…deserves a thread, given the controversy in Chat.

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

But it’s also essential to positive progress. The heroes of one age can become the villains of the next, when values shift towards a greater respect for human life and human rights.

Pulling down statues, renaming mountains and so on is not a matter of “erasing history”. It’s a matter of reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.

Statues that were erected to celebrate historical figures now seen as far less laudable are removed from their positions of celebration. This doesn’t for one moment mean we “forget” the deeds for which those individuals were responsible; it’s the greater awareness of their misdeeds that prompts the action in the first place, and ensures that their place in history is now changed to reflect a more defensible ethical verdict.

Celebratory statues of Hitler, Stalin etc were destroyed in great number, but their crimes remain well recorded. Nobody argues that Jews ought to live on a street called Hitler Avenue to remind them of the dangers of antisemitism.

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

Hey, if statues are going to be pulled down willy-nilly because of what they represent, why is Germany hanging on to that prime real estate where death camps used to be?

Auschwitz Acres could combine luxury executive townhouse condominium apartments, with a retail precinct and sports facilities for today modern go-getter.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

Malcolm X was the MOST racist…

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

Bubblecar said:

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

Winston Smith disliked this post.

Until he didn’t.

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

Yeah, Ghandi was a proper c_#t…

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

Winston Smith disliked this post.

Until he didn’t.

Maybe he didn’t understand that “history” is by definition a human creation.

It’s our responsibility to try to make it accurate and reflective of our most defensible ethical parameters, where relevant.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

And rename Washington DC, Washington State, Washington Primary school, Washington High School, Washington Memorial Hall, Washington Post Office etc, etc. Repeat for Jefferson, repeat for King, repeat for et al…

Bubblecar said:

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

Winston Smith disliked this post.

Until he didn’t.

Maybe he didn’t understand that “history” is by definition a human creation.

It’s our responsibility to try to make it accurate and reflective of our most defensible ethical parameters, where relevant.

Who gets to draw the line?

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

Not necessarily, no.

In Western countries (which by their democratic nature are not normally beset by sudden revolution) the amount of debate about the status of this or that statue is vastly greater than the amount of energy expended on the occasional removal :)

In this latest highly-publicised example, much debate took place before the ceremonial pulling down and drowning, and then it was immediately retrieved and the debate now continues.

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

esselte said:

Winston Smith disliked this post.

Until he didn’t.

Maybe he didn’t understand that “history” is by definition a human creation.

It’s our responsibility to try to make it accurate and reflective of our most defensible ethical parameters, where relevant.

Who gets to draw the line?

People. Who else?

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

No, they are to be appraised more realistically, as is happening. Much to the improvement of “recorded history”.

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

Not necessarily, no.

In Western countries (which by their democratic nature are not normally beset by sudden revolution) the amount of debate about the status of this or that statue is vastly greater than the amount of energy expended on the occasional removal :)

In this latest highly-publicised example, much debate took place before the ceremonial pulling down and drowning, and then it was immediately retrieved and the debate now continues.

But the renaming should go on, we’ve got that, right?

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

Maybe he didn’t understand that “history” is by definition a human creation.

It’s our responsibility to try to make it accurate and reflective of our most defensible ethical parameters, where relevant.

Who gets to draw the line?

People. Who else?

Which people? Who becomes the arbiter of all that is holy? Perhaps a Papal Decree is in order.

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

Maybe he didn’t understand that “history” is by definition a human creation.

It’s our responsibility to try to make it accurate and reflective of our most defensible ethical parameters, where relevant.

Who gets to draw the line?

People. Who else?

Infallible…

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

So, statues of all are to be pulled down?

Not necessarily, no.

In Western countries (which by their democratic nature are not normally beset by sudden revolution) the amount of debate about the status of this or that statue is vastly greater than the amount of energy expended on the occasional removal :)

In this latest highly-publicised example, much debate took place before the ceremonial pulling down and drowning, and then it was immediately retrieved and the debate now continues.

But the renaming should go on, we’ve got that, right?

Sure, if that’s the best decision in this or that example.

But you’re treating all examples as if no specific judgments can be made in specific contexts.

Why does this need to be a question of history? I am aware of several contemporary examples of public dishonour or disgrace that have, or should have, resulted in accolades being stripped. I don’t have a problem with that.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

Who gets to draw the line?

People. Who else?

Which people? Who becomes the arbiter of all that is holy? Perhaps a Papal Decree is in order.

At risk of asking a stupid question – What is governance, in secular societies, if not this?

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Not necessarily, no.

In Western countries (which by their democratic nature are not normally beset by sudden revolution) the amount of debate about the status of this or that statue is vastly greater than the amount of energy expended on the occasional removal :)

In this latest highly-publicised example, much debate took place before the ceremonial pulling down and drowning, and then it was immediately retrieved and the debate now continues.

But the renaming should go on, we’ve got that, right?

Sure, if that’s the best decision in this or that example.

But you’re treating all examples as if no specific judgments can be made in specific contexts.

But surely a specific judgment can be made in all of the cases I’ve raised. They’re all guilty as charged. Banishment should be the cry.

Rule 303 said:

Why does this need to be a question of history? I am aware of several contemporary examples of public dishonour or disgrace that have, or should have, resulted in accolades being stripped. I don’t have a problem with that.

Like Akhenaten?

Rule 303 said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

People. Who else?

Which people? Who becomes the arbiter of all that is holy? Perhaps a Papal Decree is in order.

At risk of asking a stupid question – What is governance, in secular societies, if not this?

But it’s not, at least not in the current circumstances. Has there been a vote on whatshisnames statue being chucked into a river? Not that I’ve seen. It was mob rule deciding what was best.

furious said:

Rule 303 said:

Why does this need to be a question of history? I am aware of several contemporary examples of public dishonour or disgrace that have, or should have, resulted in accolades being stripped. I don’t have a problem with that.

Like Akhenaten?

Fucking monotheist!

sibeen said:

Rule 303 said:

sibeen said:

Which people? Who becomes the arbiter of all that is holy? Perhaps a Papal Decree is in order.

At risk of asking a stupid question – What is governance, in secular societies, if not this?

But it’s not, at least not in the current circumstances. Has there been a vote on whatshisnames statue being chucked into a river? Not that I’ve seen. It was mob rule deciding what was best.

No, you’re right. In the current circumstances we seem to just go with whatever is best for the least.

sibeen said:

furious said:

Rule 303 said:

Why does this need to be a question of history? I am aware of several contemporary examples of public dishonour or disgrace that have, or should have, resulted in accolades being stripped. I don’t have a problem with that.

Like Akhenaten?

Fucking monotheist!

And they went around removing all references to him…. caused all sorts of problems for those that wanted to look back on the history…

furious said:

sibeen said:

furious said:

Like Akhenaten?

Fucking monotheist!

And they went around removing all references to him…. caused all sorts of problems for those that wanted to look back on the history…

You know we’d still be bowing down to a sun god if they hadn’t failed in their dastardly scheme.

shakes fist

statues give me no joy at all, sort of persistent erections, who needs that

it’s a questionable proposition that statues serve to celebrate whatever, that may be a naive idea, conveniently simple, a broad attribution, substantially incorrect enough to be wrong, certainly open to argument

what if most people don’t think statues are very important at all, don’t have much influence

of course if it were the case, that most people don’t feel they are that important, and the statues don’t incline people to celebrate anything at all of what they represent, then justifications of hostility toward statues becomes more difficult

attacking the statues is just building up steam for the final goal – to attack and kill large sections of the population

its a brain bug thats eaten most of the minds here

So we all end up with a history that Bubblecar thinks appropriate. What a boring world that would be.

Bubblecar said:

…deserves a thread, given the controversy in Chat.

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

But it’s also essential to positive progress. The heroes of one age can become the villains of the next, when values shift towards a greater respect for human life and human rights.

Pulling down statues, renaming mountains and so on is not a matter of “erasing history”. It’s a matter of reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.

Statues that were erected to celebrate historical figures now seen as far less laudable are removed from their positions of celebration. This doesn’t for one moment mean we “forget” the deeds for which those individuals were responsible; it’s the greater awareness of their misdeeds that prompts the action in the first place, and ensures that their place in history is now changed to reflect a more defensible ethical verdict.

Celebratory statues of Hitler, Stalin etc were destroyed in great number, but their crimes remain well recorded. Nobody argues that Jews ought to live on a street called Hitler Avenue to remind them of the dangers of antisemitism.

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

+1

PermeateFree said:

So we all end up with a history that Bubblecar thinks appropriate. What a boring world that would be.

thing that bothers me about the present movement (or one of two main things) is the discounting of how egalitarian this culture is (the extent it is), that it does offer, or provide opportunity for individuals to do their thing, operating space

australia’s not entirely a hell of inequality, so there’s the question of the effect of arguing (or from the position) that it is less egalitarian than it really is

there’s another thing, i’ll call it a phenomena, because it’s something new, and doesn’t have a name, hasn’t been defined

presently there’s some convergence of the digital media happening, including TV, importantly though of the transformation, is that fairly much everyone has a phone with a camera in it, connected (in some way) to the entire world via the internet

everyone’s in the media business, producing their own reality TV show, looking for it, and a certain leader of a certain country is one of the worst examples ever, in my opinion, oddly inspiring his opponents with a similar strange theater, well, it would be strange if there weren’t so much resources going into making it normal, the new democracy cough

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Not necessarily, no.

