P.S. As another example, most political and cultural figures of the past centuries viewed homosexuality as a deadly sin. Should the society bring it up now and start revising the way we look at those figures?
Tommy Douglas, viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, not a sin. A "progressive" view at the time, but an abhorrent one by today's standards.
Should we all campaign to have his statue removed for not holding today's standard views on homsexuality several decades ago?
Should we all campaign to have his statue removed for not holding today's standard views on homsexuality several decades ago?
It would depend on whether or not the statue offends you because of his views. If it does and you want it removed, then a campaign would probably be the most effective way of having it removed. If it doesn’t, why even ask the question?
It's not whataboutism to ask what principles - what universally applied, general principles - we should follow as a society regarding historical figures who expressed views that we find shameful today. Because a liberal system is rooted in the universal application of principles. And public support for that system declines when it seems to behave in an inconsistent, arbitrary, or capricious manner.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Yes, and those working class people just got to the work of nation building with no leadership?
Of course. Thats the beauty of Liberalism over everything else, people just do the right thing at the right time all the time without anyone ever having to indicate that they should do it.
Its indistinguishable from Magic really.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
How about option B and just limit it to people who said ####ty things? Like, we can just limit it to people who publicly advocated against those of other races I suppose.
Memorials for politicians are pretty stupid regardless.
Your proposal is no memorialization of any pre-WWII figure?
So no Murphy and Maclung for their support of Chinese Head Taxes, No Founder of Confederation for their involvement in Residential Schools, No Mac-King for Japanese Internment.
Yes, and those working class people just got to the work of nation building with no leadership?
Of course there is nuance. Leadership has its place, but using anything as singular as the "father of a nation" is ludicrous.
Let me put it this way, who's labour was more meaningful, the person who signed a piece of paper commissioning a trans-national railway, or the people who died laying the rail?
This county was founded by the labour of working class people. Not wealthy politicians.
There you go. Proletariat of all countries, unite! Didn't take long.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
It's not whataboutism to ask what principles - what universally applied, general principles - we should follow as a society regarding historical figures who expressed views that we find shameful today. Because a liberal system is rooted in the universal application of principles. And public support for that system declines when it seems to behave in an inconsistent, arbitrary, or capricious manner.
Okay, so when a specific group brings up a specific gripe about a specific Douglas statue to a specific municipality, we can apply the same principles to the situation.
It's a whataboutism because you're speculating rather than referring to an existing circumstance.
Your proposal is no memorialization of any pre-WWII figure?
So no Murphy and Maclung for their support of Chinese Head Taxes, No Founder of Confederation for their involvement in Residential Schools, No Mac-King for Japanese Internment.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Okay, so when a specific group brings up a specific gripe about a specific Douglas statue to a specific municipality, we can apply the same principles to the situation.
It's a whataboutism because you're speculating rather than referring to an existing circumstance.
1. What is he principle that you're referring to? I cant think of one that could be restricted to such narrow circumstances.
2. He is talking about an existing circumstance - another statue that exists.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Okay, so when a specific group brings up a specific gripe about a specific Douglas statue to a specific municipality, we can apply the same principles to the situation.
It's a whataboutism because you're speculating rather than referring to an existing circumstance.
It's only whataboutism if you say you Can't take down this statue unless you take down all statues.
Asking for a consistent rational for what statues are taken down and what criteria they are judged by is reasonable.
For example in 2010 amid much protest a Nellie Mclung Statue was unveiled in Winnipeg. This is inconsistent with taking this Statue down.
Sure he had some. But he was only one in thousands of people who worked towards creating modern Canada. What can I say, the man was in Western Canada once in his lifetime during 1886. Am I supposed to believe that he is the father of the entire nation? I value to contribution of people who actually worked in the part of the country I live in over the contribution over a person who only knew about where I am from in name.
