'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts

[Cerebus]

I saw on a facebook group a picture. The blurb mentioned the statue of king leopold or whoever it was that is the new historical hate target for slavery. The picture was of an african man sat on the floor staring at the severed hands and feet of hi daughter cut off because he was not producing enough. The picture is ancient and if the man or his daughter are alive I'd be surprised.

Sssssso, I replied that of course the moment the statue comes down the girl would get her hands and feet back. I was viciously attacked and called all sorts of slurs. Only one person was actually interested is talking to me about it. It's not just racists that are nasty sacks of shit, anyone is capable of being a sack of shit to someone when they get themselves emotively disturbed enough.

On what planet do you think that’s a respectful, productive way to engage in a rational debate?!? That’s an incredibly provocative, insensitive comment to make, and you deserved every damned bit of vitriol you reaped.

No, it's an obviously sarcastic remark and the context of where and when it was used would be the arbiter of whether it was acceptable, in bad taste, or plain downright wrong. Simon may have been making a valid point in valid way or he may have been making a tit of himself. You don't have that context, but you've rushed to judgement.

Fool: "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
Sage: "But the wise man's answer to a fool"

Only Simon knows if he was the wise man or the fool. (I have my suspicions, but I'm keeping schtum.)

[Cerebus]

I grew up north of the arctic circle, amidst people like myself who tan really easily.  In late January - early February, people are pasty white, or more accurately pink.  Then, those spending any significant amount of time in the fells, on years with clear skies and snow pack, get tanned to darker than mediterranean. (Usually hands, neck, and face only; the tan lines can be utterly ridiculous.  Like someone who has been dunked in brown ink.)  During the summer, from roughly mid-May to late July, the sun doesn't set at all, and if you spend time outside, you also tend to get that sub-mediterranean tan.  A month in anyplace sunny, and my own skin color changes from pinky white to milk chocolate or café au lait.  A week, and the tan lines take several months to fade out.  If you were to ask what skin color my family members have, precisely, my first thought is "what time of year is it right now?".

I'm light skinned and very dark haired (before it went grey). As a kid I used to live 200-250 metres from the sea on the south coast of England. Consequently during the summer I lived outdoors and almost permanently in swimming trunks. There's a photo of me in my parent's garden with sun-bleached blonde hair and skin the colour of that of a Sicilian farmer. So yeah, at least for part of my life, the question "what does he look like" would be dependent on the time of year too.

With that said, I very much doubt your facial features change with sun exposure. Skin color is simply the most visible feature of the black race. And as the very word “racism” implies, that’s what it’s really about. :/

I don't think either of us think our own seasonably variable skins colours have anything to do with 'race', it's just passing musings on the subject of identity and how we think about it.

In an aside, as someone with a biological background, there is no such thing as 'race' objectively. Just as dogs are all one species and there's no biological features or genetic features that allow one to tell breeds of dogs apart, that a particular dog is a particular breed is a subjective human aesthetic judgement, so too the species "human" and its concomitant breeds. Further fuel for the contention that all racism is ultimately stupid.

[coppice]

I saw on a facebook group a picture. The blurb mentioned the statue of king leopold or whoever it was that is the new historical hate target for slavery. The picture was of an african man sat on the floor staring at the severed hands and feet of hi daughter cut off because he was not producing enough. The picture is ancient and if the man or his daughter are alive I'd be surprised.

Sssssso, I replied that of course the moment the statue comes down the girl would get her hands and feet back. I was viciously attacked and called all sorts of slurs. Only one person was actually interested is talking to me about it. It's not just racists that are nasty sacks of shit, anyone is capable of being a sack of shit to someone when they get themselves emotively disturbed enough.

On what planet do you think that’s a respectful, productive way to engage in a rational debate?!? That’s an incredibly provocative, insensitive comment to make, and you deserved every damned bit of vitriol you reaped.

You seem like a very screwed up person. He was being sarcastic to irrational people. He has no reason to play by their twisted virtue signalling rules, and the responses highlight just how irrational they are. The only reason people want to wipe away history is so they can hasten its repeat.

