• "Whiteness burning": UCT Students are throwing “colonial” art on the pyre. Forgot College education
    442 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775658]No. I'm not saying to burn art, I just don't think that it's logical to be so reactionary to this as you are. I didn't even say to burn white people art or any art at all. I didn't imply this, I believe.[/QUOTE] They could have burned something less relevant and it still would have been fucking awful. It sets a precedent that "Hey, I don't believe this should be a thing because [contrived reason], so let's just get rid of it by burning/censoring/destroying it".
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49775486] Keep in mind that this outraged people in Britain at the time and that the Qing Dynasty was pretty evil and Imperialistic in its own right. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queue_(hairstyle)[/url] Also "we"? Who are you referring to? Most brits couldn't even vote at the time and even then, the sins of the father are not to be passed down onto the son.[/QUOTE] I'll start this post by agreeing with you; I'll also admit that 'we' was a misnomer, but I'll get to that. The first point I'll make is that the outraged people in Britain were a minority, and the government was actually forced to protect the liberties of the opium merchants (largely because of the threat of encroachment from other imperialist states if they ignored the Chinese affront in the siege of the opium factories by Commissioner Lin). The result of this was that the opium trade was never made illegal and the British state sent the navy into China and sank countless Chinese coastguard vessels. Pic related: [img]http://www.china-mike.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/first-opium-war.jpg[/img] Proceeding this victory, as the opium war resulted in the Nanjing treaty, there came the 'years of unequal treaties', which saw other imperialist powers and Britain secure unfair treaties through the utilization of gunboat diplomacy. The second opium war was launched by a single British official deciding to bombard Canton. Which the navy did. For 5 days. Elgin then torched the Yuan Ming Yuan gardens, which was arguably one of the wonders of the pre-modern world. Elgin also gave the order that allowed the British troops to loot ~everything~. A notable case being the seizing of the holy Putuo 5 from their Buddhist temple. They were displayed in the Grand Exhibition. Now, I'll agree that 'we' was a misnomer on my part, a lot of historical work has been done to put the point across that individual imperialist agency was the driver for many of the colonial sins committed, but a point should also be made that the Commissioner Lin wrote to the Queen begging her to stop the opium trade... and she did nothing. So some responsibility has to be taken by the state in allowing the immoral trade to continue. I'll finish with the point that the Qing weren't as comparatively bad. 'Imperialistic' was a misnomer there, as the Confucian state was against change, which forced the state to rely heavily upon the soft power that their position in the geographical area allowed them. The Dzungar genocide was terrible, but the Qianlong emperor had to make an example. Remember that the Manchus were nomadic conquerors, so couldn't allow any dissent from the indigenous Chinese peoples. You also have to remember that the Qing conquest of China wasn't anything horrific, it was simply another episode in the 'winding river' of Chinese history. Chinese history has a vague pattern and it was accepted within China that this was the way of dynasties, to rise and fall. I'm more than happy to talk about this further with you via pm if you'd like, should you have an interest. I'm currently writing a history dissertation on the topic titled 'Monument to Mammon, Den of Inequity or Respectable Micro-Colony: Hong Kong and it's Part in the Opium Trade', so know a fair deal!
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775558]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. [B]But no, you can't be racist towards white people.[/B][/QUOTE] Here's a hypothetical situation: a person is assaulted late at night, and the assailant goes on record explicitly stating it's because the victim was white. Is that racism? Let's look at another one. An HR person at a small company is leafing through resumes, trying to decide who to call in for an interview. He throws one in the trash. "Jeffery McIntosh? Sounds a little too white. we have enough whites as it is." Is this racism?
