Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "iconoclasm and BLM" video.

  1. You assume that they are commemorating, instead of indoctrinating. You assume the past in some sense defines who we are. And that's about true as the earth is flat. Should we commemorate that belief? It's the indoctrination bit, without the critical thinking alongside, that equates to hero worship. And it's easier for a rich person to donate funds for a statue, rather that teach people to question what they are being told to accept is true. And we need much more of the latter than the former. Scepticism saves us from cynicism as the fallout out from the inevitable disillusionment that real knowledge provides. It's a kind of healthy acknowledgement that more often than not that the righteous and the victorious, are not always clearly defined, and often not one and the same. Discovering who and why they get designated as one or the other is where history really earns its keep. History should be a handmaiden of justice and truth, but it's not always the case. We like simple narratives, but truth is far more stranger, and often disturbing than fiction. I mean, in reality, there were some nasty pieces of work from our present day perspective, whom we would not celebrate now. But their statues are fitted around our spaces. Or they are lionised for some agenda today. Should that factor be ignored? No; but we need not be so precious about them either. I think characters like Oliver Cromwell's alleged entreaty to be shown in his portrait, with warts and all, is what's missing from our commemoralising, which is often co-opted into politics. That tendency itself is a logical fallacy, as it is an appeal to history as authority in the present. That shift from the descriptive to the prescriptive in the present is smoothed over by indoctrination by the powerful. Talk of pride and being a proud nation, unleavened without drawing on the continuing injustices and failings left in the wake of such narratives, is a loaded discourse, leveraged by those who want power, but not the responsibility that goes with it. Leadership in any context at its core is duty and service to a cause larger than oneself. And political leadership is even more so. Pride was seen by the Christian faith as one of the deadly sins, with good reason, because pride and confidence, or strength. are not the same. "Only the truly strong can afford to be gentle." And when the flag shagging type of self-serving brand patriotism becomes fashionable, it is when we are not confident or strong enough to resist it. Yes, celebrate our wins, but let's address our failings too. The work never ends because we in the present are stewards fir those we bring into the world and those who will follow us. And by understanding the complete legacy our ancestors left to us, warts and all, we can then win by our efforts and application meaningful victories in the present. Only those will be a firm foundation for our people in the future.
    1
  2. If History was a "way of forgetting things" , how come you use it to remember? History is a tool, how it is used is down to people, who come and go. Often power defines who gets to try and set their own agenda by using history in every age. And the prevailing narrative is anything but set in stone. Often it is incomplete or even biased. And there are many examples of the History being shifted to reflect values of a later age. A prime example is the historical context of Oliver Cromwell. He now has a statue near Houses of Parliament, but his prior status was to be expunged from history, and to be punished for his rebellion. His body, and those of the members of Parliament who signed the Death Warrant of Charles I, was on the return of the monarchy under his son Charles II, were dug up and their remains were publicly desecrated. But the Victorians erected a statue to Cromwell. What is the truth? Well, it's complicated, to the extent that Cromwell is no hero, but neither is Charles I. Depending on your perspective, you could see that whole period as a glorious revolution or a coup, by early English capitalists who used religion as a pretext to remove a stubbornly annoying king who was getting in the way of economic progress as they saw it. And useful history would reveal that both can be true at the same time, because history provides context which fleshes out the meaning of events and better explains the motivations of those involved. It doesn't tell us who we are in the present. That is truly our decision in the present. We can take or leave what we will. we are not bound by the past, unless we choose to be. And it should be understood that this is not a consequence free choice. And often whether the consequences of our choices are positive, are not certain. Yes, we evolved in certain ways to ensure our survival, but we must remember we did not evolve perfectly or evenly. We often make mistakes, and must debate what should be kept and what should be left behind. There should be no sacred cows, but reminders of how others dealt with similar issues, and what we can learn from their actions.
    1