[tooki]

I grew up north of the arctic circle, amidst people like myself who tan really easily.  In late January - early February, people are pasty white, or more accurately pink.  Then, those spending any significant amount of time in the fells, on years with clear skies and snow pack, get tanned to darker than mediterranean. (Usually hands, neck, and face only; the tan lines can be utterly ridiculous.  Like someone who has been dunked in brown ink.)  During the summer, from roughly mid-May to late July, the sun doesn't set at all, and if you spend time outside, you also tend to get that sub-mediterranean tan.  A month in anyplace sunny, and my own skin color changes from pinky white to milk chocolate or café au lait.  A week, and the tan lines take several months to fade out.  If you were to ask what skin color my family members have, precisely, my first thought is "what time of year is it right now?".

I'm light skinned and very dark haired (before it went grey). As a kid I used to live 200-250 metres from the sea on the south coast of England. Consequently during the summer I lived outdoors and almost permanently in swimming trunks. There's a photo of me in my parent's garden with sun-bleached blonde hair and skin the colour of that of a Sicilian farmer. So yeah, at least for part of my life, the question "what does he look like" would be dependent on the time of year too.

With that said, I very much doubt your facial features change with sun exposure. Skin color is simply the most visible feature of the black race. And as the very word “racism” implies, that’s what it’s really about. :/

I don't think either of us think our own seasonably variable skins colours have anything to do with 'race', it's just passing musings on the subject of identity and how we think about it.

In an aside, as someone with a biological background, there is no such thing as 'race' objectively. Just as dogs are all one species and there's no biological features or genetic features that allow one to tell breeds of dogs apart, that a particular dog is a particular breed is a subjective human aesthetic judgement, so too the species "human" and its concomitant breeds. Further fuel for the contention that all racism is ultimately stupid.

Oh, I know. But it’s the problem nonetheless. I’ve never understood why people care about race, since I wasn’t raised that way.

[tooki]

I saw on a facebook group a picture. The blurb mentioned the statue of king leopold or whoever it was that is the new historical hate target for slavery. The picture was of an african man sat on the floor staring at the severed hands and feet of hi daughter cut off because he was not producing enough. The picture is ancient and if the man or his daughter are alive I'd be surprised.

Sssssso, I replied that of course the moment the statue comes down the girl would get her hands and feet back. I was viciously attacked and called all sorts of slurs. Only one person was actually interested is talking to me about it. It's not just racists that are nasty sacks of shit, anyone is capable of being a sack of shit to someone when they get themselves emotively disturbed enough.

On what planet do you think that’s a respectful, productive way to engage in a rational debate?!? That’s an incredibly provocative, insensitive comment to make, and you deserved every damned bit of vitriol you reaped.

You seem like a very screwed up person. He was being sarcastic to irrational people. He has no reason to play by their twisted virtue signalling rules, and the responses highlight just how irrational they are. The only reason people want to wipe away history is so they can hasten its repeat.

Oh that’s rich. I’m screwed up for not thinking a shockingly rude comment was rude and insensitive?  There’s sarcasm and then there’s just plain jackassery. And wanting statues of horrible people taken down is hardly “irrational” or virtue signaling.

What is twisted is calling “screwed up” somebody who is literally saying we need to have more respect for our fellow humans. You are literally proving my point about how insensitive and arrogant this forum is.

[vodka]

By the equidistant

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

The source of the snapshot are Bureau of Justice Statistic https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6686

[Simon]

I saw on a facebook group a picture. The blurb mentioned the statue of king leopold or whoever it was that is the new historical hate target for slavery. The picture was of an african man sat on the floor staring at the severed hands and feet of hi daughter cut off because he was not producing enough. The picture is ancient and if the man or his daughter are alive I'd be surprised.

Sssssso, I replied that of course the moment the statue comes down the girl would get her hands and feet back. I was viciously attacked and called all sorts of slurs. Only one person was actually interested is talking to me about it. It's not just racists that are nasty sacks of shit, anyone is capable of being a sack of shit to someone when they get themselves emotively disturbed enough.