[QUOTE=archangel125;49775670]It's pretty sad and disgusting that this is happening, but I think you guys need to think about where this is. South Africa. Apartheid ring any bells? And that ended just in 1994. The people doing this think they're perfectly justified, because the memory is still fresh in their minds. Only a fool misses the historical context. "Fucking savages"? Really?[/QUOTE] That's no excuse to act like Nazis.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49775672]but your argument for why it isn't important is literally just "well I don't care" it isn't about whether or not you care, it's about whether or not the rest of humanity from now until the end of time will care and I'm pretty fucking certain some of them will[/QUOTE] No, my argument is that just because things are old, relatively historical, owned by somebody does not mean that if they were to be destroyed by human or natural force there is no inherent loss besides what is determined as such by the culture. If there were historical texts on these paintings, the art, a resounding agreement of this piece or that piece being significant art to look to in reference to a period then that would be a shame to lose them; if they are not and they are just decorations in an old building that barely anyone thinks about let alone knows the subject - then what is lost when the culture has already forgotten?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49775681]this is south africa it has nothing to do with trayvon martin or blm jesus christ please read the fucking thread[/QUOTE] I fucked up again I see :v:. UCT just kinda sounded like a American College. Oh gee I tabbed and read a bit of the article. Oh gosh danget :v:.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775705]No, my argument is that just because things are old, relatively historical, owned by somebody does not mean that if they were to be destroyed by human or natural force there is no inherent loss besides what is determined as such by the culture. If there were historical texts on these paintings, the art, a resounding agreement of this piece or that piece being significant art to look to in reference to a period then that would be a shame to lose them; if they are not and they are just decorations in an old building that barely anyone thinks about let alone knows the subject - then what is lost when the culture has already forgotten?[/QUOTE] This mentality is how piece by piece, brick by brick, history is destroyed.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775705]No, my argument is that just because things are old, relatively historical, owned by somebody does not mean that if they were to be destroyed by human or natural force there is no inherent loss besides what is determined as such by the culture. If there were historical texts on these paintings, the art, a resounding agreement of this piece or that piece being significant art to look to in reference to a period then that would be a shame to lose them; if they are not and they are just decorations in an old building that barely anyone thinks about let alone knows the subject - then what is lost when the culture has already forgotten?[/QUOTE] Well it's good to know if you don't consider the art to have value, it doesn't have value! Fuck yeah, Take_Opal everyone, the arbiter of art Needless to say that was sarcasm and art doesn't need your personal pass to have been considered valuable, or to be historically valuable. I guess one of a kind things are fucking garbage when you decide they are
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49775700]That's no excuse to act like Nazis.[/QUOTE] I feel like the Nazi comparison is a bit much. The Nazis aren't the only people to have destroyed cultural and historical stuff and they did it for a totally different reason to these people.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zk6eXvCiuo[/media]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49775710]This mentality is how piece by piece, brick by brick, history is destroyed.[/QUOTE] "It's fine if I chisel the genitals off of these ancient egyptian paintings, it's not art, i said it's not!" -Take_Opal
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49775716]I feel like the Nazi comparison is a bit much. The Nazis aren't the only people to have destroyed cultural and historical stuff and they did it for a totally different reason to these people.[/QUOTE] did they really though? it seems like most extremists burn and destroy history for the same vague reason "it's bad/a symbol of something bad/represents something bad/was made by someone bad" it all comes down to "I don't like this thing so it shouldn't be allowed to exist"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49775714]Well it's good to know if you don't consider the art to have value, it doesn't have value! Fuck yeah, Take_Opal everyone, the arbiter of art Needless to say that was sarcasm and art doesn't need your personal pass to have been considered valuable, or to be historically valuable. I guess one of a kind things are fucking garbage when you decide they are[/QUOTE] I'm not even talking about myself dude. I'm sure I could find a bunch of examples that I liked or find personally significant if I looked through the collection that was destroyed.
You only destroy history so that you can choose to forget the lessons it teaches you, this works well for fascists.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775667]There is nothing other than institutional racism, people are referring to discrimination.[/QUOTE] You know what? Fuck your misleading bullshit rhetoric. "You can't be racist against white people!" "What? Racism is discrimination based on the color of their skin." "uh, there is no such thing! There is only Institutional racism and not!" Fuck you, you know what you're doing. You are intentionally clouding the discussion and misleading literally everyone. In everyone's mind, racism means discrimination based on race, no more, no less. Fuck you and your "institutional racism" bullshit, racism goes way beyond just your cute little "power + prejudice" bullshit. Fuck you. You want to refer to institutional racism? Say such. Anything else is an intellectually dishonest attempt at wasting everyone's time. Eat shit. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49775727]did they really though? it seems like most extremists burn and destroy history for the same vague reason "it's bad/a symbol of something bad/represents something bad/was made by someone bad" it all comes down to "I don't like this thing so it shouldn't be allowed to exist"[/QUOTE] yeah but the Nazis are responsible for so much awful shit comparing these people to Nazis just because they did one thing that the Nazis also did is silly imo
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775729]I'm not even talking about myself dude. I'm sure I could find a bunch of examples that I liked or find personally significant if I looked through the collection that was destroyed.[/QUOTE] Does the subjectivity of that level of nonsense not bother you?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775729]I'm not even talking about myself dude. [B]I'm sure I could find a bunch of examples that I liked or find personally significant if I looked through the collection that was destroyed[/B].[/QUOTE] Yeah, that would be a lot easier if they weren't fucking burned. Maybe we should look down on people fucking burning historical art.
