UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[South Reinkalistan]

Since when were you the arbiter of what rhetoric is constituent of "doing liberal ideology"? I am merely stating what I see to be the case: your take is grounded in sentiment and irrationality. You consider your history to be more important to that of your contemporaries. Britain has committed atrocities -- our modern society leaves much to be desired. To recognise this objective fact at the expense of an abstract notion of heritage is no curse. This is not an inherently liberal outlook.

Funny story is that those who disagree with you will believe your take to be sentimental and irrational, based on guilt and so on. You criticise that I am making myself some final arbiter but then you are continually pretending to speak from some universal position of rationality, a characteristically liberal move.

Your belief is that I am trying to silence black history, whereas I believe that minorities and their tame liberals are trying far more than to allow their ideas to be heard but instead to marginalise and not permit stories told from the point of view of whites. You are stating opinion very thinly masked with constant rhetorical claims that any other position is abstract, sentimental or irrational. Ironically this shares a lot of ground with which the black history lot criticised the formerly mainstream versions of history back when the liberal was supporting those ideas. The liberal tries to speak from the position of the universal because it allows him to permit other people to have their say but he then denigrates all other opinions for not meeting his enlightened "objective" standards, which of course would entail agreeing with what he has already decided since he has created the "objective" in his own image.

At the risk of perpetuating a back-and-forth:

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

[North German Realm]

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

I mean, Great Britain is a country of people native to the Isle of Great Britain (i.. the British people) who are Caucasian. Why is their history supposed to be written from the perspective of the <14% of its population who came there via migration, etc.?

[Fartsniffage]

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

I mean, Great Britain is a country of people native to the Isle of Great Britain (i.. the British people) who are Caucasian. Why is their history supposed to be written from the perspective of the <14% of its population who came there via migration, etc.?

The British Empire did some dubious things. That's part of our history too.

[South Reinkalistan]

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

I mean, Great Britain is a country of people native to the Isle of Great Britain (i.. the British people) who are Caucasian. Why is their history supposed to be written from the perspective of only 9% of its population who came there via migration, etc.?

Again, because objective views of history are more important than views of history from the perspective of a certain demographic. I don't support the notion that it should be written or shown from the perspective of any culture. Considering that pure objectivity is nigh-impossible to achieve, I think it's important to show views from multiple different perspectives to allow for a well-rounded interpretation. Currently, I believe history is taught too much from a primarily British perspective, which isn't optimal considering how perspectives by nature are subject to bias. As such, history should be taught from all main perspectives.

[Ostroeuropa]

Funny story is that those who disagree with you will believe your take to be sentimental and irrational, based on guilt and so on. You criticise that I am making myself some final arbiter but then you are continually pretending to speak from some universal position of rationality, a characteristically liberal move.

Your belief is that I am trying to silence black history, whereas I believe that minorities and their tame liberals are trying far more than to allow their ideas to be heard but instead to marginalise and not permit stories told from the point of view of whites. You are stating opinion very thinly masked with constant rhetorical claims that any other position is abstract, sentimental or irrational. Ironically this shares a lot of ground with which the black history lot criticised the formerly mainstream versions of history back when the liberal was supporting those ideas. The liberal tries to speak from the position of the universal because it allows him to permit other people to have their say but he then denigrates all other opinions for not meeting his enlightened "objective" standards, which of course would entail agreeing with what he has already decided since he has created the "objective" in his own image.

At the risk of perpetuating a back-and-forth:

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.


And this even extends to vandalism. For example, in Belgium there was a statue of Leopold towering over some Congolese people who were portrayed as contented. Rather than destroy the statues, Vandals cut off the hands of the Congolese and defaced them to remove the smiles.

And on that point, pretty much everyone agreed it was an apt and better monument to history that made a cogent point.

Context is not added by the removal of text. Put a statue of a slave up next to Colston if you must.

I also note that this assault on white and western culture is not conducted by people who have alternatives, for instance suggesting we tear down Colston and replace him with Owen Jones or something.

[North German Realm]

I mean, Great Britain is a country of people native to the Isle of Great Britain (i.. the British people) who are Caucasian. Why is their history supposed to be written from the perspective of the <14% of its population who came there via migration, etc.?

The British Empire did some dubious things. That's part of our history too.

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People. The statue of some Slaver being removed by the people of Bristol is just a demonstration that their perspective does not see that guy as someone deserving of having a Statue erected.

[Alvecia]

The British Empire did some dubious things. That's part of our history too.

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People.

I mean, yeah it should? It's much the same thing as accounting for left or ring wing bias in news reporting.

[South Reinkalistan]

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.

To be fair, I still think that we should tear down all statues of Victoria -- albeit for different reasons. Building a statue of Gandhi would be idiotic, though. Statues teach us nothing and cost money.

I still have yet to see how teaching things from different perspectives fosters a hatred for white people, though.

[Eastfield Lodge]

At the risk of perpetuating a back-and-forth:

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.


And this even extends to vandalism. For example, in Belgium there was a statue of Leopold towering over some Congolese people who were portrayed as contented. Rather than destroy the statues, Vandals cut off the hands of the Congolese and defaced them to remove the smiles.

And on that point, pretty much everyone agreed it was an apt and better monument to history that made a cogent point.

FWIW: I'm surprised you haven't called for Gandhi's statue to be removed on the grounds of him being a child abuser yet.

[Ostroeuropa]

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.


And this even extends to vandalism. For example, in Belgium there was a statue of Leopold towering over some Congolese people who were portrayed as contented. Rather than destroy the statues, Vandals cut off the hands of the Congolese and defaced them to remove the smiles.