On what planet do you think that’s a respectful, productive way to engage in a rational debate?!? That’s an incredibly provocative, insensitive comment to make, and you deserved every damned bit of vitriol you reaped.

You seem like a very screwed up person. He was being sarcastic to irrational people. He has no reason to play by their twisted virtue signalling rules, and the responses highlight just how irrational they are. The only reason people want to wipe away history is so they can hasten its repeat.

it's about the overall comprehension that people have. People want simple answers to complex questions and they want the questions to be simple. So the simpletons view is that there is racism, why is there racism, because there are black people in my country, why are there black people in my country? slaves, so if we had not made them slaves there would not be racism, right lets tear history up or in their simple minds try to fix it, try to show how autraged we are, i am still waiting for these simpletons to actually suggest how we address racism, but they are too concerned with a past that cannot be changed.

The first comment I got was that I was an unsympathetic tory (right wing supporter - conservative party). I really do not know what being a tory has to do with my views - not that i am a tory. From one comment I was profiled, judged and condemned, that is the exact process that is racism, you see something different, you feel uncomfortable, you profile them by what you see on the surface without knowing them, you issue a judgement and condemn them.

If you took a SJW and a racist and put them together they would still not have a brain cell between them to rub together.

Once the one clever commented that actually wanted to understand my comment spoke up and i replied to him, it went rather quiet as several people were trying to work out how to take their feet out of their mouths.

[coppice]

Oh that’s rich. I’m screwed up for not thinking a shockingly rude comment was rude and insensitive?  There’s sarcasm and then there’s just plain jackassery. And wanting statues of horrible people taken down is hardly “irrational” or virtue signaling.

What is twisted is calling “screwed up” somebody who is literally saying we need to have more respect for our fellow humans. You are literally proving my point about how insensitive and arrogant this forum is.

People need constant reminding of how badly things go wrong when society lets its guard down. In the UK the residents of Bristol seem happy at the moment that a statue of slave trader Edward Colson has just been pulled down, and streets and schools named after him are being renamed. They want this because they want to santize their city, and pretend they have a squeaky clean history. Its a terrible idea. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a game plan.

[tooki]

Not glorifying/celebrating ≠ sanitizing.

The German language has a lovely distinction between a good memorial (a “Denkmal”) and a warning memorial (a “Mahnmal”).

I think it’s eminently sensible to remove memorials celebrating awful people. I think it’s very important to put up memorials reminding us of the bad so it doesn’t happen again. These aren’t contradictory desires because they’re not the same kind of memorial.

[tooki]

I saw on a facebook group a picture. The blurb mentioned the statue of king leopold or whoever it was that is the new historical hate target for slavery. The picture was of an african man sat on the floor staring at the severed hands and feet of hi daughter cut off because he was not producing enough. The picture is ancient and if the man or his daughter are alive I'd be surprised.

Sssssso, I replied that of course the moment the statue comes down the girl would get her hands and feet back. I was viciously attacked and called all sorts of slurs. Only one person was actually interested is talking to me about it. It's not just racists that are nasty sacks of shit, anyone is capable of being a sack of shit to someone when they get themselves emotively disturbed enough.

On what planet do you think that’s a respectful, productive way to engage in a rational debate?!? That’s an incredibly provocative, insensitive comment to make, and you deserved every damned bit of vitriol you reaped.

You seem like a very screwed up person. He was being sarcastic to irrational people. He has no reason to play by their twisted virtue signalling rules, and the responses highlight just how irrational they are. The only reason people want to wipe away history is so they can hasten its repeat.

it's about the overall comprehension that people have. People want simple answers to complex questions and they want the questions to be simple. So the simpletons view is that there is racism, why is there racism, because there are black people in my country, why are there black people in my country? slaves, so if we had not made them slaves there would not be racism, right lets tear history up or in their simple minds try to fix it, try to show how autraged we are, i am still waiting for these simpletons to actually suggest how we address racism, but they are too concerned with a past that cannot be changed.