Take_Opal, as someone who studied History of Art, and has a love for history in general, I want to punch you, very hard.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49775670]It's pretty sad and disgusting that this is happening, but I think you guys need to think about where this is. South Africa. Apartheid ring any bells? And that ended just in 1994. The people doing this think they're perfectly justified, because the memory is still fresh in their minds. Only a fool misses the historical context. "Fucking savages"? Really?[/QUOTE] It is NEVER acceptable to destroy historical artefacts. If they represent a dark part of your countries history you should hold them up as examples of what not to do, not throw a fucking fit like a petulant child and destroy things you don't own. Also, I doubt these mostly early to mid 20 year olds know all that much about how bad it really was during Apartheid, it ended 22 years ago. I'm sure racism still exists in South Africa (in fact I know it's still rampant in many areas, against both blacks and whites), but that doesn't justify the destruction of private property which is important to the history and culture of your country. Hell, they vandalised a statue of the first woman to go to the university because she was white. It's just racism fuelling this.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775705]No, my argument is that just because things are old, relatively historical, owned by somebody does not mean that if they were to be destroyed by human or natural force there is no inherent loss besides what is determined as such by the culture. If there were historical texts on these paintings, the art, a resounding agreement of this piece or that piece being significant art to look to in reference to a period then that would be a shame to lose them; if they are not and they are just decorations in an old building that barely anyone thinks about let alone knows the subject - then what is lost when the culture has already forgotten?[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Taller_Buddha_of_Bamiyan_before_and_after_destruction.jpg[/IMG] [I]Eh, it was only from a culture that only was there a thousand years ago in said country, it's not a big loss.[/I] - Take_Opal, 2016 on the destruction of historical artefacts.
[QUOTE=ImpSnob;49775394]You can't be racist against whiteys.[/QUOTE] Yeah man, I think we should start enslaving and lynching those white trash hillbilly redneck crackers, and remember, it isnt racist because Racism = power + prejudice!
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49775739]Does the subjectivity of that level of nonsense not bother you?[/QUOTE] No because there is no objective truth to this stuff that matters. Everything is historical, that doesn't make it significant and history will be and is forgotten.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775705]No, my argument is that just because things are old, relatively historical, owned by somebody does not mean that if they were to be destroyed by human or natural force there is no inherent loss besides what is determined as such by the culture. If there were historical texts on these paintings, the art, a resounding agreement of this piece or that piece being significant art to look to in reference to a period then that would be a shame to lose them; if they are not and they are just decorations in an old building that barely anyone thinks about let alone knows the subject - then what is lost when the culture has already forgotten?[/QUOTE] we don't keep it around for us, we keep it around for historians and archaeologists thousands of years into the future. we cannot rely on electronic methods of archival, it is imperative that we keep physical copies of cultural artifacts and records in order to afford the future of humanity a clearer picture of its history, even if that is ugly history.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49775761]we don't keep it around for us, we keep it around for historians and archaeologists thousands of years into the future. we cannot rely on electronic methods of archival, it is imperative that we keep physical copies of cultural artifacts and records in order to afford the future of humanity a clearer picture of its history, even if that is ugly history.[/QUOTE] Perhaps I'm a bit more sci-fi than I should be, but I don't buy that digital archives are entirely useless.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775758]No because there is no objective truth to this stuff that matters. Everything is historical, that doesn't make it significant and history will be and is forgotten.[/QUOTE] And where did you pull the word objective from? Your ass? It isn't part of this discussion. Everything is historical. Yes. That's true. Doesn't make it significant? Not true. History will be forgoten? True, but we should try not to, as we have the power to do so. How the fuck do you reconcile this shit in your brain? You can't argue it, you can't even lay out a good reason anyone should agree with you, why are you so adamant that you're right about how little art, and the destruction of it matters? Art fucking matters. Art is a window both into ourselves, and into the past. To lose either option of where to look is a tragedy that can never be undone. The history we've lost as it is, is a true tragedy, but you're okay with losing more? Have you ever heard "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"? Because that's about YOU and your mindset.
[QUOTE=Xubs;49775759]Yes, because of things like art burning.[/QUOTE] Or historical insignificance.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775771]Perhaps I'm a bit more sci-fi than I should be, but I don't buy that digital archives are entirely useless.[/QUOTE] well good, we've got your word saying how important something is, or isn't again! It's totally good to know Take_Opal is able to override the comments of the experts in this field
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775774]Or historical insignificance.[/QUOTE] these things were destroyed because they were significant to them...
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49775774]Or historical insignificance.[/QUOTE] "people might forget history, so what's wrong with making them forget history by destroying it?"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.