And on that point, pretty much everyone agreed it was an apt and better monument to history that made a cogent point.

FWIW: I'm surprised you haven't called for Gandhi's statue to be removed on the grounds of him being a child abuser yet.

I don't like desecration of historical monuments, but I'm prepared to tolerate it if the people who live within the local area popularly decide it should be removed because they don't want to live next to it, for whatever reason. I don't see any other mechanism as valid, and that includes this top-down committee being proposed. For the record, this is how most of the confederate statues in the USA come down. Local governments deciding to have them removed, followed by state governments throwing a fit and bitching about heritage.

I have no desire to see that dynamic reversed here, with locals opposing a removal and a higher government body whining about diversity.

[Loben The 2nd]

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.

To be fair, I still think that we should tear down all statues of Victoria -- albeit for different reasons. Building a statue of Gandhi would be idiotic, though. Statues teach us nothing and cost money.

I still have yet to see how teaching things from different perspectives fosters a hatred for white people, though.

Why Victoria? She steal your lunch money in her dying days?

[Ostroeuropa]

There's an issue with this in that the celebration of "Minority history" being proposed is a grievance cult that fosters animosity and hatred for white people. There is less of a push to celebrate say, the inventor of peanut butter, or the inventor of the sanitary pad, than there is to rage about white people on behalf of faceless and nameless oppressed masses. It takes the form of an assault on white historical figures rather than the elevation of minority ones.

For example, erecting a statue of Gandhi is celebrating minority culture and putting Imperial history in context.

Throwing a fit about Indian oppression and tearing down a statue of Victoria is not doing that, and equating the two is fairly disgusting.

To be fair, I still think that we should tear down all statues of Victoria -- albeit for different reasons. Building a statue of Gandhi would be idiotic, though. Statues teach us nothing and cost money.

I still have yet to see how teaching things from different perspectives fosters a hatred for white people, though.

Statues are prompts to think about history.

[South Reinkalistan]

To be fair, I still think that we should tear down all statues of Victoria -- albeit for different reasons. Building a statue of Gandhi would be idiotic, though. Statues teach us nothing and cost money.

I still have yet to see how teaching things from different perspectives fosters a hatred for white people, though.

Why Victoria? She steal your lunch money in her dying days?

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

Statues are prompts to think about history.

I dunno, can we find some less expensive prompts?

[North German Realm]

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People.

I mean, yeah it should? It's much the same thing as accounting for left or ring wing bias in news reporting.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then

[Loben The 2nd]

Why Victoria? She steal your lunch money in her dying days?

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

*oh god*

[Ostroeuropa]

Why Victoria? She steal your lunch money in her dying days?

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

Statues are prompts to think about history.

I dunno, can we find some less expensive prompts?

You're triggering my inner high tory.

Aestheticism is important.

[South Reinkalistan]

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.


I dunno, can we find some less expensive prompts?

You're triggering my inner high tory.

Aestheticism is important.

Books are more important.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why Victoria? She steal your lunch money in her dying days?

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

This is grotesque philistinism on the level of ISIS destruction of historical monuments because it doesn't align with their ideology. I am ambivalent on the monarchy, but would never support the destruction of historical monuments and artifacts alluding to them.

[Loben The 2nd]

You're triggering my inner high tory.

Aestheticism is important.

Books are more important.

Does anybody even read them anymore?

[Agarntrop]

The British Empire did some dubious things. That's part of our history too.

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People. The statue of some Slaver being removed by the people of Bristol is just a demonstration that their perspective does not see that guy as someone deserving of having a Statue erected.

Strange logic

[Ostroeuropa]

You're triggering my inner high tory.

Aestheticism is important.

Books are more important.

Books are still available. If you put all this effort into trying to re-open public libraries you'd find me supporting you. This argument of yours boils down to something akin to "Well if pizza is the best food, we should get rid of all the other food". For people who ramble about diversity, that's pretty curious.

[Loben The 2nd]

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

This is grotesque philistinism on the level of ISIS destruction of historical monuments because it doesn't align with their ideology. I am ambivalent on the monarchy, but would never support the destruction of historical monuments and artifacts alluding to them.

Being a republican when you have a constitutional monarchy makes little sense tbh.

[South Reinkalistan]

I'd say, but it's not worth starting a debate on republicanism.

This is grotesque philistinism on the level of ISIS destruction of historical monuments because it doesn't align with their ideology. I am ambivalent on the monarchy, but would never support the destruction of historical monuments and artifacts alluding to them.

Statues are intended to glorify. The monarchy, as an institution, should not be glorified.

Books are more important.

Books are still available. If you put all this effort into trying to re-open public libraries you'd find me supporting you. This argument of yours boils down to something akin to "Well if pizza is the best food, we should get rid of all the other food". For people who ramble about diversity, that's pretty curious.

Oh of course. I was just saying that books are more cost-efficient when it comes to learning history than statues, are they not? It was more of a reflection on how we could, instead of building big, fuck-off statues of people we think are cool, we could spend that money on actual historical education. Just a thought.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is also a difference between a call for more responsiveness from local authorities in acquiescing to the demands of locals as regards statues, and up and declaring they have failed and we need an elected body to decide it without their input.

[Loben The 2nd]

The British Empire did some dubious things. That's part of our history too.

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People. The statue of some Slaver being removed by the people of Bristol is just a demonstration that their perspective does not see that guy as someone deserving of having a Statue erected.

From a certain perspective the danelaw was really about cultural enrichment of the local Anglo-Saxon population.