• "Whiteness burning": UCT Students are throwing “colonial” art on the pyre. Forgot College education
    442 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775536]Why does anyone need victorian photos of oppressors?[/QUOTE] Because if its gone, then we are one step further along the road to forgetting these people and the mistakes they made. And I seem to recall some piece of wisdom about forgetting the mistakes of the past, but I can't [i]quite[/i] bring it to mind now.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49775510]"this is nature" haven't destroyed any art here if I say so myself, am I a freak of nature or something[/QUOTE] Yes but that can be remedied, what do you want to burn, a Rembrandt? or a Van Gogh?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775536]Why does anyone need victorian photos of oppressors?[/QUOTE] why does anyone need any historical material at all?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775536]Why does anyone need victorian photos of oppressors?[/QUOTE] Because the people who owned those photos wanted them? The bottom line is, ALL other arguments aside, these people burned a bunch of shit they didn't own. All the other stuff is just shit icing on the shit cake.
[QUOTE=phygon;49775542]Beyond the issue of destroying art like a bunch of damn savages, these people also very obviously racist. There is a difference between protesting and illegally ripping historically significant art out of the hands of folks that own it, burning it, and then spraypainting "FUCK WHITE PEOPLE" onto the remaining unmolested work.[/QUOTE] Mmm, I'll stand corrected on that example (and probably more). But burning, destroying art has it's own significance which can very well overshadow the significance of the art is mostly what I am posing. But no, you can't be racist towards white people. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("trolling or dumb" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=ImpSnob;49775407]Easy to say if you've never been affected by colonialism.[/QUOTE] literally nobody alive today has been affected by colonialism lmao preddy gud troll tho
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49775549]i'm pretty sure those guys are trolling[/QUOTE] impsnob is not trolling I can guarantee you that with 99.9% certainty
This thread is a fucking disaster. "Since when is art important? Why would you need to have historical documents if those documents were bad? What's wrong with destroying bad things? Bad things are bad and shouldn't be allowed to exist. If you own something that I think is bad, I should be able to break onto your property and [I]fucking destroy it[/I]"
[QUOTE=ImpSnob;49775324]The world be a lot better without white people.[/QUOTE] Bruh, you're Irish. You're as pale white as they come.
[QUOTE]The world be a lot better without white people.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] why not? its not exactly a secret colonialism did a lot of damage to africa. whats so wrong about african destroyign idols of colonialism [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]good for them [/QUOTE] I recently said in an Israel thread that the far left is hypocritical and will unconditionally rush to the defense of any ethnic group that passes the brown paper bag test. You are living proof that I am right. [QUOTE]colonialism did a lot of damage to africa[/QUOTE] Without colonialism Africa would be even worse than it is today. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't have written language until European colonists showed up and forcefully modernized the region. [QUOTE]The world be a lot better without white people.[/QUOTE] Being that you're posting from Ireland, I'm going to guess you wouldn't exist without white people. I guess in a way that would be a good thing. [QUOTE]good for them [/QUOTE] Yay, pointless destruction of historical artifacts! Woohoo!
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775545]Because "art" is not inherently important. How is that an atrocity?[/QUOTE] To be honest,t the historical and cultural backbone, or parts thereof, of a society is pretty important. Even if it might make some folks uncomfortable.
[QUOTE=elowin;49775564]literally nobody alive today has been affected by colonialism lmao preddy gud troll tho[/QUOTE] no, don't you see colonialist ghosts living inside the paintings were creeping out at night and spooking the innocent people of south africa it was self defense!!