In Western countries (which by their democratic nature are not normally beset by sudden revolution) the amount of debate about the status of this or that statue is vastly greater than the amount of energy expended on the occasional removal :)

In this latest highly-publicised example, much debate took place before the ceremonial pulling down and drowning, and then it was immediately retrieved and the debate now continues.

But the renaming should go on, we’ve got that, right?

Sure, if that’s the best decision in this or that example.

But you’re treating all examples as if no specific judgments can be made in specific contexts.

Not the way to solve your problems! To the river with the old hag.

This thread isn’t about rewriting history, it is about sanitising history!

If you really want to rewrite history with known facts, then leave the original statue or whatever in place and unchanged, but add a new plaque detailing the new information written by a recognised historian, not some silly old bugger with a chip on their shoulder. Then history can be updated if and when new information becomes available.

There are several different issues here. It’s not a topic that easily addressed. I keep wanting to write my response as a series of one-liners, it’s a struggle to put two sentences together, but let me try.

1. Broadening and shallowing.

Firstly, broadening and shallowing. The geographical extent of the teaching of history has grown enormously with time. Take Britain for example. Initially, history in Britain was taught as a detailed analysis of what happened during the reigns of its kings. It’s only since about the start of the Victorian era that people in Britain started to take the history of other aspects of life seriously, to consider the history of exploration, of the arts, of industry, of slavery, of food, of Egypt, etc. The non-fiction book by H.G. Wells “A Short History of the World” in 1922 was the first history book from Britain to take the history of Europe seriously as a major topic. Even then, it excludes the histories of Asian and Africa. Other countries have been the same, concentrating first only on the history of rulers and wars of that country.

It’s only since the advent of multiculturalism that Asian history, African history and other histories such as history from a woman’s perspective and the history of sport have been taken seriously. I recently read a book on the maritime history of the UAE. Such histories were totally unheard of in English even 50 years ago.

But as our scope of history has got broader, so our knowledge of the depth of history has shallowed. Rather than the full history in all its lurid detail, all we read now are children’s stories. How the big bad whites oppressed the glorious blacks for instance. Or the children’s story of the Eureka stockade. Or similar kindergarten tales from the Bible.

2. Historical revisionism

This has two parts. One part is sanitisation. The other part is pure invention. Both tend to be politically motivated. The lust for political power has had a huge influence over the rewriting of history.

Each generation rewrites the history of the previous generation, so much so that within a hundred years the facts get totally lost. Those historians who dig back to original sources more than a hundred years old still have to decide how to compress what they have learnt into a few words that will pass peer review from those historians who are strongly politically motivated, or who still believe the fairy stories they were told in kindergarten.

When this happens in the racist context. I call it “blackwashing”. The standard procedure for each generation is to slanderously malign the altruistic philanthropists of the previous generation. Each generation is writing their own fictitious history. Because this is such a political issue it happens in every single generation. We even get the humorous situation where a single political figure is lauded by one generation, vilified by the next, lauded by the next, and vilified by the fourth generation of historians. Until that political figure enters a children’s story on one side or the other, and then that reputation sticks through all subsequent generations.

Henry Lawson was a raging alcoholic who beat his wife. He ended up on our $10 note.

Let’s burn money!

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

…deserves a thread, given the controversy in Chat.

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

But it’s also essential to positive progress. The heroes of one age can become the villains of the next, when values shift towards a greater respect for human life and human rights.

Pulling down statues, renaming mountains and so on is not a matter of “erasing history”. It’s a matter of reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.

Statues that were erected to celebrate historical figures now seen as far less laudable are removed from their positions of celebration. This doesn’t for one moment mean we “forget” the deeds for which those individuals were responsible; it’s the greater awareness of their misdeeds that prompts the action in the first place, and ensures that their place in history is now changed to reflect a more defensible ethical verdict.

Celebratory statues of Hitler, Stalin etc were destroyed in great number, but their crimes remain well recorded. Nobody argues that Jews ought to live on a street called Hitler Avenue to remind them of the dangers of antisemitism.

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

+1

~reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.
That is just a flash way of saying rewriting history.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

But the renaming should go on, we’ve got that, right?

Sure, if that’s the best decision in this or that example.

But you’re treating all examples as if no specific judgments can be made in specific contexts.

Not much bacon there.

PermeateFree said:

This thread isn’t about rewriting history, it is about sanitising history!

If you really want to rewrite history with known facts, then leave the original statue or whatever in place and unchanged, but add a new plaque detailing the new information written by a recognised historian, not some silly old bugger with a chip on their shoulder. Then history can be updated if and when new information becomes available.

The most sensible post I’ve seen.

mollwollfumble said:

There are several different issues here. It’s not a topic that easily addressed. I keep wanting to write my response as a series of one-liners, it’s a struggle to put two sentences together, but let me try.

1. Broadening and shallowing.

Firstly, broadening and shallowing. The geographical extent of the teaching of history has grown enormously with time. Take Britain for example. Initially, history in Britain was taught as a detailed analysis of what happened during the reigns of its kings. It’s only since about the start of the Victorian era that people in Britain started to take the history of other aspects of life seriously, to consider the history of exploration, of the arts, of industry, of slavery, of food, of Egypt, etc. The non-fiction book by H.G. Wells “A Short History of the World” in 1922 was the first history book from Britain to take the history of Europe seriously as a major topic. Even then, it excludes the histories of Asian and Africa. Other countries have been the same, concentrating first only on the history of rulers and wars of that country.

It’s only since the advent of multiculturalism that Asian history, African history and other histories such as history from a woman’s perspective and the history of sport have been taken seriously. I recently read a book on the maritime history of the UAE. Such histories were totally unheard of in English even 50 years ago.

But as our scope of history has got broader, so our knowledge of the depth of history has shallowed. Rather than the full history in all its lurid detail, all we read now are children’s stories. How the big bad whites oppressed the glorious blacks for instance. Or the children’s story of the Eureka stockade. Or similar kindergarten tales from the Bible.

2. Historical revisionism

This has two parts. One part is sanitisation. The other part is pure invention. Both tend to be politically motivated. The lust for political power has had a huge influence over the rewriting of history.

Each generation rewrites the history of the previous generation, so much so that within a hundred years the facts get totally lost. Those historians who dig back to original sources more than a hundred years old still have to decide how to compress what they have learnt into a few words that will pass peer review from those historians who are strongly politically motivated, or who still believe the fairy stories they were told in kindergarten.

When this happens in the racist context. I call it “blackwashing”. The standard procedure for each generation is to slanderously malign the altruistic philanthropists of the previous generation. Each generation is writing their own fictitious history. Because this is such a political issue it happens in every single generation. We even get the humorous situation where a single political figure is lauded by one generation, vilified by the next, lauded by the next, and vilified by the fourth generation of historians. Until that political figure enters a children’s story on one side or the other, and then that reputation sticks through all subsequent generations.

Ooops.

That is a very Anglo-centric view of history Moll and seriously misinformed about how history was studied. Gibbon wrote ‘RAFOTRE’ in 1776 so 50 years before your claim about Victorians. Also Shskespeare for example was popular entertainment and wrote plays like ‘Julius Caesar’; are you claiming he knew nothing about Ancient Rome?

As for the rest it’s your usual opinion macarading as facts.

masquerading

Stoopid tablet spell checker.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Ooops.

That is a very Anglo-centric view of history Moll and seriously misinformed about how history was studied. Gibbon wrote ‘RAFOTRE’ in 1776 so 50 years before your claim about Victorians. Also Shskespeare for example was popular entertainment and wrote plays like ‘Julius Caesar’; are you claiming he knew nothing about Ancient Rome?

As for the rest it’s your usual opinion macarading as facts.

errr ‘THOTDAFOTRE’

As they say, history is written by the victors.

Tamb said:

~reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.
That is just a flash way of saying rewriting history.

As I’ve been arguing: rewriting history is inevitable and important.

“History” means the apprehension of the past by the people of the present.

Obviously there are facts – names, dates, events etc that we want to accurately record. But the ethical meaning of those facts change as our values change, and so do the lessons we learn from the past.

Divine Angel said:

Henry Lawson was a raging alcoholic who beat his wife. He ended up on our $10 note.

Let’s burn money!

OTOH, do you want Lawson on your $10 note in perpetuity?

The decision to put him there will inevitably be reviewed, and the people society celebrates will hopefully come closer to embodying the values that have likewise withstood the test of time.

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

Some surprising posts here. Seems a few others and I really are significantly out of tune with the conservative tenor of forum opinion.

Bubblecar said:

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

Apparently it is much harder for many people to grasp than I suspected.

I don’t know the solution.

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But…apparently history is taught in the schools these days.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Henry Lawson was a raging alcoholic who beat his wife. He ended up on our $10 note.

Let’s burn money!

OTOH, do you want Lawson on your $10 note in perpetuity?

The decision to put him there will inevitably be reviewed, and the people society celebrates will hopefully come closer to embodying the values that have likewise withstood the test of time.

US Presidential election tactics have shown us that, if you dig deep enough, you’ll find that the most saintly people have skeletons in their cupboards.

Even Jesus got angry with the money-changers in the Temple, and resorted to violence to drive them out. That’d come up in the opposition’s election ads if he was running for Prez.

At some point, we have to accept that everyone, past and present, is likely to have done something that offends someone.

buffy said:

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But…apparently history is taught in the schools these days.

