Sculpture is a primarily aesthetic, not didactic, medium. In fact of every major artistic medium I can think of it's the furthest to that end of the scale.
__________________ "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
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Invasion and subjugation is hardly a behaviour peculiar to Europeans. In the same period the British and French were colonizing Canada, the Hmong were subjugated by the Chinese and the Bantu by the Zulu. The Aztecs brutally subjugated all their neighbours, which was why it was so easy for Cortez to find allies against them. There's evidence that the indigenous people in North America at contact with Europe had previously wiped out or absorbed earlier arrivals to the continent.
You moved the goal posts. I didn’t say it was exclusive, just that it was deliberate.
The reach and scope of Euro colonization was unprecedented in human history. I agree there has been warring and occupation and subjugation since forever. The unique element here is that Christian pseudo-monarchies colonized indigenous peoples worldwide, then grew into secular, multi-cultural liberal democracies that recognize broad human rights. But there is still this weird limbo where indigenous people survive, but are culturally clinging to life and mostly physically segregated. Should they assimilate into Canadian culture or should traditional cultures be maintained and restored? Should Canada create opportunities to improve indigenous outcomes that are wildly inconsistent and in some places downright 3rd world, or should we just ignore it? There are a thousand questions like this that deserve attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Declaring neighbours who have stuff you want to be inhuman and not protected by the laws that govern your people is the default stance of humans, only recognized recently (and by those same Europeans) as something to be ashamed of.
Yes. Isn’t this a good development?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Can you name some countries with a non-Christian heritage where we see collective expressions of guilt and atonement over historical depredations? You might want to compare the post-war public attitudes in Japan, for instance, with those in Germany.
I still don’t get your point. Christian moral authority largely led to the policies that created cultural genocide(s) in the first place. Modern Christians are likely to be on the conversative side of this issue. But then Christian atonement is leading us toward reconciliation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
My argument is we shouldn't be deflected by sentiment and emotionally-satisfying narratives, and instead focus in the difficult, tangible work at hand.
Great. Which is why people freaking out over a statue is silly and distracting. No one said removal of statues and monuments are the end game. So where do we go from here?
It's also a rather symbolic medium. And in this case, symbolism inherent in the lack of public consultation prior to erasure is hard to ignore.
I think we can all agree on this. I am sure those that requested this action as part of their reconciliation agreement are grateful that not every decision hinges upon the consent of the majority.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
It's also a rather symbolic medium. And in this case, symbolism inherent in the lack of public consultation prior to erasure is hard to ignore.
What is the value of a public consultation when so many members of the public have no understanding of the facts, nor a true stake in the issue?
It works this same way with nearly every issue a government deals with. If this issue is important enough, and enough people are upset with the decision, then it will be resolved at the next election.
That isn't to say public consultation isn't important, but I don't really see why it matters much here. There would have been many, many voices in support of removal...
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
So Textcritic's view is essentially that nobody who disagrees with him deserves a say, and powderjunkie's view is essentially that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant.
And you guys wonder why there is no 'intelligent' debate on the matter.
Incidentally, powder, the reason why they did it this way is because it takes orders of magnitude more effort to reverse a bad decision than it takes to make it in the first place. To promise public consultation after executing a fait accompli rather than before making any decisions is disingenuous and underscores this as being nothing more than moral grandstanding.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
__________________
"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 User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
It's also a rather symbolic medium. And in this case, symbolism inherent in the lack of public consultation prior to erasure is hard to ignore.
That's fair... but symbolism has its limitations in communicating information. Really, it's best served at communicating a narrow message or concept in a particularly profound way. That's obviously valuable, but it's not a particularly good way to understand history, or even context surrounding a person or event. It's like the difference between a poem and a textbook, or a painting of a house and its blueprints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think we can all agree on this. I am sure those that requested this action as part of their reconciliation agreement are grateful that not every decision hinges upon the consent of the majority.
Who makes up the minority whose consent is required - or better yet, who gets to decide who makes it up? It seems pretty arbitrary, doesn't it?
__________________ "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
So Textcritic's view is essentially that nobody who disagrees with him deserves a say, and powderjunkie's view is essentially that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant.
It’s a matter of practicality. The nature of a representative democracy is that we don’t always agree with our elected representatives. If you want to live in a direct democracy you can always go live in Switzerland. I doubt even they hold referenda on statue removal though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Incidentally, powder, the reason why they did it this way is because it takes orders of magnitude more effort to reverse a bad decision than it takes to make it in the first place. To promise public consultation after executing a fait accompli rather than before making any decisions is disingenuous and underscores this as being nothing more than moral grandstanding.
This is pretty melodramatic. I don’t think that’s the reason or even the correct timeline. Can you post the Victoria mayor’s statement and show examples of moral grandstanding?
It’s a matter of practicality. The nature of a representative democracy is that we don’t always agree with our elected representatives. If you want to live in a direct democracy you can always go live in Switzerland. I doubt even they hold referenda on statue removal though.
