6 ms·

Exactly this. Similar example: Tintin in Congo is by today's standards absolutely racist, but reflects the era when it was published. The last decade the (Belg

Exactly this. Similar example: Tintin in Congo is by today's standards absolutely racist, but reflects the era when it was published. The last decade the (Belgian) publisher was sued multiple times to try and force it off the shelves. Also: calls to remove statues of King Leopold II (who committed horrible atrocities in "his" Congolese colony). In both cases, why not leave access to the original books/statue/... intact but add an introductory section on why this is no longer appropriate today. Or place a contrasting statue, opposite King Leopold II, that embodies the struggle for independence / the colonial horrors / the blight that is racism / etc. Overall it feels like there's a drive to remove "inappropriate" materials from society, instead of leaving them accessible as living proof of the mistakes that were made, and to provide backstory, context, and the "appropriate" contemporary view.

mauvehaus 4y ago
> Overall it feels like there's a drive to remove "inappropriate" materials from society, instead of leaving them accessible as living proof of the mistakes that were made, and to provide backstory, context, and the "appropriate" contemporary view. I share this view, but I also recognize that as a white dude, what is to me a learning opportunity about the things that folks (who mostly look like me) have done in the past isn't necessarily seen that way by everyone. Unfortunately, even if you get a whole mess of folks of different backgrounds to have an honest and meaningful conversation about what to do about these many things, you aren't going to please everybody. The easiest solution is to just remove the materials rather than having to continuously justify leaving them available and reinterpret the historical context for them from a contemporary standpoint.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  The easiest solution is to just remove the materials And so doom us to repeat the mistakes of our forebears and bring violent racisim back into fashion? It is racists, more than anyone, who wish to hide the historical roots of racism. That we might find it impossible to recognise it's impending revival.
  - mauvehaus 4y ago
    Perhaps, I should clarify: I'm not suggesting that it's a good solution, merely that it holds a certain appeal to some people in the short term.
    - irthomasthomas 4y ago
      In 1960s Germany, students where so outraged by the absence of Nazism from their history curriculum that they turned violent. They rioted, bombed, and killed because they felt they where being denied their right to learn their recent history. And they blamed this on the fact that their teachers and parents had been Nazis, and thought they where trying to erase their crimes. In a flash of cruel irony, the state's desire to shelter the students from political violence ignited it again in the streets and in the hearts of their students.
  - slg 4y ago
    >And so doom us to repeat the mistakes of our forebears and bring violent racisim back into fashion? Society has larger problems if a few kids books and some statues were all that was preventing a slide into violent racism.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      1. This is happening across society and not solely in kids books and statues. 2. Mao stated himself in his revolutionary speech that they would indoctrinate the next generation if the current one was unwilling, and this is a perfect example of that applied.
eldaisfish 4y ago
there is a massive different between the two examples you use. A writer reflects society but a book and the damage it generally can do is in no way comparable to the actions of the state. Mind you, Leopold was a horrible person, did horrible things and the Belgian monarchy and state have only recently begun to issue apologies for their atrocities. The debate on statues is settled, except in the minds of those who glorify wrongdoing. The other difference is agency - there exists a legal successor to the belgian monarchy and a legal successor to the powers of the monarchy in the form of the belgian state. These have power today to acknowledge and right the wrongs of the past. In contrast, Georges Remi and Roald Dahl are both dead, unable to correct their errors.
quickthrowman 4y ago
I see no reason to keep around statues of a man that is responsible for countless atrocities in the Belgian Congo. A statue is an honor, not history. Removing a statue does not change history, despite what some people may try and tell you. Leopold II isn’t far down the list from Hitler and Stalin.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  One reason is to understand how such a man could come to rule. And how the people can be so easily fooled to revere such evil. Lest we forget and allow it to happen again.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    Ok why aren’t there Hitler statues in Germany then? Are they going to forget Hitler was bad and have another Holocaust? P.S. Leopold II came to power because he was the heir in a hereditary monarchy, we don’t need a statue of a genocidal aristocrat to know hereditary monarchy with actual governing power is bad.
    - irthomasthomas 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34927442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34927442 Edit: I didn't want to litter the thread with copypaste, but my reply to a similar comment was: In 1960s Germany, students where so outraged by the absence of Nazism from their history curriculum that they turned violent. They rioted, bombed, and killed because they felt they where being denied their right to learn their recent history. And they blamed this on the fact that their teachers and parents had been Nazis and thought they where trying to erase their crimes. In a flash of cruel irony, the state's desire to shelter the students from political violence ignited it again in the streets and in the hearts of their students.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        In the absence of a reply, I’m assuming that you are saying that hiding history is bad. That’s fine, but putting up a statue of someone is usually seen as celebrating them. We aren’t hiding from what Hitler or Stalin did, so why don’t we have statues of them?
cld8483 4y ago
Leopold II, judged by the values of his time, was still a fiend. He was widely and rightly criticized by his own contemporaries.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  Then his statue should serve as a reminder of his crimes, of our ancestors failure to oppose him and his supporters.
  - cld8483 4y ago
    Perhaps it should, I don't know much about the statue or the way the community that hosts it perceives it. My point is only that harsh criticism of Leopold II doesn't rely on retroactive application of modern values. He was a fiend even when judged by the standard of popular contemporary European values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casement_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casement_Report
akhosravian 4y ago
Leaving the books as-is is one thing, but keeping a statue of a person implies they were worth honoring. Leopold II committed some of the most heinous acts ever done by any individual: about half the population of Congo was killed in the two decades he ran things. The only place a statue of him belongs is in an exhibit on the worst actions taken against fellow humans.