And the basis of this whole thread is: who decides what history is taught, and who it’s taught to?

buffy said:

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But…apparently history is taught in the schools these days.

It’s not all kings and queens these days.

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But whoever did the painting was clearly politically incorrect.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But whoever did the painting was clearly politically incorrect.

I think the statue was vandalised by woke youths against old white men and not bigots protesting abolitionists.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Being ‘politically correct’ today doesn’t necessarily meant that you’re smart about yesterday

Matthias W. Baldwin, supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

In 1835, he donated money to establish a school for African-American children in Philadelphia and continued to pay the teachers’ salaries out of his own pocket for years thereafter. Baldwin was an outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery in the United States, a position that was used against him and his firm by competitors eager to sell locomotives to railroads based in the slaveholding South.

Not all old-time white guys were bad guys.

Try to know the difference before slinging the paint, ok?

But whoever did the painting was clearly politically incorrect.

I think the statue was vandalised by woke youths against old white men and not bigots protesting abolitionists.

Yes, exactly. My point is, ‘woke’ doesn’t necessarily mean smart or right.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

If you have good evidence that Martin Luther King abused women you should edit his Wikipedia page, because it doesn’t seem to be included there.

If people were once slave owners, in a time when slave ownership was the norm, and then moved to actively oppose slave ownership, that’s a good thing isn’t it?

As for the alleged racism, certainly if that is true it should be included in their history, and considered in the way that history is presented.

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Henry Lawson was a raging alcoholic who beat his wife. He ended up on our $10 note.

Let’s burn money!

OTOH, do you want Lawson on your $10 note in perpetuity?

The decision to put him there will inevitably be reviewed, and the people society celebrates will hopefully come closer to embodying the values that have likewise withstood the test of time.

US Presidential election tactics have shown us that, if you dig deep enough, you’ll find that the most saintly people have skeletons in their cupboards.

Even Jesus got angry with the money-changers in the Temple, and resorted to violence to drive them out. That’d come up in the opposition’s election ads if he was running for Prez.

At some point, we have to accept that everyone, past and present, is likely to have done something that offends someone.

It’s not hard to offend people.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

*Mentions something about curators. A few times today we have talked about saving a statue and displaying it elsewhere with interpretive information. And we can and do this. Even the worst of it like the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum. And we still argue about the merits and manner in which it is displayed. At least we did at art school.

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

If you have good evidence that Martin Luther King abused women you should edit his Wikipedia page, because it doesn’t seem to be included there.

MLK’s FBI files have recently been opened for historians. There is some alleged unsavoury information in them.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

And to my argument, at what point do you stop? Washington & Jefferson were both slave owners. Ghandi was a racist, as was Churchill and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King abused women. Are they all to suffer the scourge of being put into the hall of shame?

If you have good evidence that Martin Luther King abused women you should edit his Wikipedia page, because it doesn’t seem to be included there.

MLK’s FBI files have recently been opened for historians. There is some alleged unsavoury information in them.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Based purely on a quick skim of the Wikipedia page, there seems to be good reasons to doubt that the FBI files are accurate.

That could be complete rubbish of course.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you have good evidence that Martin Luther King abused women you should edit his Wikipedia page, because it doesn’t seem to be included there.

MLK’s FBI files have recently been opened for historians. There is some alleged unsavoury information in them.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Based purely on a quick skim of the Wikipedia page, there seems to be good reasons to doubt that the FBI files are accurate.

That could be complete rubbish of course.

I’ve now read the linked article, and agree with what it says, which is that the evidence should be considered in the assessment of King’s reputation and legacy.

just reading that below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census

“UNFPA said:

“The unique advantage of the census is that it represents the entire statistical universe, down to the smallest geographical units, of a country or region. Planners need this information for all kinds of development work, including: assessing demographic trends; analysing socio-economic conditions; designing evidence-based poverty-reduction strategies; monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of policies; and tracking progress toward national and internationally agreed development goals.”

In addition to making policymakers aware of population issues, the census is also an important tool for identifying forms of social, demographic or economic exclusions, such as inequalities relating to race, ethics and religion as well as disadvantaged groups such as those with disabilities and the poor.

An accurate census can empower local communities by providing them with the necessary information to participate in local decision-making and ensuring they are represented”

I think all this is a little tokenistic when it comes to the real change that is needed. “Outrage” is like flavour of the month. It’ll be something different next month, and this month’s outrage will fade. I used to get “outraged” as a child, and jump up and down and yell and scream, when I demanded an ice cream. Did it get me my ice cream? No. It didn’t.

The most powerful tool we have for change is the vote. Education is up there as well.

Woodie said:

I think all this is a little tokenistic when it comes to the real change that is needed. “Outrage” is like flavour of the month. It’ll be something different next month, and this month’s outrage will fade. I used to get “outraged” as a child, and jump up and down and yell and scream, when I demanded an ice cream. Did it get me my ice cream? No. It didn’t.

The most powerful tool we have for change is the vote. Education is up there as well.

So the first Mardi Gras protest was tokenistic?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

I think all this is a little tokenistic when it comes to the real change that is needed. “Outrage” is like flavour of the month. It’ll be something different next month, and this month’s outrage will fade. I used to get “outraged” as a child, and jump up and down and yell and scream, when I demanded an ice cream. Did it get me my ice cream? No. It didn’t.

The most powerful tool we have for change is the vote. Education is up there as well.

So the first Mardi Gras protest was tokenistic?

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Woodie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

I think all this is a little tokenistic when it comes to the real change that is needed. “Outrage” is like flavour of the month. It’ll be something different next month, and this month’s outrage will fade. I used to get “outraged” as a child, and jump up and down and yell and scream, when I demanded an ice cream. Did it get me my ice cream? No. It didn’t.

The most powerful tool we have for change is the vote. Education is up there as well.

So the first Mardi Gras protest was tokenistic?

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Stonewall riots then?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

So the first Mardi Gras protest was tokenistic?

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Stonewall riots then?

Could it be that the Mardi Gras was in Sydney & Stonewall was in New York.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

So the first Mardi Gras protest was tokenistic?

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Stonewall riots then?

All they wanted was to be left alone to mourn the passing of Judy Garland.

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Stonewall riots then?

Could it be that the Mardi Gras was in Sydney & Stonewall was in New York.

The first Sydney Mardi Gras was on the 10th (I think) anniversary of the Stonewall riot. As were the first few Sydney Mardi Gras parades, before moving to more clement weather at the end of February.

I should note that Stonewall involved only about 150, who remained inside the bar until the police evicted them out on to the street and began arrests.

Woodie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

The first Mardi Gras did not set out to be based on outrage or destruction of anything. It was a street party on the back of a truck. Fun, frivolity and music. As has every Mardi Gras since. As was the same sex maraige debate. Education was up there as well with that, and resulted in a “vote” (or sorts) and political change.

Stonewall riots then?

All they wanted was to be left alone to mourn the passing of Judy Garland.

Hah.

Bubblecar said:

Some surprising posts here. Seems a few others and I really are significantly out of tune with the conservative tenor of forum opinion.

Bubblecar said:

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

Apparently it is much harder for many people to grasp than I suspected.

I don’t know the solution.

same as with any other rusted on prejudices, you wait for the crust to die

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Stonewall riots then?

Could it be that the Mardi Gras was in Sydney & Stonewall was in New York.

The first Sydney Mardi Gras was on the 10th (I think) anniversary of the Stonewall riot. As were the first few Sydney Mardi Gras parades, before moving to more clement weather at the end of February.

I should note that Stonewall involved only about 150, who remained inside the bar until the police evicted them out on to the street and began arrests.

That’s not fair Woodie. You aren’t supposed to argue with facts, or actually know the history.

:)

buffy said:

Woodie said:

Tamb said:

Could it be that the Mardi Gras was in Sydney & Stonewall was in New York.

The first Sydney Mardi Gras was on the 10th (I think) anniversary of the Stonewall riot. As were the first few Sydney Mardi Gras parades, before moving to more clement weather at the end of February.

I should note that Stonewall involved only about 150, who remained inside the bar until the police evicted them out on to the street and began arrests.

That’s not fair Woodie. You aren’t supposed to argue with facts, or actually know the history.

:)

Excuse me?

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

Woodie said:

The first Sydney Mardi Gras was on the 10th (I think) anniversary of the Stonewall riot. As were the first few Sydney Mardi Gras parades, before moving to more clement weather at the end of February.

I should note that Stonewall involved only about 150, who remained inside the bar until the police evicted them out on to the street and began arrests.

That’s not fair Woodie. You aren’t supposed to argue with facts, or actually know the history.

:)

Excuse me?

thought we were spooking engrish here, the correct term is accuse me

“Fawlty Towers co-creator and star John Cleese has labelled the BBC’s decision to remove an episode of the show from streaming services as “cowardly and gutless and contemptible”.

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

That’s not fair Woodie. You aren’t supposed to argue with facts, or actually know the history.

:)

Excuse me?

thought we were spooking engrish here, the correct term is accuse me

I think it culturally inappropriate to mock how asians speak!!!

OPINION: For anyone serious about honouring and preserving our past, defending colonial-era monuments is a strange place to start. In truth, statues are terrible story-tellers.

In our culture, statues connote only one thing – greatness. They cannot contain any more subtlety than that. By definition, they are unable to evolve with our understanding and shifting norms. They cannot be revised or reimagined. They are, as the name suggests, static; frozen in time and place.