[QUOTE=Craigewan;49775554]Because if its gone, then we are one step further along the road to forgetting these people and the mistakes they made. And I seem to recall some piece of wisdom about forgetting the mistakes of the past, but I can't [i]quite[/i] bring it to mind now.[/QUOTE] Paintings of white victorians are not as educational as you are trying to convey. If they have a painting kicking around hundred+ years in the future, texts, other archival methods surely will have preserved their legacy greater than a gilded portrait would.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775558] But no, you can't be racist towards white people.[/QUOTE] What an interesting and factually wrong opinion that holds absolutely no water at all under scrutiny
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49775566]impsnob is not trolling I can guarantee you that with 99.9% certainty[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ImpSnob;49775394]You can't be racist against whiteys.[/QUOTE] pretty certain he is, i've already reported him and that other guy
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775536]Why does anyone need victorian photos of oppressors?[/QUOTE] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg/800px-Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg[/t] [I]''Son I am disappoint'' - George Washington[/I] By the rhetoric people like you are sprouting, you also wouldn't mind if they would torch a painting of George Washington? Since those people you are defending seem to have a really, really broad definition of what they consider oppressors.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775558]But no, you can't be racist towards white people.[/QUOTE] this is the part where you lose all credibility
Isn't irony beautiful. [QUOTE=Radio Yes;49775580]this is the part where you lose all credibility[/QUOTE] As if Take Opal ever had any credibility.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775575]Paintings of white victorians are not as educational as you are trying to convey. If they have a painting kicking around hundred+ years in the future, texts, other archival methods surely will have preserved their legacy greater than a gilded portrait would.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously trying to say that the destruction of historical art "isn't so bad"?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49775573]To be honest,t the historical and cultural backbone, or parts thereof, of a society is pretty important. Even if it might make some folks uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] No definitely, but there are more significant reminders of British colonialism than these paintings.
[QUOTE=Govna;49775547]Yeah actually it would. Get rid of the people who are causing problems = they're not causing problems anymore.[/QUOTE] The people depicted in those paintings are already long dead, though.
It is NEVER okay to destroy historical artefacts. Not liking someone or something is not a valid excuse for destroying knowledge. Destroying images of people who lived in a time where racism was the fucking norm will not magically destroy racism, statues and paintings are not mystic idols which hold the power of racism within them. If you support this and you decried ISIS destroying religious statues you are a hypocrite. If you think this is okay because the people depicted in the statues and paintings are white you are a racist. This emotionally driven, ignorance spreading bullshit is fucking shameful. You don't destroy history because of fucking politics, you use those symbols to demonstrate your points. How fucking up your own arse do you have to be to think it's okay to destroy something, that you don't own, that is culturally and historically significant because you don't like it?
I can't believe there's people endorsing burning books & historical artifacts. Have I gone into a parallel universe where we didn't learn doing that was a terrible idea?
[QUOTE=Thlis;49775585]Are you seriously trying to say that the destruction of historical art "isn't so bad"?[/QUOTE] Yes, because art does not hold inherent significance and not all of it should or will be preserved. [QUOTE=phygon;49775577]What an interesting and factually wrong opinion that holds absolutely no water at all under scrutiny[/QUOTE] A great number of academics would disagree.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49775578]pretty certain he is, i've already reported him and that other guy[/QUOTE] I am almost completely certain he is entirely sincere
I'm not sure what's more pathetic, the idea of prescribing racism to only certain races or saying that you can't be racist towards a group in a country that is an underwhelming minority [IMG]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/62524000/gif/_62524784_racial_profile_sa_464.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775596]Yes, because art does not hold inherent significance and not all of it should or will be preserved.[/QUOTE] have you ever been to a history class before because the ignorance in this is amazing great bait
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49775338]out with idols of colonialism.[/QUOTE] lol colonial hatred has to be the most naive, teenage form of social justice I've ever seen. Hating the people who built the foundation of the civilization you comfortably reside in because they were unlucky enough to live during an era where racism was taught and enforced from cradle to grave, genius.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775575]Paintings of white victorians are not as educational as you are trying to convey. If they have a painting kicking around hundred+ years in the future, texts, other archival methods surely will have preserved their legacy greater than a gilded portrait would.[/QUOTE] Actually, I rather think it is, because under the startling perspicacity of your ~amazing~ analysis of history, all these [i]colonial whiteys[/i] will be reduced to snarling inhuman monsters. These portraits are a good reminder that, actually, they were just humans, and that anyone is capable of the kind of crap they committed. (Even people of colour, since many Africans were just as complicit in the slave trade as the Europeans who bought and traded them. Colonial Europe certainly did not invent Slavery, it had been a part of the warp and weave of human society for a long time prior in one form or another. Even *gasp* perpetrated by PoC upon other PoC)
[QUOTE=Jordax;49775579][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg/800px-Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg[/t] [I]''Son I am disappoint'' - George Washington[/I] By the rhetoric people like you are sprouting, you also wouldn't mind if they would torch a painting of George Washington? Since those people you are defending seem to have a really, really broad definition of what they consider oppressors.[/QUOTE] Personally I wouldn't mind because George Washington's legacy is preserved in greater, more significant ways than the actual painting. I can look at this real nice quality jpg you posted and learn the same as I would (maybe excluding appreciating the physical medium of the portrait) if I were looking at the real thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.