I am not telling you what to do. I disagreed with your assessment of the value of tv viewing figures.
1 Like
So why are the USA team not taking the knee prior to WC games?
One would think that the US team would be the most visible in making the gesture, given that it was (In the last few years) first taken up as a signal of protest in the USA as a response to the murder of George Floyd.
Were the England players looking at their US counterparts on the night and thinking “hang on a minute”?
Or, as the BLM movement has been revealed as a money making jamboree for those at the peak of the organisation, have the US team decided to disassociate themselves with it?
Are any other teams taking the knee at the current WC?
Perhaps it is England alone dedicated to the fight against racism? That would not be the first time.
Or something else?
No such thing as cancel culture, well known fact.
Why do you think it’s cancel culture?
1 Like
I think the clue is in the words “cancelling culture”
Cancelling means to remove, destroy, phase out, force to desist and/or obliterate. (as you know)
Culture is the stuff lefties bang on about in modern times and once we step back before the age when the noisy minority had more money than sense (and so spent their whole lives campaigning for lesbian libraries on twitter), the arts essentially. (as I’m sure you agree with)
Like it or not, so much art does not fit into “some” people’s modern day sensibilities. Should it be removed from public view because some people jump up and down and are dreadfully offended on behalf of somebody else?
It’s like groundhog day at times just that Bill Murry makes me smile.
The art isn’t being removed. The artifacts that made up the exhibit are repurposed in a new exhibit.
An exhibit is a collection of artifacts in a shared context. This move is simply creating a new, more authentic context for the artifacts. One that centers their origin and authentic use rather than their acquisition. This is only cancel culture if we accept that the terms means knee jerk crying from reactionary conservatives in response to any change.
3 Likes
It’s the same argument whenever we take down a statue of a slaver.
The issue is the context the art is displayed in. Celebrating a slave trader is obviously a problem. Moving that statue to a museum or site where the context can be discussed more sensitively is not ‘cancel culture’.
If you don’t think art should adapt as the transgressions of the subject become more widely known, I suppose you don’t think we should have removed those statues of Jimmy Savile?
2 Likes
It’s not even art, as such. It’s a collection of artefacts and objects in an exhibition.
It does need to be acknowledged that there is a systemic reevaluation of the ethics of museums occurring that most would consider has a very liberal slant. This move is very much coming out of that discussion. People will reflexively question the appropriateness of these moves given the liberal slant, but the irony is that an exhibit like this refusing to modernize the narrative the exhibit presents would be itself into a museum to a less enlightened past, with the artifacts on display turned into mere McGuffins. For the focus to remain on the artifacts themselves and not on them as an outdated institution, the exhibit needs to be reimagined.
yet the shrines to the Egyptian pharoahs still make the rounds on display like their artifacts of gods
imagine the horror stories from those times, if they could have been told.
how many thousands of slaves died at the feet of the pyramids, which we marvel over as one of the 7 wonders of the world.
There’s a very good case that the pyramid builders were not slaves.
2 Likes
I’m sure they were all economic migrants and there of their own volition.
1 Like
Arrived via boat. It was a fair row.
same as the builders of the Qatar stadium weren’t slaves, right?
1 Like
Why not just do Disney’s trick and put a banner on it saying “snowflakes might be offended by the past, it happened, as none of us alive now participated, let’s all just live together and remember the errors of the past”
Sins of the father?
Why not just present the past in a context that is more accurate.
Love your statement though. It’s amazing. It implores we all move on while displays of absolutely nothing of the humility and awareness that would actually make that possible.
One of the best examples of how to do this properly in my opinion, was at a small little museum of maritime history somewhere near Morecambe I visited on holiday.
Obviously a lot of British maritime history is inescapably linked to slavery, and the exhibits confronted this head on, and while displaying artifacts and objects from the slave trade trade, creating a narrative around it that was informative and moving. It didn’t lecture, it didn’t judge and it didn’t take the easy route of just slapping trigger warnings on everything.
One of the more upsetting things was a ships manifest, that included a detail plan of the ship detailing exactly how to cram the maximum number of slaves into the smallest possible space, thus maximising the profit margin of the operator. Really grim stuff.
If your ancestors had been treated like that, and if you still felt the legacy of that second class citizenship holding you back today, you’d be offended at exhibitions and public art that celebrateds these bastards. Nobody has the right to call anyone a snowflake for that.
Us Liverpool fans should really be careful on the whole slavery issue. Want to hand back all our trophies because you can argue that the wealth came semi-directly from slavery? Club’s wealth came from the city, the city was built on slavery.
You’ll know your history. My ancestors were treated like that as yours were, repeatedly. Where are we drawing today’s line?