The fact that Victoria's mayor is promising public consultations completely undermines your argument. If it is practical after, then it is practical before.
She didn't want to do it before because it risked undermining her ability to signal her virtue.
She didn't want to do it before because it risked undermining her ability to signal her virtue.
Right, she really needed to make sure the indigenous population that makes up less than 5% of the total population of Victoria knew she was on their side, they would have never gotten her message had she only brought up removing the statue
So Textcritic's view is essentially that nobody who disagrees with him deserves a say, and powderjunkie's view is essentially that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant...
Bravo. This is an exceptional mischaracterization of my view.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Bravo. This is an exceptional mischaracterization of my view.
Not as much of one as you would like to believe. Though perhaps it is more accurate to suggest that the only people you feel deserve a say are those who will help you reach your desired and pre-determined outcome.
The fact that Victoria's mayor is promising public consultations completely undermines your argument. If it is practical after, then it is practical before.
She didn't want to do it before because it risked undermining her ability to signal her virtue.
Only if I accept your premise of moral grandstanding. Maybe they just misjudged statue fetish among the general public. Elected officials can still hold public consultations but it would be terribly impractical for every issue. Also the original statement literally said it’s an open issue. Whatever, I mostly just think you’re still making way too big an issue out of it.
But honestly just... dig in a little bit. I don’t think anyone is asking you to have an in-depth understanding, but “what are the goals of reconciliation” means you haven’t even done the lowest level of research, so start there and see how you feel when you come out the other side.
Well I'm glad I've read through it, there's a lot that i do agree with in there that needs to be done for sure, but holy cow is there a ton of meaningless fluff in those pages.
That link literally says nothing we dont already know, theres no deliverables, nothing quantifiable, but you can bet I'll be paying for it.
Several CTA's have already been put in place many years ago:
We call upon the federal government to prepare and publish annual reports comparing funding for the education of First Nations children on and off reserves, as well as educational and income attainments of Aboriginal peoples in Canada compared with non-Aboriginal people.
Which had begun in 2016.
I don't personally see value in all of the CTA's, such as:
We call upon post-secondary institutions to create university and college degree and diploma programs in Aboriginal languages
If there was a need for it, it would have presented itself. Lets go to the Aboriginal languages factory and put on our work boots.
Honestly there sounds like many of the CTA's are valuable and should hopefully provide a better path forward, but with 94 calls and their relatively vague nature, I fully expect to be paying for someone to find a loophole and capitalize.
All in all, it sounds good on paper, it will be incredibly expensive and I dont believe its in Canada's best interest but lets see what happens in practice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
Last edited by PaperBagger'14; 08-13-2018 at 06:57 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
It's also a rather symbolic medium. And in this case, symbolism inherent in the lack of public consultation prior to erasure is hard to ignore.
Not to dumb down the debate you're having and maybe this is just an aside, but I've learned WAY more about the darker side of our country through "controversial" removing and renaming of historic structures than the almost NOTHING I was exposed to in public school. An earlier controversial renaming that brought great annoyance to many in Calgary was part of what sent me on a journey to learn more about our past.
So I personally really appreciate when this stuff happens, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Last edited by jayswin; 08-14-2018 at 05:22 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Honestly, Jayswin, that is more by accident than design. The intention of these things is isn't to give you a broad understanding of the person, but instead to give an equally narrow but wholly negative understanding. The temporary plaque that Victoria put up was basically "he was a bad guy who led violence against First Nations and the first Prime Minister." And given who's in charge of Victoria city council, there's no reason to expect whatever permanent crap they put up will be any different.
The need to do a better job of teaching a complete picture of both the individual and the context of the era he lived in is evident. But the kind of people who cheer for the erasure of history like this are not going to be the ones capable of doing that. It's great that you took it upon yourself to learn, however it is intended that people like you are to be a small minority.
Only if I accept your premise of moral grandstanding. Maybe they just misjudged statue fetish among the general public. Elected officials can still hold public consultations but it would be terribly impractical for every issue. Also the original statement literally said it’s an open issue. Whatever, I mostly just think you’re still making way too big an issue out of it.
Again, you keep trying to minimize the issue as "just a statue". For someone who claimed earlier to understand the broader issue and context, you've shown a significant inability to demonstrate it. Particularly if you think anyone would have been surprised that this campaign to demonize Canada's first Prime Minister would be controversial.
Again, you keep trying to minimize the issue as "just a statue". For someone who claimed earlier to understand the broader issue and context, you've shown a significant inability to demonstrate it. Particularly if you think anyone would have been surprised that this campaign to demonize Canada's first Prime Minister would be controversial.
For someone who keeps falsely talking about the erasure of history, you seem a lot more concerned that more of his history that holds a negative connotation is becoming prominent.
Can you explain what part of his history, exactly, is being erased? And how that’s being accomplished?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
