as it needs to be. As for the historical earnings.. Yeah, that isn't going to be something that can be changed. Preventing people being paid residuals when a show is sold to off-network airing is probably as close as you can get to preventing someone cashing in (However much it is) on something that is no longer okay. I never really watched a lot of Disney films as a child, and as an adult the concept of watching one does not fill me with enthusiasm, so I can't really say I know the lineup of Disney racism, misogyny, or generally weird-isms.
It's a spectrum: Statues are about public space funded by tax-payer money. BBC output is about pseudo-public airwaves funded by license-payers. Then there's the self-regulating multinationals for whom it's all about PR and the bottom line.
It was an example of racism when incorrectly applied. Any langue needs to be taught and used in order to be preserved, else it turns into a dead language. She was on a power trip because she's a... Karen. The object of her ire, as you put it, wasn't so much the woman being Mexican as it was the gas pump. It was on the moment the gas pump didn't work, and she found herself in Karens line of fire. It could just as easily have been an old white man in a wheel chair, or someone morbidly obese at that point. Meaning: She would have attacked the old man in the wheel chair for being a cripple, and the morbidly obese man for being morbidly obese. Speaking of Karens. Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date It's a Karen doing what Karens do. 'You' can undermine and suppress it to a degree, once pressure is off it will resurface, revert back and seek its equilibrium.
Hold your horses. Would this be male dominance in terms of male interests taking precedence over female interests and male thinking taking precedence over gynocentric thinking in our western social order? Would this be male dominance in terms of society approaching problems from a male (i.e. rational) thinking level, opposed to approaching its problems from a female (i.e emotional) thinking level? Defunding the police. Suggesting something that would leave a vacuum for civil unrest to continue isn't rational. It is emotional. It's Feels over Reals. It makes as much rational sense as defunding the fire department because the firemen sent to save Karens house were sexist pigs who didn't arrive in time to save it.
I think seeing this situation as a binary is going to get everyone to some pretty dumb places. I'm been following some issues here for a while and there are serious problems with policing in many places in the US. Legal Impunity, police unions with political support on both sides defending all police regardless, militarisation of police with transfer of military surplus equipment and "warrior" training and mindset. It's a big complex issue and it is going to be different being a cop in an armed society than in the a place like the UK, but that doesn't provide an excuse for not valuing all human lives. However it isn't clear why this means folk need to kick UK policemen, or for that matter have fun posting videos of it. Or make a mess with statues for someone else to clear up. Or burn down folks businesses and steal stuff. ~The last of which seemed like a direct attempt to get Trump reelected. What's wrong is wrong, no matter if you see someone as on your side or not. Don't make excuses. George Floyd's murder is murder exactly the same regardless of what he did or didn't do beforehand. Digging up his past as has been done in some media doesn't make Chauvin any less guilty. But smashing stuff, kicking policemen,burning down people's businesses and stealing stuff is as wrong now as it was on the 24th of May.
Apparently Karen's husband is a lawyer. So Karen leads a very privileged life and probably gets to talk down to people all day. I believe they call it spoiled. She certainly looks like it. Any way, he said that apparently Karen had been suffering from mental issues since someone tried to rob their house. I have mental issues, they don't make me hate who I shouldn't. Fact is she thought she could speak down to someone, and they didn't take her ****. She probably gets away with it all day with her husband, poor sod has been terribly apologetic on her behalf which just says it all tbh.
The subject of that Karen's ire wasn't even Mexican, she was Navajo. Original American, if you will. My new laptop gets here tomorrow so I can finally write out some much needed answers without trying to poke this screen repeatedly.
It was also an example of ethnocentrism when incorrectly applied. Speculation. Given that she ranted at the woman about what country do you come from, where do your ancestors come from (completely missing the irony of that question, BTW), I'd say she was a White woman being racist. Your assumption is based in a false premise. In nature there is no such thing as 'equilibrium'. No, that would be male dominance in terms of, for example, maintaining ludicrous notions that there is such things as "male interests" and "male thinking" and "female interests" and "female thinking" and that the former are superior to the latter.