The first comment I got was that I was an unsympathetic tory (right wing supporter - conservative party). I really do not know what being a tory has to do with my views - not that i am a tory. From one comment I was profiled, judged and condemned, that is the exact process that is racism, you see something different, you feel uncomfortable, you profile them by what you see on the surface without knowing them, you issue a judgement and condemn them.

If you took a SJW and a racist and put them together they would still not have a brain cell between them to rub together.

Once the one clever commented that actually wanted to understand my comment spoke up and i replied to him, it went rather quiet as several people were trying to work out how to take their feet out of their mouths.

The thing is, if you want to elicit a good discussion, you won’t accomplish that with the approach you take. (Here on the forums, you consistently lack tact and empathy.) If you want to have a productive conversation with someone, you have to begin by trying to understand their position. Not by making fun of it.

[coppice]

Not glorifying/celebrating ≠ sanitizing.

That's one of the excuses they use in 1984. Its sad they so many people right now are happy to side with the bad side in 1984.

[Simon]

the statues are irrelevant, take a poll of who the statue is of and i bet virtually no one will be able to tell you the name without looking, then ask them what the person did and even few will know. On the other hand racism is a thing, it is another form of bullying, it just got an "-ism" because it can be identified to be of a particular section of the population.

I repeat, i am still waiting for the SJW that are tearing down statues to come up with a solution to racism, Oh yea, they want some one statues of people that fought the slave trade and their names will mean nothing to people either, but hey, they fixed racism by changing a statue!

I seriously wish their were aliens, and it would be wonderful to be taken and get away from all the shit for brains that this planet harbors.

It's not that difficult, just be nice to each other!!! Fuck sake, it's even in the bible and the rest of the "virtuous books" it's not even a new concept!

[Cerebus]

Oh that’s rich. I’m screwed up for not thinking a shockingly rude comment was rude and insensitive?  There’s sarcasm and then there’s just plain jackassery. And wanting statues of horrible people taken down is hardly “irrational” or virtue signaling.

What is twisted is calling “screwed up” somebody who is literally saying we need to have more respect for our fellow humans. You are literally proving my point about how insensitive and arrogant this forum is.

People need constant reminding of how badly things go wrong when society lets its guard down. In the UK the residents of Bristol seem happy at the moment that a statue of slave trader Edward Colson has just been pulled down, and streets and schools named after him are being renamed. They want this because they want to santize their city, and pretend they have a squeaky clean history. Its a terrible idea. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a game plan.

Statues and street names are intended to celebrate people, that's what the objection is to. Should Germany re-erect statues of Hitler because removing them was 'sanitization' (done by the Allies during the "denazification" of Germany)?

I rather liked Banksy's suggestion, put the statute back up, then erect more statues showing people pulling the re-erected statue down. That would be apposite, no erasing of history but rather a statement of "Look we used to celebrate this fellow but then we didn't and here's the reminder of all of it".

[Cerebus]

Not glorifying/celebrating ≠ sanitizing.

That's one of the excuses they use in 1984. Its sad they so many people right now are happy to side with the bad side in 1984.

Direct quote from '1984' to prove your assertion please, or I'll assert that is double-plus not a quote from Orwell.

[dave j]

People need constant reminding of how badly things go wrong when society lets its guard down. In the UK the residents of Bristol seem happy at the moment that a statue of slave trader Edward Colson has just been pulled down, and streets and schools named after him are being renamed. They want this because they want to santize their city, and pretend they have a squeaky clean history. Its a terrible idea. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a game plan.

The text on the Colston statue's plaque reads "ERECTED BY CITIZENS OF BRISTOL AS A MEMORIAL OF ONE OF THE MOST VIRTUOUS AND WISE SONS OF THEIR CITY. A.D.1895". Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833, so the people who erected it in 1895 knew full well that slavery was wrong. The real sanitizing of Bristol's history was in full swing in 1895.

[Simon]

People need constant reminding of how badly things go wrong when society lets its guard down. In the UK the residents of Bristol seem happy at the moment that a statue of slave trader Edward Colson has just been pulled down, and streets and schools named after him are being renamed. They want this because they want to santize their city, and pretend they have a squeaky clean history. Its a terrible idea. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a game plan.

