4 ms·

> "This mans words beat the drums for imperialism, he does not deserve praise." Why this proclivity to view people as being either entirely good or entirely ba

> "This mans words beat the drums for imperialism, he does not deserve praise." Why this proclivity to view people as being either entirely good or entirely bad? Is there no room for nuance in your world view? Kipling was a racist and imperialist. He was also a talented poet and novelist who produced some seminal work. Both of those things can be true, they are not mutually exclusive.

DSingularity 7y ago
You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits? Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief? What are your lines? After seeing the lasting damage of settler colonialism in the “third world“ I have little patience for these “nuanced” views. The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance. History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies.
- cafard 7y ago
  Well, let's see: Benvenuto Cellini, at least one homicide I recall, frequent assaults with a deadly weapon, beating his mistress; racist, probably a great majority of all artists who ever lived, and please note that I don't mean "of all artists of European descent". Thieves, hmm, Jean Genet for starters. Nobody says that you have to approve of Kipling's notions of race or governance. Certainly I don't, certainly I find certain of his writings obnoxious, but some of his fiction is wonderful.
- SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
  > "You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits?" Straw man. > "Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief?" Yes, absolutely. What you fail to realise is that I'd be praising the art, not the artist. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite, I think this makes me objective. Praising a piece of art on its own merits in no way condones unrelated character traits of the artist. > "I have little patience for these “nuanced” views." I believe you. > "The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance." I agree, but the critique should be rational and objective, and not based on your emotional response to unrelated issues. > "History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies." Nobody said it should.

DSingularity 7y ago

You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits? Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief? What are your lines? After seeing the lasting damage of settler colonialism in the “third world“ I have little patience for these “nuanced” views. The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance. History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies.

cafard 7y ago
Well, let's see: Benvenuto Cellini, at least one homicide I recall, frequent assaults with a deadly weapon, beating his mistress; racist, probably a great majority of all artists who ever lived, and please note that I don't mean "of all artists of European descent". Thieves, hmm, Jean Genet for starters. Nobody says that you have to approve of Kipling's notions of race or governance. Certainly I don't, certainly I find certain of his writings obnoxious, but some of his fiction is wonderful.
SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
> "You mean to tell me that you have no lines, no limits?" Straw man. > "Would you be so comfortable to praise an artist if you knew he was a murderer? What if he was a rapist? A racist? A thief?" Yes, absolutely. What you fail to realise is that I'd be praising the art, not the artist. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite, I think this makes me objective. Praising a piece of art on its own merits in no way condones unrelated character traits of the artist. > "I have little patience for these “nuanced” views." I believe you. > "The Bushes and the Kiplings should be critiqued at every chance." I agree, but the critique should be rational and objective, and not based on your emotional response to unrelated issues. > "History should not be kind to George Bush just because can draw a few puppies." Nobody said it should.