Statues of ‘old white men’ may need to be destroyed, Welsh government advises
telegraph.co.ukWouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites. The former elevates everyone while the latter diminishes everyone. At some point, the world has to recognize that non-whites don’t need paternalistic care.
>Wouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites.
There is an increased push to publicly acknowledge achievements of non-whites. I also dont think the crowd calling for teardowns would be against celebrating the objectively heroic whites that the ruling class spent significant energy to stop society from acknowledging due to the risk of their pro-justice/anti-establishment values being replicated.
Effective at what, political dominance? Eh..ressentiment and tearing down, attacking achievements of the strong and dominant while glorifying the weak and oppressed has actually worked extremely well.
Expressions of this sentiment like multiculturalism, mass migration and political correctness of the form of completely denouncing prior empires and dominant civilization is the status-quo order of the day. I think it is more uncertain how this type of worldview is opposed, not whether it is effective.
I’m still fundamentally an optimist. The worldwide cabal of elites is going to be rudely awakened at some point. Just have to be patient.
> Wouldn’t it be more effective to identify achievements by non-whites as opposed to eradicating achievements by whites
If that was their goal, then yes, but given that it isn't, they do this instead.
Understand that the revolution absolutely will not stop. It doesn't matter if you think there is a double standard. It doesn't matter if you supported everything they did up until now. It doesn't matter how loudly you complain.
They hate you, and they won't stop until every strand of your heritage is destroyed.
When everything is about power, even history is a threat. It's sad some people fall for this pessimistic and divisive ideology.
Everything has always been about power to one degree or another. Even living in a comfortable political environment where you don't have to worry about this stuff and can live in peace...first requires power. The key is getting people to think it is bad to play at the same game being played against you. Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not.
To be clear, the power I'm talking about is about controlling people. There can be peace without needing to hold power against other people... unless they are the ones wanting the power. So for example, self-defense is not about power.
> Even freedom itself can be defined as the degree to which one has power or not.
That sounds like "power" in ability, as in to do something, which is not the same as the "power" used in Critical Theories and other political ideologies. Freedom is not about power, and is defined in contrast to power. You want freedom from something that is controlling you, or has power over you.
If one, or a group, or a nation or whatever..does not have power, then they only have freedom granted to them by actual power. That is not actual freedom, it is dependence on the benevolence of the powerful.
Talking of power relations isn't really incorrect re: critical theory, probably where they go wrong is somehow pathologizing power itself. It is good to be powerful. It is bad to be weak.
Often times one does have to apply power against other people, do you disagree?
People like to abstract out the nasty parts of this stuff and think rules, or laws, or documents, or mutual discussion can somehow erase the problem of needing to have power to see one's interests and will realized.
But rules and laws and principles are broken all the time.. by whom? The powerful of course. And simply deferring to some abstraction in and of itself can not compel anyone to follow it; it must be backed up with power to enforce.
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.
> If one, or a group, or a nation or whatever..does not have power, then they only have freedom granted to them by actual power. That is not actual freedom, it is dependence on the benevolence of the powerful.
That's stretching the definition of freedom to absolute levels. So no one is truly free unless you have control of powerful armies. That would mean that throughout history only the very powerful have been truly free (which would be a bit cynical). I think that's not the case and I would claim that modern first-world countries have been consistently moving towards more freedom, and not just for the most powerful.
Power can be decentralized away from individuals into groups of people and institutions. Throughout history civilizations have constantly evolved in the direction of more decentralization of power, from dictators and kings to representative republics. Sure even now the power is concentrated at the top, but we could be close to another political breakthrough because of technology, which would further decentralize power, and allow more freedom.
> It is good to be powerful. It is bad to be weak.
By definition not everyone can be powerful at the same time, since power is measured by exerting it on someone else. This means that thinking it's all about power is the same as saying "the ends justify the means", since power is the end and everything else is determined by it.
> Often times one does have to apply power against other people, do you disagree?
Sure like in self-defense.
> But rules and laws and principles are broken all the time.. by whom? The powerful of course.
In today's day and age, it's usually the corrupt. We're supposed to know better, and we should have laws that prevent certain things, but of course there are always corrupt people trying to game the system. Power tends to corrupt, which is why decentralizing tends to help.
> Major changes are not expected.
Empire and those old White men who created it for their civilization are good, actually and should be celebrated by their descendants. Everyone alive today is here because someone amongst their ancestors was "aggressive" and expanded as necessary to acquire resources and territory while defeating those that opposed them doing this.
Good luck. In Austria we have hundreds of streets named after Nazi collaborators, but there's a huge resistance to changing the names. Same when someone wants to remove a statue placed by Nazis.
When commemorative plaques are placed for victims of Nazi violence, they are defaced or destroyed.
There are a lot of people who just don't want to hear that our ancestors weren't all that noble.
Wonder what the next step after that is? Nah I’m kidding, I think we all know what’s next.
Please, elaborate.
Genocide
Statues are not a race.
Unpaywalled: http://archive.is/vGZXG