The text on the Colston statue's plaque reads "ERECTED BY CITIZENS OF BRISTOL AS A MEMORIAL OF ONE OF THE MOST VIRTUOUS AND WISE SONS OF THEIR CITY. A.D.1895". Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833, so the people who erected it in 1895 knew full well that slavery was wrong. The real sanitizing of Bristol's history was in full swing in 1895.

So change the plaque!

[nuclearcat]

Statues and street names are intended to celebrate people, that's what the objection is to. Should Germany re-erect statues of Hitler because removing them was 'sanitization' (done by the Allies during the "denazification" of Germany)?

I rather liked Banksy's suggestion, put the statute back up, then erect more statues showing people pulling the re-erected statue down. That would be apposite, no erasing of history but rather a statement of "Look we used to celebrate this fellow but then we didn't and here's the reminder of all of it".

Then explain to me "Memorial in memory of the British, French and Russians who fell during the battle of Inkerman on October 24" (British and French were invaders), that russians restored quite recently. They have tons of such.
Or a monument to Genghis Khan who conquered Russians in very bad way. He would not have a statue earlier, while the pain from his actions was still felt, but later, they did it when they were able to look at the events of those times more independently. Now they understand, in those days, there was a different truth, a different assessment of actions. For example, the fact that the actions of Genghis Khan was possible because of weakness, and reminds people to be more united against aggressors, and etc.
They have a lot of such monuments too.
A monument is a historical landmark, if it is made to a bad person and irritate significant part of population - it can be transferred somewhere to the backyard until better times, but people should not try to rewrite or delete part of the story, by destroying or altering monuments.
There is exception to pointless, countless and useless monuments that was erected as part of "cult of personality" to dictators, but even those, good to keep some in museums, with proper explanation.
Perfect words of Winston Churchill: “A nation that forgets its past has no future”.
People should stop being hypersensitive idiots who are offended by everything around them.

[nuclearcat]

So change the plaque!

I rather say - add additional remark about his wrongdoings.
Original should be kept ,as reminder, that people often glorify and erect statues to wrong people.

[DimitriP]

Not glorifying/celebrating ≠ sanitizing.

That's one of the excuses they use in 1984. Its sad they so many people right now are happy to side with the bad side in 1984.

yeah...but it's for a "good" cause ...   

[dave j]

So change the plaque!

There have been many requests to add an addition plaque explaining Colston's involvement with the slave trade over the years but they've all been rejected. Maybe if Bristol had done that rather than trying so hard to hide it's involvement with the slave trade the Colston statue would still be there.

[Simon]

Who is Bristol? are the people of Bristol today the ones that were involved in the slave trade?

[Kjelt]

Can someone explain to me why race independent terms like master and slave should be abandoned?
Or is the history limited to a certain era and forgotten that nord african muslim masters held over a million european white christian slaves ?

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

[bd139]

LMAO exactly.

It’s wall to wall wingnuttery.

[DimitriP]

Not glorifying/celebrating ≠ sanitizing.

That's one of the excuses they use in 1984. Its sad they so many people right now are happy to side with the bad side in 1984.

Direct quote from '1984' to prove your assertion please, or I'll assert that is double-plus not a quote from Orwell.

Here is the full text:   http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt   
Funny thing is I read it for the first time in 1984. I thought Naaaahh....that can't really happen.
Then paper books started going out of style and websites and posts started getting edited and disappearing.

And now we are into a situation that there is a side that by attempting to control the view of the past ,  they are using it as a show of strength that they are deserving to control the future.
Just to get the November votes.

[tggzzz]

In the UK the residents of Bristol seem happy at the moment that a statue of slave trader Edward Colson has just been pulled down, and streets and schools named after him are being renamed. They want this because they want to santize their city, and pretend they have a squeaky clean history. Its a terrible idea. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a game plan.

Don't lump all Bristolians together. It ain't gert lush, me babber.

In fact, it is no better than racism, or classism, or any of the other divide-and-conquer pigeonholing techniques.