All history is a form of story-telling, and statues, literally and otherwise, are about cementing in the public square the preferred narrative of the time. This is why they shoot up like daisies in totalitarian regimes.

To tyrants, the one-dimensional simplicity of the art-form is irresistible. Their bluntness as a propaganda tool is a feature, not a bug. It’s no surprise, then, that statues are among the first targets for protesters when authoritarians lose their grip on power.

To write this article without talking more about the Black Lives Matter issue would be wrong. I’ve been to the United States more than a dozen times. The literal white-washing of their history is disturbing.

Visit Washington’s Mt Vernon or the Civil War Museum in Richmond (our host kept disturbingly referring to the Confederate Museum) and you see little mention of slavery. In fact, often the narrative given is how good folks were to their slaves, treated them like family. You see these monuments are real; they are seen by black people as trying to keep them in their place.

My wish for Aotearoa is that we all have our place and that dialogue takes the place of what is, in my view, justified civil unrest.

In a liberal democracy like New Zealand, the debate around colonial-era monuments, as well as memorials and street-names, needn’t be as heated – but it is still necessary. It needs to be based on a clear-eyed understanding of what purpose these serve.

It’s not enough simply to say they “tell our story” when, in fact, they merely represent a narrow expression of what certain powerful people wanted us to believe at a given point in time. Should this be preserved in perpetuity, even if our understanding of events has changed radically in the interim?

In the course of this debate, which has gained renewed currency in the wake of the global Black Lives Matter protests, some defenders of the status quo have made charges of hypocrisy. They point to Te Rauparaha​ Arena in Porirua, noting that it honours a man with an undeniably violent past.

But this effort at “both sides” equivalency doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. For one thing, the arena sits on Ngāti Toa land. At the time of its naming, other iwi, including victims of Te Rauparaha’s raids, were consulted but ultimately recognised the mana whenua of Ngāti Toa and their greatest general. In fact, according to a local politician who was involved at the time, the main source of complaint about the proposed name was Pākehā who just didn’t want te reo used at all.

But, ultimately, this is an arena named after a Ngāti Toa rangatira built on Ngāti Toa land – a far cry from colonial memorials that immortalise people who committed acts of violence against iwi, often within those same iwi boundaries.

One link with our past I would like to see expunged are streets named after John Bryce. Bryce spearheaded the invasion of Parihaka​ in November 1881. Pacifists Te Whiti​ and Tohu​ were arrested along with their followers. Some 14 years before the events at Parihaka, Bryce led a group of soldiers attacking and killing unarmed Māori boys. Our kids should learn about this history, for sure. But we are distorting our past, not serving it, by retaining links that honour men like Bryce.

As for monuments, let’s put them in Te Papa where they belong, and where there is considerably greater scope to offer critical historical context. There, they will help us understand how our values and understanding have changed over time.

Public squares should be reserved for unifying symbols – not icons to racism, colonialism and violence. This history is vital, for sure, but it is not served by the perverse celebration of people whose values every New Zealander today rejects.

• Shane Te Pou led efforts to have the statue of Colonel Marmaduke George Nixon removed from Ōtāhuhu in 2017.
  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121809888/statues-belong-in-te-papa-not-in-our-public-places

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

Slavery Lite.

Not all statues will go quietly.

Dozens of cops protecting the Cook statue at Hyde Park. — in Sydney, Australia.

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Bogsnorkler said:

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Rule 303 said:

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

Hire Purchase :)

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Rule 303 said:

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Damn. I thought you were talking about work for the dole schemes specially for Aborigines in remote areas.
.

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

I’ve somehow missed seeing the gangs of chained aboriginal labourers that are apparently still around.

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

yeah, called HP.

;-)

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

I’ve somehow missed seeing the gangs of chained aboriginal labourers that are apparently still around.

the chains are monetary these days.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

Well it is in my opinion, yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

Well it is in my opinion, yes.

opinions are like arseholes. everybody has one. except those that through some medical problem might be bereft of one.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

is it?

Well it is in my opinion, yes.

opinions are like arseholes. everybody has one. except those that through some medical problem might be bereft of one.

the correct term is blastopores

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

Jarrod McKenna
Like This Page · Yesterday ·

Save this for next time someone says to you, “The difference is Australia didn’t have slavery.”

Um, wrong.

Not just Queensland. Not just New South Wales. This is Western Australia as late as 1949!

Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/209392024/22669189

via Seánjth

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

I’ve somehow missed seeing the gangs of chained aboriginal labourers that are apparently still around.

“Forced labour can be understood as work that is performed involuntarily and under the menace of any penalty. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.”

International Labour Organisation

(link opens web page)

SCIENCE said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it is in my opinion, yes.

opinions are like arseholes. everybody has one. except those that through some medical problem might be bereft of one.

the correct term is blastopores

TTYL. Ta.

:-)

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

DV noted the other day that comparing wilingly working for a living and taking on the debt burdens of modern life and actual slavery that still exists is making light of the latter considerably.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

DV noted the other day that comparing wilingly working for a living and taking on the debt burdens of modern life and actual slavery that still exists is making light of the latter considerably.

i think we were talking about forced labour rather than slavery. for one it would be hard to go into debt if you weren’t actually getting paid.

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

We’ve always had forced labour, and still do.

I’ve somehow missed seeing the gangs of chained aboriginal labourers that are apparently still around.

“Forced labour can be understood as work that is performed involuntarily and under the menace of any penalty. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.”

International Labour Organisation

(link opens web page)

You appear to be missing my point.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

Harry Potter and the Curse of the Working Man

yes, it does have a ring to it, Rowling has done well on this one, you may all notice it specifically says “man”, there is no mention of the people who menstruate, who were they again ¿ Wumben ¿ Wimpund ¿ Woomud

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

is it?

DV noted the other day that comparing wilingly working for a living and taking on the debt burdens of modern life and actual slavery that still exists is making light of the latter considerably.

It seems I agree with DV.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bogsnorkler said:

is it?

DV noted the other day that comparing wilingly working for a living and taking on the debt burdens of modern life and actual slavery that still exists is making light of the latter considerably.

It seems I agree with DV.

and we agree with those who agree

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Horsepower? Harry Potter? Hewlett Packard? Hocus pocus?

hire purchase. mortgage. debt.

was said a while ago, something along the lines that HP was the curse of the working man.

Yeah, but that’s complete crap, isn’t it?

Sure you’re not confusing that with “Work is the curse of the drinking man.”

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

DV noted the other day that comparing wilingly working for a living and taking on the debt burdens of modern life and actual slavery that still exists is making light of the latter considerably.

It seems I agree with DV.

and we agree with those who agree

not me. i’m an outlier!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’ve somehow missed seeing the gangs of chained aboriginal labourers that are apparently still around.

“Forced labour can be understood as work that is performed involuntarily and under the menace of any penalty. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.”

International Labour Organisation

(link opens web page)

You appear to be missing my point.

You appear to be obscuring it.

Bogsnorkler said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems I agree with DV.

and we agree with those who agree

not me. i’m an outlier!

An out and out liar!

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

“Forced labour can be understood as work that is performed involuntarily and under the menace of any penalty. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.”

International Labour Organisation

(link opens web page)

You appear to be missing my point.

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

SCIENCE said:

and we agree with those who agree

not me. i’m an outlier!

An out and out liar!

harsh but fair.

Bogsnorkler said:

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

not me. i’m an outlier!

An out and out liar!

harsh but fair.

That can be shortened to an outright liar.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You appear to be missing my point.

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

Sure, though in that it is still horribly unfair as the current situation stands, and the ability of rich fuckers to lobby and influence corrupt governments is rather a problem.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

Sure, though in that it is still horribly unfair as the current situation stands, and the ability of rich fuckers to lobby and influence corrupt governments is rather a problem.

I watched America in colour last night. Had a lot to say about rich men like Edison, Ford & Firestone manipulating the country for their own ends.

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You appear to be missing my point.

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

By that reasoning Bangladesh sweat shops would go close.

Tamb said:

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Wot DV said.

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

By that reasoning Bangladesh sweat shops would go close.

but we like cheap clothing

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Rule 303 said:

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

By that reasoning Bangladesh sweat shops would go close.

but we like cheap clothing

China used to have sweatshops and now they have supercomputers. GOD DAMN YOU FREE TRADE!

Witty Rejoinder said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

By that reasoning Bangladesh sweat shops would go close.

but we like cheap clothing

China used to have sweatshops and now they have supercomputers. GOD DAMN YOU FREE TRADE!

you know how we only pretend to care about child and low paid forced labour in other countries when it’s been shifted out of CHINA, those downtrodden workers of the world deserve better

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

You appear to be obscuring it.

Wot DV said.

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

Just as well I neither said nor implied that then, ay?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Wot DV said.

Yeah OK. I can only repeat that I believe the informed view is that slavery is a type of forced labour. A sub-category of it, if you will. And that many forms of forced labour still exist in the world today. I think insisting that slavery means black people chained together is not perceiving the whole.

Just as well I neither said nor implied that then, ay?

no no no what we’re (SCIENCE) saying is that depictions of slavery constituting black people chained together are too incomplete to justify revision of their containing texts, unless they also depict the other forms and then we should censor entirely

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

We should perhaps note at this point that there will be the threat of semantic descent and hence be aware of the following.