mauvehaus 4y ago

> Overall it feels like there's a drive to remove "inappropriate" materials from society, instead of leaving them accessible as living proof of the mistakes that were made, and to provide backstory, context, and the "appropriate" contemporary view. I share this view, but I also recognize that as a white dude, what is to me a learning opportunity about the things that folks (who mostly look like me) have done in the past isn't necessarily seen that way by everyone. Unfortunately, even if you get a whole mess of folks of different backgrounds to have an honest and meaningful conversation about what to do about these many things, you aren't going to please everybody. The easiest solution is to just remove the materials rather than having to continuously justify leaving them available and reinterpret the historical context for them from a contemporary standpoint.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
The easiest solution is to just remove the materials And so doom us to repeat the mistakes of our forebears and bring violent racisim back into fashion? It is racists, more than anyone, who wish to hide the historical roots of racism. That we might find it impossible to recognise it's impending revival.
- mauvehaus 4y ago
  Perhaps, I should clarify: I'm not suggesting that it's a good solution, merely that it holds a certain appeal to some people in the short term.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    In 1960s Germany, students where so outraged by the absence of Nazism from their history curriculum that they turned violent. They rioted, bombed, and killed because they felt they where being denied their right to learn their recent history. And they blamed this on the fact that their teachers and parents had been Nazis, and thought they where trying to erase their crimes. In a flash of cruel irony, the state's desire to shelter the students from political violence ignited it again in the streets and in the hearts of their students.
- slg 4y ago
  >And so doom us to repeat the mistakes of our forebears and bring violent racisim back into fashion? Society has larger problems if a few kids books and some statues were all that was preventing a slide into violent racism.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    1. This is happening across society and not solely in kids books and statues. 2. Mao stated himself in his revolutionary speech that they would indoctrinate the next generation if the current one was unwilling, and this is a perfect example of that applied.

eldaisfish 4y ago

there is a massive different between the two examples you use. A writer reflects society but a book and the damage it generally can do is in no way comparable to the actions of the state. Mind you, Leopold was a horrible person, did horrible things and the Belgian monarchy and state have only recently begun to issue apologies for their atrocities. The debate on statues is settled, except in the minds of those who glorify wrongdoing. The other difference is agency - there exists a legal successor to the belgian monarchy and a legal successor to the powers of the monarchy in the form of the belgian state. These have power today to acknowledge and right the wrongs of the past. In contrast, Georges Remi and Roald Dahl are both dead, unable to correct their errors.

quickthrowman 4y ago

I see no reason to keep around statues of a man that is responsible for countless atrocities in the Belgian Congo. A statue is an honor, not history. Removing a statue does not change history, despite what some people may try and tell you. Leopold II isn’t far down the list from Hitler and Stalin.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
One reason is to understand how such a man could come to rule. And how the people can be so easily fooled to revere such evil. Lest we forget and allow it to happen again.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  Ok why aren’t there Hitler statues in Germany then? Are they going to forget Hitler was bad and have another Holocaust? P.S. Leopold II came to power because he was the heir in a hereditary monarchy, we don’t need a statue of a genocidal aristocrat to know hereditary monarchy with actual governing power is bad.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34927442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34927442 Edit: I didn't want to litter the thread with copypaste, but my reply to a similar comment was: In 1960s Germany, students where so outraged by the absence of Nazism from their history curriculum that they turned violent. They rioted, bombed, and killed because they felt they where being denied their right to learn their recent history. And they blamed this on the fact that their teachers and parents had been Nazis and thought they where trying to erase their crimes. In a flash of cruel irony, the state's desire to shelter the students from political violence ignited it again in the streets and in the hearts of their students.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      In the absence of a reply, I’m assuming that you are saying that hiding history is bad. That’s fine, but putting up a statue of someone is usually seen as celebrating them. We aren’t hiding from what Hitler or Stalin did, so why don’t we have statues of them?

cld8483 4y ago

Leopold II, judged by the values of his time, was still a fiend. He was widely and rightly criticized by his own contemporaries.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
Then his statue should serve as a reminder of his crimes, of our ancestors failure to oppose him and his supporters.
- cld8483 4y ago
  Perhaps it should, I don't know much about the statue or the way the community that hosts it perceives it. My point is only that harsh criticism of Leopold II doesn't rely on retroactive application of modern values. He was a fiend even when judged by the standard of popular contemporary European values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casement_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casement_Report

akhosravian 4y ago

Leaving the books as-is is one thing, but keeping a statue of a person implies they were worth honoring. Leopold II committed some of the most heinous acts ever done by any individual: about half the population of Congo was killed in the two decades he ran things. The only place a statue of him belongs is in an exhibit on the worst actions taken against fellow humans.