WINTATE

At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of histories. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, whereby what mainstream historians had considered (for example) positive forces are depicted as negative. Such revisionism, if challenged (especially in heated terms) by the supporters of the previous view, can become an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism if it involves inappropriate methods such as:

• the use of forged documents or implausible distrust of genuine documents
• attributing false conclusions to books and sources
• manipulating statistical data
• deliberately mis-translating texts
  This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record. Negationists use the term “revisionism” to portray their efforts as legitimate historical revisionism. This is especially the case when “revisionism” relates to Holocaust denial.

As such, Lipstadt, Shermer, and Grobman said that legitimate historical revisionism entails the refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event, itself; that such refinement of history emerges from the examination of new, empirical evidence, and a re-examination, and consequent re-interpretation of the existing documentary evidence. That legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges the existence of a “certain body of irrefutable evidence” and the existence of a “convergence of evidence”, which suggest that an event – such as the Black Death, American slavery, and the Holocaust – did occur; whereas the denialism of history rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence, which is a form of historical negationism.

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

We had a lot of c1900 photos donated to us. One had an old bushie with some Aboriginals. The caption was Ted xxxx with his niggers. People wanted it destroyed but I refused.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

^

buffy said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

we could just call them by a number. #1 mountain range, #2 mountain range, etc.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

We obviously are in need of a statue Madame Tussauds, where people can visit to see the most wicked. History lessons all round.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

An added complication is that if the feature is on a tribal border, as they often are, each tribe will have their own name for it.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I’m good with remembering good and bad. I also posted that bit from NZ. About how statues in important places are about celebrating the people depicted. And that stuff that we know now to be shitty should not be celebrated.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

I don’t see that as a problem. Just give the peaks back their names. If you must name the ranges, the Great Dividing Range is fine as a name, so the ones in the West could be a Northern Range etc.

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

~reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.
That is just a flash way of saying rewriting history.

As I’ve been arguing: rewriting history is inevitable and important.

“History” means the apprehension of the past by the people of the present.

Obviously there are facts – names, dates, events etc that we want to accurately record. But the ethical meaning of those facts change as our values change, and so do the lessons we learn from the past.

We should recognize though that every time we “re-write history” like this we are producing something heavily prejudiced by our current sensibilities.

Slavery is bad? Well, yeah… bad for the slaves at least. But slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations… the unpaid work of some afforded others the opportunity to lounge around in olive groves talking about politics and philosophy, medicine and mathematics. And modern civilization is good… the average person living in a modern, civilized country is far better off than their ancestors. Child mortality rates are way down, opportunities to improve our individual circumstances and the freedom of self determination are way up. We don’t even need those slaves any more, because we have tractors and washing machines, and huge diesel powered shovels scooping 500 tonnes of rock at a time in to the back of huge diesel powered trucks, so it’s easy for us to find the concept of slavery revolting.

If we are to learn any lessons from history then our study of that history must be detached, dsipassionate and multifaceted. Cultural relativism (or in the case of what you are describing as desirable, historical relativism) is poison to the ability of academic endeavors to understand the world around us – past, present and future.

I get the impression that you think cultural change inevitably and continually evolves towards a more perfect conclusion (maybe with some steps backwards here and there, but generally forwards) and that we are fairly close to that perfection today in Western countries, similar to how some people think that natural evolution leads to more perfect forms of life and that human beings are pretty close that ultimate biological perfection. We don’t condone slavery, women are considered to have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as men, gay people can marry each other… “we are getting there, folks”. But there isn’t actually any “there” to get to. Cultures do evolve, but like biology they only evolve to better fit their current environment. The problem is that the moral and ethical foundations of our societies are not based on anything which could be called objectively true. They are reactions to our environments – our physical environment, our social environment, our technological environment. It’s bad to sacrifice every even numbered child that is birthed to Limos, the Goddess of Starvation and Famine (PBUH), not because there is anything inherently bad about sacrificing children to gods but because generally we are able to feed our population so it’s easy for us to say child sacrifice is bad.

When a statue is torn down as a symbolic gesture of the rejection of properly contextualized historical facts, it does disservice to the lessons that can actually be learned from those facts. Now please understand, having said all this, I have no personal objection to the removal and destruction of statues such as those we are discussing here. But it should be an action which is intended to shape in some way the future environments which will determine our moral and ethical standards, an action intended to write the future, not re-write the history.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

We had a lot of c1900 photos donated to us. One had an old bushie with some Aboriginals. The caption was Ted xxxx with his niggers. People wanted it destroyed but I refused.

Good.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

We obviously are in need of a statue Madame Tussauds, where people can visit to see the most wicked. History lessons all round.

The Russians have one in Moscow. Possibly because the shunned one may come back into fashion.

Tamb said:

if the feature is on a tribal border, as they often are, each tribe will have their own name for it.

don’t worry we can solve that for them by giving it a name from an overseas tribe

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

We obviously are in need of a statue Madame Tussauds, where people can visit to see the most wicked. History lessons all round.

Yeah, that might work. Along with a plaque explaining why the statues were taken down.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I’m good with remembering good and bad. I also posted that bit from NZ. About how statues in important places are about celebrating the people depicted. And that stuff that we know now to be shitty should not be celebrated.

Shakespeare thought differently “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

buffy said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

I don’t see that as a problem. Just give the peaks back their names. If you must name the ranges, the Great Dividing Range is fine as a name, so the ones in the West could be a Northern Range etc.

I’m getting used to the rock garden in Hobart’s backyard being Mt Wellington AND kunanyi.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I don’t find revisionism threatening. I suppose that comes from art school where I found revisionism to be exciting. All of a sudden the works of women impressionists that were exhibited in the same exhibitions as the impressionists that we love and whose works are worth all the money…all of a sudden we were looking at those works afresh. We were looking at their lives afresh.

So much has been revised since I sat in front of wattley Queen Elizabeth and a pull down map of a world with lots of pink bits.

And think about these times we are in now. We know a lot about what is going on. But not all of it. If we are around in a decade or so we will probably know more.

But they did not destroy the older artists work, you can still compare. History in all its forms reflects who we are and have been. Some shameful, others courageous, but all a product of their time and that should be remembered too.

I’m good with remembering good and bad. I also posted that bit from NZ. About how statues in important places are about celebrating the people depicted. And that stuff that we know now to be shitty should not be celebrated.

Shitty by our current standards, which are fickle and constantly changing.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

They did actually have a name before the Europeans decided to rename them.

It seems not. The article I was reading yesterday said various tribal groups had names for individual peaks and bits of it, but none had a name for the whole lot. They are trying to work out a new name for it. But whatever they choose will be some version of the aboriginal name, or a combination.

I don’t see that as a problem. Just give the peaks back their names. If you must name the ranges, the Great Dividing Range is fine as a name, so the ones in the West could be a Northern Range etc.

I’m sure something sensible like this will be worked out. I don’t think they will be renamed after a different person.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I don’t see it being any different to taking down statues of Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville. Sure they were successful entertainers and all that, but after we learned about their misdeeds we felt that such honours were no longer appropriate. I see no different to statues of people long dead, or places named after them.

We can add footnotes to the newly renamed mountain range such as “these were originally named The King Leoplod Ranges by explorer Alexander Forrest is 18-blah, but were later renamed given the atrocicites committed by King Leopold in the Congo Colony see: Belgian Congo “.

We obviously are in need of a statue Madame Tussauds, where people can visit to see the most wicked. History lessons all round.

Yeah, that might work. Along with a plaque explaining why the statues were taken down.

Why they were put up & then taken down.

curiously the people most supportive of removal of statues are actually opposed to destruction and rejection and disservice to lessons but then we have this

esselte said:

When a statue is torn down as a symbolic gesture of the rejection of properly contextualized historical facts, it does disservice to the lessons that can actually be learned from those facts. Now please understand, having said all this, I have no personal objection to the removal and destruction of statues such as those we are discussing here. But it should be an action which is intended to shape in some way the future environments which will determine our moral and ethical standards, an action intended to write the future, not re-write the history.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

We obviously are in need of a statue Madame Tussauds, where people can visit to see the most wicked. History lessons all round.

Yeah, that might work. Along with a plaque explaining why the statues were taken down.

Why they were put up & then taken down.

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Maybe the statues could be set up inside public toilets.

party_pants said:

Maybe the statues could be set up inside public toilets.

Or re-located to the aviaries of zoos?

party_pants said:

Maybe the statues could be set up inside public toilets.

That would give you the shits.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Yeah, that might work. Along with a plaque explaining why the statues were taken down.

Why they were put up & then taken down.

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

Why they were put up & then taken down.

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

is that because there were no good reasons for it in the first place

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

is that because there were no good reasons for it in the first place

Look him up & decide yourself.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

Why they were put up & then taken down.

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Often just the name & dates

is that because there were no good reasons for it in the first place

Look him up & decide yourself.

nah cuz the statue being there is enough of a history lesson and tells us all about his importance

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

There was a decorative fountain in a Sydney park which was converted into a urinal.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

The first reason would be on the original plaque I guess.

Often just the name & dates

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

Well that is a bit pointless. If you want them to sink into oblivion and no lessons be learned or remembered, you remove them entirely. The alternative is to offer an education with information about the statue that has previously been made.

esselte said:

.
We should recognize though that every time we “re-write history” like this we are producing something heavily prejudiced by our current sensibilities.

Slavery is bad? Well, yeah… bad for the slaves at least. But slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations… the unpaid work of some afforded others the opportunity to lounge around in olive groves talking about politics and philosophy, medicine and mathematics. And modern civilization is good… the average person living in a modern, civilized country is far better off than their ancestors. Child mortality rates are way down, opportunities to improve our individual circumstances and the freedom of self determination are way up. We don’t even need those slaves any more, because we have tractors and washing machines, and huge diesel powered shovels scooping 500 tonnes of rock at a time in to the back of huge diesel powered trucks, so it’s easy for us to find the concept of slavery revolting.

That is nonsense. Slavery was in no way essential for the advance of civilisation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

.
We should recognize though that every time we “re-write history” like this we are producing something heavily prejudiced by our current sensibilities.

Slavery is bad? Well, yeah… bad for the slaves at least. But slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations… the unpaid work of some afforded others the opportunity to lounge around in olive groves talking about politics and philosophy, medicine and mathematics. And modern civilization is good… the average person living in a modern, civilized country is far better off than their ancestors. Child mortality rates are way down, opportunities to improve our individual circumstances and the freedom of self determination are way up. We don’t even need those slaves any more, because we have tractors and washing machines, and huge diesel powered shovels scooping 500 tonnes of rock at a time in to the back of huge diesel powered trucks, so it’s easy for us to find the concept of slavery revolting.

That is nonsense. Slavery was in no way essential for the advance of civilisation.

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

only if you prove that “everyone happens to do X” means “X is necessary to be one”

esselte said:

You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did require slavery in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to prove your statement. Can you do so?

party_pants said:

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

.
We should recognize though that every time we “re-write history” like this we are producing something heavily prejudiced by our current sensibilities.

Slavery is bad? Well, yeah… bad for the slaves at least. But slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations… the unpaid work of some afforded others the opportunity to lounge around in olive groves talking about politics and philosophy, medicine and mathematics. And modern civilization is good… the average person living in a modern, civilized country is far better off than their ancestors. Child mortality rates are way down, opportunities to improve our individual circumstances and the freedom of self determination are way up. We don’t even need those slaves any more, because we have tractors and washing machines, and huge diesel powered shovels scooping 500 tonnes of rock at a time in to the back of huge diesel powered trucks, so it’s easy for us to find the concept of slavery revolting.

That is nonsense. Slavery was in no way essential for the advance of civilisation.

Slaves were the manpower that did the hard labour. Bit like building a modern city without large earth moving equipment. Unlikely to get done in any substantial way.

Divine Angel said:

If only!

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

.
We should recognize though that every time we “re-write history” like this we are producing something heavily prejudiced by our current sensibilities.

Slavery is bad? Well, yeah… bad for the slaves at least. But slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations… the unpaid work of some afforded others the opportunity to lounge around in olive groves talking about politics and philosophy, medicine and mathematics. And modern civilization is good… the average person living in a modern, civilized country is far better off than their ancestors. Child mortality rates are way down, opportunities to improve our individual circumstances and the freedom of self determination are way up. We don’t even need those slaves any more, because we have tractors and washing machines, and huge diesel powered shovels scooping 500 tonnes of rock at a time in to the back of huge diesel powered trucks, so it’s easy for us to find the concept of slavery revolting.

That is nonsense. Slavery was in no way essential for the advance of civilisation.

Slaves were the manpower that did the hard labour. Bit like building a modern city without large earth moving equipment. Unlikely to get done in any substantial way.

ah yes, heavy machinery are people too

party_pants said:

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

No foundational civilizations ever arose in England. The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

I probably should say that I don’t have much interest at all in statues and can very easily walk/drive past them without needing to know who thought they were a big wig in their time. As children we holidayed in quite a few different places in Victoria/SA/NSW. Never the same place twice. And we frequented cemeteries. We had certain “games” we played. I don’t remember us doing more than take a quick glance at the big mausoleum type graves. We searched for the youngest person. The oldest person. And when there had been a bunch of kids die at a similar time. Then we would often be able to tell when measles went through the fledgling town, as usually at least one of the kids’ graves would give a cause of death. But we were perhaps not “normal” in our holiday habits. When I was very young (1960s) we were taken to Lake Tyers in Gippsland. Although researching it now, I doubt it was actually to the settlement. I remember being very impressed with a man showing us how he tempered wood in flame. I don’t remember anything else.

esselte said:

party_pants said:

esselte said:

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

No foundational civilizations ever arose in England. The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

oh we see, what we’re saying is that slavery is essential for a civilization to no longer be in existence, makes sense

esselte said:

party_pants said:

esselte said:

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

No foundational civilizations ever arose in England. The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

Sorry, meant “Europe” rather than “England”.

party_pants said:

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

I think ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ would suggest an entirely different answer.

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

In Europe at least the end of serfdom was pivotal in the development of what we now recognise as modern economies. In fact cheap labour was a reason not to invest in agricultural improvement and the seeds of industrialisation.

esselte said:

SCIENCE said:

esselte said:

slavery was also an essential component of the creation of modern civilizations

lol

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

In Europe at least the end of serfdom was pivotal in the development of what we now recognise as modern economies. In fact cheap labour was a reason not to invest in agricultural improvement and the seeds of industrialisation.

Divine Angel said:

:)

An example of an attempt to rewrite history is when conservative governments try to airbrush atrocities out of the high school history curriculum…

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

Often just the name & dates

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

Well that is a bit pointless. If you want them to sink into oblivion and no lessons be learned or remembered, you remove them entirely. The alternative is to offer an education with information about the statue that has previously been made.

It could become a thing that toilets are only named after people who did bad things. So if you were you curious you could look them up and find out what they did.

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

esselte said:

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

I think ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’ would suggest an entirely different answer.

:)

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

esselte said:

Modern civilizations all derive ultimately from foundational civilizations (self-evidently). You would need to demonstrate that foundational civilizations did not require slavery (they all had it) in order to survive and ultimately lead to what we have today to disprove my statement. Can you do so?

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

party_pants said:

Maybe the statues could be set up inside public toilets.

Is that where the Alan Jones statue is going?

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

Well that is a bit pointless. If you want them to sink into oblivion and no lessons be learned or remembered, you remove them entirely. The alternative is to offer an education with information about the statue that has previously been made.

It could become a thing that toilets are only named after people who did bad things. So if you were you curious you could look them up and find out what they did.

or have their deeds written in a graffitiesque scrawl on the wall.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

i remember having this discussion last night.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I’m sure something could be worked out.

We could name the public conveniences after the person too.

Well that is a bit pointless. If you want them to sink into oblivion and no lessons be learned or remembered, you remove them entirely. The alternative is to offer an education with information about the statue that has previously been made.

It could become a thing that toilets are only named after people who did bad things. So if you were you curious you could look them up and find out what they did.

Won’t work. Bad people then, good people now.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

I agree. Some people (not me) are saying that forced labour is a form of slavery.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

That is a bit of a historical minefield. Take the case of England for example. The Romans and the Saxons had slaves, but it seems to have died out after the Norman conquest. Which of these is considered the foundation of modern England?

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

Serfs were generally not allowed to change jobs and were tied to the land they worked and could be freely traded by the gentry if that land was to change ownership.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

I agree. Some people (not me) are saying that forced labour is a form of slavery.

it could be said that it is a modern day type of slavery.

dv said:

party_pants said:

Maybe the statues could be set up inside public toilets.

Is that where the Alan Jones statue is going?

tzing!

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

i remember having this discussion last night.

Sorry. It musta been after I wandered off for the night.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

After the Norman conquest the Saxons became the exploited underclass. Serfs etc.

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

Serfs were generally not allowed to change jobs and were tied to the land they worked and could be freely traded by the gentry if that land was to change ownership.

plus they had their own bit of land to sustain them. they could also become wealthy.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

i remember having this discussion last night.

Sorry. It musta been after I wandered off for the night.

no need to apologize.

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

Serfs were generally not allowed to change jobs and were tied to the land they worked and could be freely traded by the gentry if that land was to change ownership.

plus they had their own bit of land to sustain them. they could also become wealthy.

They received a proportion of the agricultural output to sustain them which is different. Certainly there was social mobility within serfdom but that was also the case with regards the usual definition of slavery.

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

i remember having this discussion last night.

Sorry. It musta been after I wandered off for the night.

no need to apologize.

If it has been done and dusted then I don’t want to revive it.

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Serfs were not slaves. Unless you want to go around changing the meanings of words. I think both words already have an accepted meaning.

Serfs were generally not allowed to change jobs and were tied to the land they worked and could be freely traded by the gentry if that land was to change ownership.

plus they had their own bit of land to sustain them. they could also become wealthy.

Serfdom was the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism, and similar systems. It was a condition of debt bondage and indentured servitude, which developed during the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century. Wiki

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Serfs were generally not allowed to change jobs and were tied to the land they worked and could be freely traded by the gentry if that land was to change ownership.

plus they had their own bit of land to sustain them. they could also become wealthy.

Serfdom was the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism, and similar systems. It was a condition of debt bondage and indentured servitude, which developed during the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century. Wiki

Serfs were workers who were bound to a piece of land, called a fief, during the European Middle Ages. They were unable to leave this land and had to be loyal to a vassal above them in social standing, usually called a lord or noble.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

plus they had their own bit of land to sustain them. they could also become wealthy.

Serfdom was the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism, and similar systems. It was a condition of debt bondage and indentured servitude, which developed during the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century. Wiki

Serfs were workers who were bound to a piece of land, called a fief, during the European Middle Ages. They were unable to leave this land and had to be loyal to a vassal above them in social standing, usually called a lord or noble.

Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. … A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

esselte said:

The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

I had in mind Turkey, but for some other examples see:

https://earthnworld.com/oldest-buildings-in-the-world/

2. La Hougue Bie
This mound located in Jersey, Great Britain, is the oldest man-made structure in the country and one of the oldest buildings in the world. It was built around 6000 years back and is one of the finest examples of passage graves. Today the site has a medieval chapel built near the ancient mound, a watch post and bunker built during the Second World War and a museum open to tourists and visitors. The original structure was built in the Neolithic era and aligns perfectly with the equinox.

The things are similar but not the same. It is a question of grouping. Think of botanical naming as an analogy.

Each of the species has a name, slave, serf, indentured servant, hereditary indebted worker. What do we call the genus? Do we call them all “slave” and the true slave becomes slaveus slaveus, or do we come up with some other group name like Unfree labour” and stick all of those in there. Since each type already has its own name and definition I favour the latter approach.

party_pants said:

The things are similar but not the same. It is a question of grouping. Think of botanical naming as an analogy.

Each of the species has a name, slave, serf, indentured servant, hereditary indebted worker. What do we call the genus? Do we call them all “slave” and the true slave becomes slaveus slaveus, or do we come up with some other group name like Unfree labour” and stick all of those in there. Since each type already has its own name and definition I favour the latter approach.

Maybe under the “Family” of Slaves.

party_pants said:

The things are similar but not the same. It is a question of grouping. Think of botanical naming as an analogy.

Each of the species has a name, slave, serf, indentured servant, hereditary indebted worker. What do we call the genus? Do we call them all “slave” and the true slave becomes slaveus slaveus, or do we come up with some other group name like Unfree labour” and stick all of those in there. Since each type already has its own name and definition I favour the latter approach.

I thought that in a thread entitled rewriting history we could rewrite definitions as well.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

The things are similar but not the same. It is a question of grouping. Think of botanical naming as an analogy.

Each of the species has a name, slave, serf, indentured servant, hereditary indebted worker. What do we call the genus? Do we call them all “slave” and the true slave becomes slaveus slaveus, or do we come up with some other group name like Unfree labour” and stick all of those in there. Since each type already has its own name and definition I favour the latter approach.

Maybe under the “Family” of Slaves.

then you will need to come up with another name for slaves which are held as chattels, i.e. where the master owns the physical body of the slave.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

I had in mind Turkey, but for some other examples see:

The Turkish site:
Göbekli Tepe

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

The things are similar but not the same. It is a question of grouping. Think of botanical naming as an analogy.

Each of the species has a name, slave, serf, indentured servant, hereditary indebted worker. What do we call the genus? Do we call them all “slave” and the true slave becomes slaveus slaveus, or do we come up with some other group name like Unfree labour” and stick all of those in there. Since each type already has its own name and definition I favour the latter approach.

Maybe under the “Family” of Slaves.

then you will need to come up with another name for slaves which are held as chattels, i.e. where the master owns the physical body of the slave.

They become a subset, similar to a Genus.

PermeateFree said:

A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

I read the word ‘manumission’, but the brain registered ‘manual transmission’.

Which made a kind of sense, as becoming a freedman was obviously not an automatic thing.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Foundational Civilizations are Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Civilizations, Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

And that an agricultural surplus allowed the creation of the first cities with a class of worker not employed in agriculture.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s an interesting collection of civilizations.

One interesting aspect is that I had to look up Shang, Olmecs, and Chavin.

Another is that there are surviving buildings from 1000’s of years before the earliest of the five (Mesopotamia), so it seems a little arbitrary to select these five as the Foundational Civilisations.

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The five foundational civilizations arose spontaneously from neolithic farming groups, and it is this which makes them unique. Secondary civilizations did not arise spontaneously but were influenced (imported from) one of the foundational civilizations. Ancient European civilizations, for example, were imported ideas from Mesopotamia (and possibly Egypt, not sure).

It’s not arbitrary. It’s history.

The first civilizations appeared in major river valleys, where floodplains contained rich soil and the rivers provided irrigation for crops and a means of transportation. Foundational civilizations developed urbanization and complexity without outside influence and without building on a pre-existing civilization, though they did not all develop simultaneously. Many later civilizations either borrowed elements of, built on, or incorporated—through conquest—other civilizations. Because foundational civilizations arose independently, they are particularly useful to historians and archaeologists who want to understand how civilization first developed.”

Early Civilizations|Khan Academy

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

You’ll have to take that up with the historians.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Buildings do not denote civilizations.

Neolithic farmers built houses and sheds. Neolithic farmers weren’t Civilized People. Hunter / gatherers built shelters, but not civilizations. You need cities (urban areas), common laws, common rulers etc to have a civilization.

“Civilization describes a complex way of life that came about as people began to develop networks of urban settlements.

“The earliest civilizations developed between 4000 and 3000 BCE, when the rise of agriculture and trade allowed people to have surplus food and economic stability. Many people no longer had to practice farming, allowing a diverse array of professions and interests to flourish in a relatively confined area.

“Civilizations first appeared in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq) and later in Egypt. Civilizations thrived in the Indus Valley by about 2500 BCE, in China by about 1500 BCE and in Central America (what is now Mexico) by about 1200 BCE.”

Key Components of Civilization

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The five foundational civilizations arose spontaneously from neolithic farming groups, and it is this which makes them unique. Secondary civilizations did not arise spontaneously but were influenced (imported from) one of the foundational civilizations. Ancient European civilizations, for example, were imported ideas from Mesopotamia (and possibly Egypt, not sure).

It’s not arbitrary. It’s history.

The first civilizations appeared in major river valleys, where floodplains contained rich soil and the rivers provided irrigation for crops and a means of transportation. Foundational civilizations developed urbanization and complexity without outside influence and without building on a pre-existing civilization, though they did not all develop simultaneously. Many later civilizations either borrowed elements of, built on, or incorporated—through conquest—other civilizations. Because foundational civilizations arose independently, they are particularly useful to historians and archaeologists who want to understand how civilization first developed.”

Early Civilizations|Khan Academy

No, it’s a particular interpretation of history, that arose when the known evidence was much less than now, but has persisted, in the way that these things do.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

raises eyebrows

well, they were all … humans … weren’t they

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is entirely arbitrary. All these cultures, and those that came before and after, lie on a multi-dimensional continuum. To select five cultures from 5 locations as being the sole examples of “foundational civilisations” makes no sense.

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

You are arguing against the academic consensus then. You would need to take it up with the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists.

Cultures are not civilizations. Neolithic farmers built neolithic farm houses and neolithic villages and traded with neolithic traders and probably had flushable dunnies. They had some of the components of civilizations, but not all, so they were not and are not considered civilizations.

Civilizations first arose in Mesopotamia. They also independently arose in the Indus Valley, along the banks of the Nile River, in the valley of the Yellow River and in a couple of other places in on the American continents. All other civilizations that have existed were influenced in some way by one or more of these five civilizations. All five depended on slavery to exist and prosper. Modern civilization is descended from these foundational civilizations. Modern civilization is built, at least partially, on the backs of slaves.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The pivotal thing is that these civilisations arose independently.

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

You are arguing against the academic consensus then. You would need to take it up with the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists.

Cultures are not civilizations. Neolithic farmers built neolithic farm houses and neolithic villages and traded with neolithic traders and probably had flushable dunnies. They had some of the components of civilizations, but not all, so they were not and are not considered civilizations.

Civilizations first arose in Mesopotamia. They also independently arose in the Indus Valley, along the banks of the Nile River, in the valley of the Yellow River and in a couple of other places in on the American continents. All other civilizations that have existed were influenced in some way by one or more of these five civilizations. All five depended on slavery to exist and prosper. Modern civilization is descended from these foundational civilizations. Modern civilization is built, at least partially, on the backs of slaves.

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say the probability of that was close to zero.

You are arguing against the academic consensus then. You would need to take it up with the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists.

Cultures are not civilizations. Neolithic farmers built neolithic farm houses and neolithic villages and traded with neolithic traders and probably had flushable dunnies. They had some of the components of civilizations, but not all, so they were not and are not considered civilizations.

Civilizations first arose in Mesopotamia. They also independently arose in the Indus Valley, along the banks of the Nile River, in the valley of the Yellow River and in a couple of other places in on the American continents. All other civilizations that have existed were influenced in some way by one or more of these five civilizations. All five depended on slavery to exist and prosper. Modern civilization is descended from these foundational civilizations. Modern civilization is built, at least partially, on the backs of slaves.

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

You are arguing against the academic consensus then. You would need to take it up with the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists.

Cultures are not civilizations. Neolithic farmers built neolithic farm houses and neolithic villages and traded with neolithic traders and probably had flushable dunnies. They had some of the components of civilizations, but not all, so they were not and are not considered civilizations.

Civilizations first arose in Mesopotamia. They also independently arose in the Indus Valley, along the banks of the Nile River, in the valley of the Yellow River and in a couple of other places in on the American continents. All other civilizations that have existed were influenced in some way by one or more of these five civilizations. All five depended on slavery to exist and prosper. Modern civilization is descended from these foundational civilizations. Modern civilization is built, at least partially, on the backs of slaves.

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Thanks. Did you just google it?

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

You are arguing against the academic consensus then. You would need to take it up with the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists.

Cultures are not civilizations. Neolithic farmers built neolithic farm houses and neolithic villages and traded with neolithic traders and probably had flushable dunnies. They had some of the components of civilizations, but not all, so they were not and are not considered civilizations.

Civilizations first arose in Mesopotamia. They also independently arose in the Indus Valley, along the banks of the Nile River, in the valley of the Yellow River and in a couple of other places in on the American continents. All other civilizations that have existed were influenced in some way by one or more of these five civilizations. All five depended on slavery to exist and prosper. Modern civilization is descended from these foundational civilizations. Modern civilization is built, at least partially, on the backs of slaves.

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

Sorry, it’s a TATE quote:

Indus–Mesopotamia relations

Also from: World’s Oldest Temple to Be Restored

“The early dates have upended the idea that agriculture led to civilization. Scholars long thought that when hunter-gatherers settled down and started growing crops, the resulting food surplus made it possible for people to organize complex societies.

Göbekli Tepe calls that conventional wisdom into question. Klaus Schmidt, a German archaeologist who led excavations at the site, argued before he died in 2014 that it might have worked the other way around: The vast labor force needed to build the enclosures pushed people to develop agriculture as a way of providing predictable food—and perhaps drink—for workers.”

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Well spotted :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

The word “civilization” has a definition. The division exists in that some things fit that definition, some things don’t.
There was a time when civilization did not exist, then there was a time when it did.

There were plenty of people living neolithic lifestyles in Europe. They had plenty of culture, but they never independently developed civilization.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

The word “civilization” has a definition. The division exists in that some things fit that definition, some things don’t.
There was a time when civilization did not exist, then there was a time when it did.

There were plenty of people living neolithic lifestyles in Europe. They had plenty of culture, but they never independently developed civilization.

Lots of things have definitions, but that doesn’t mean they have non-arbitrary well defined limits. Any specific limits applied to a continuum are necessarily arbitrary.

Also:

esselte said:

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

That’s not totally impossible, but it is entirely possible (and I would suggest very likely) that the true story was nothing like that. We don’t have the information to know for sure.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that doesn’t fit with the academic consensus.
For instance:

Indian genes in ancient Mesopotamia
It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia from circa 4500 to 1900 BC and who spoke a non-Indo-European and non-Semitic language, may have initially come from India and may have been related to the original Dravidian population of India. This appeared to historian Henry Hall as the most probable conclusion, particularly based on the portrayal of Sumerians in their own art and “how very Indian the Sumerians were in type”. Recent genetic analysis of ancient Mesopotamian skeletal DNA tends to confirm a significant association. The Sumerians progressively lost control to Semitic states from the northwest, starting with the Akkadian Empire, from circa 2300 BC.

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But more to the point, it makes no sense to divide all cultures into either “civilisation” or “not civilisation”.

It is a continuum.

The word “civilization” has a definition. The division exists in that some things fit that definition, some things don’t.
There was a time when civilization did not exist, then there was a time when it did.

There were plenty of people living neolithic lifestyles in Europe. They had plenty of culture, but they never independently developed civilization.

Lots of things have definitions, but that doesn’t mean they have non-arbitrary well defined limits. Any specific limits applied to a continuum are necessarily arbitrary.

Then the development of civilization is not a continuum, because it has a non-arbitrary well defined starting point. Five of them, actually. Well, five that we know of. There might be other times and places where groups of people started a civilization, but didn’t use enough slaves or something so their civilization died out really quickly and left no footprint.

Historical Revisionism.

I’m trying to think of a historical revisionism so recent that we can directly relate to the events. The manned landings on the Moon as an example of historical revisionism.

• 1959 – If we land a man on the Moon we’ll meet an intelligent alien race. (UFOs were very much in vogue then).
• 1969 – Yippee we won the race. Up yours, Russia. (The truth. Disappointment at not meeting intelligent aliens).
• 1979 – American astronauts are the best of the best and the bravest of the brave, based the myth of the knights of the round table. (The truth. Apart from a psychopath-like ability to stay cool in a crisis, they have very little in common).
• 1989 – The Moon landings spark the first step of Moon tourism, tourists will want to see these sites for themselves. (The truth. The costs are more than prohibitive, it will never happen).
• 1999 – The Moon landing sites are sacred ground, to be protected from human interference forever.
• 2016 – NASA Apollo didn’t have any black women astronauts and therefore NASA is a sexist white supremacist organisation, exporting sexist white supremacy to the Moon.
• 2029 – The Moon landing was a white imperialist invasion of unspoilt territory. America was exporting germs to the Moon in order to create a genocide of helpless and enlightened Moon inhabitants.
• 2039 – Moon rocks were illegally stolen from their natural environment, and will be returned to their sacred land on the Moon at the first opportunity.

Historical revisionism works something like that, but usually more spread out over a longer time span.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also:

esselte said:

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

That’s not totally impossible, but it is entirely possible (and I would suggest very likely) that the true story was nothing like that. We don’t have the information to know for sure.

Well yeah, sure. But it’s pretty well accepted that civilization first started in Mesopotamia. It’s, like, one of the basic facts of human history, well supported by the available evidence… the details are probably not exact, new evidence could emerge which overturns the current paradigm, all the usual disclaimers apply of course.

And this is, after all, the Rewriting History thread ;)

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Thanks. Did you just google it?

“It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia”

In quotes, google.

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Thanks. Did you just google it?

“It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia”

In quotes, google.

Sounds almost like a Noel Coward lyric.

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Thanks. Did you just google it?

“It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia”

In quotes, google.

I didn’t use quotation marks but i usually find you don’t need to.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also:

esselte said:

I don’t understand how any of that contradicts what I was saying. Pre-civilized people traveled from India to Mesopotamia, then started some civilizations (Sumerians) in Mesopatamia which were later conquered by other civilizations in Mesopotamia (Akkadians) whos’ ancestors had not come from India. Some time later, the people that stayed in India also started a civilization independently to and unaware of the civilizations in Mesopotamia which preceded them.

That’s not totally impossible, but it is entirely possible (and I would suggest very likely) that the true story was nothing like that. We don’t have the information to know for sure.

Well yeah, sure. But it’s pretty well accepted that civilization first started in Mesopotamia. It’s, like, one of the basic facts of human history, well supported by the available evidence… the details are probably not exact, new evidence could emerge which overturns the current paradigm, all the usual disclaimers apply of course.

And this is, after all, the Rewriting History thread ;)

I think I’ll withdraw from this one now.

I think we are all too entrenched in the positions we have defined for ourselves.

JudgeMental said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus–Mesopotamia_relations#Indian_genes_in_ancient_Mesopotamia

Thanks. Did you just google it?

“It has long been suggested that the Sumerians, who ruled in Lower Mesopotamia”

In quotes, google.

Yeah, an exact search on even a short phrase usually works wonders.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Where did you get that passage from? (google is no help) I agree that Egypt and Sumer are reasonably close enough together that there could have been cross-cultural pollination but if we were to compare their writing systems the entirely different structure of hieroglyphs and cuneiform wouldn’t suggest this IMO.

Seems Sumerians used hieroglyphs that evolved into cuneiform so there is definitely evidence that written language in Ancient Egypt was influenced by that of Sumer.

>“History” means the apprehension of the past by the people of the present.

you could probably safely assume there is history independent of any constructions regard it, sure as there is physics independent of any formalism of the subject physics

transition said:

>“History” means the apprehension of the past by the people of the present.

you could probably safely assume there is history independent of any constructions regard it, sure as there is physics independent of any formalism of the subject physics

Having too much coffee late in the day probably leads to disturbed sleep and subsequent posting to obscure internet forums you know. :-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

>“History” means the apprehension of the past by the people of the present.

you could probably safely assume there is history independent of any constructions regard it, sure as there is physics independent of any formalism of the subject physics

Having too much coffee late in the day probably leads to disturbed sleep and subsequent posting to obscure internet forums you know. :-)

i’ll make a coffee in a moment

just finished off a box of bbq shapes

I was contemplating car’s definition of history above, and thought it likely misleading

Bubblecar said:

…deserves a thread, given the controversy in Chat.

The rewriting of history is an essential part of the passage of cultural time, regardless of the prevailing ideology.

But it’s also essential to positive progress. The heroes of one age can become the villains of the next, when values shift towards a greater respect for human life and human rights.

Pulling down statues, renaming mountains and so on is not a matter of “erasing history”. It’s a matter of reinterpreting the past in the light of current values.

Statues that were erected to celebrate historical figures now seen as far less laudable are removed from their positions of celebration. This doesn’t for one moment mean we “forget” the deeds for which those individuals were responsible; it’s the greater awareness of their misdeeds that prompts the action in the first place, and ensures that their place in history is now changed to reflect a more defensible ethical verdict.

Celebratory statues of Hitler, Stalin etc were destroyed in great number, but their crimes remain well recorded. Nobody argues that Jews ought to live on a street called Hitler Avenue to remind them of the dangers of antisemitism.

It’s surely not difficult to understand that many of the descendants of the victims of past oppressors are offended when place names, plaques and statues celebrating those responsible remain in place.

The Confederacy
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) DEFINITELY WORTH THE WATCH (…since it pertains directly to the OP)

then there’s
Azzholes STILL Glorifying “The GOOD Ole Daze” disguised as “Heritage”