Can we erase the past .... or should we learn from it ?

[Guy Etchells]

I still have no idea how changing things is "erasing the past".
If you change your surname when you get married, are you erasing your past?!
Seems more like some people would just prefer to stubbornly hold onto things whatever the cost.

Exactly. The past can not be erased. Removing a statue of a slave trader doesn't "erase the past", it just demonstrates that 21st century Britain no longer believes that people like that deserve to be on a pedestal. Renaming a dog in the remake of a film is not "political correctness", it is  just that certain derogatory words have no place in modern society. Why some people (I don't mean on this forum) are so vociferous in demanding that the dog retains its original name when so many other details have to be changed in the process of making a film beats me.

The people who removed the statue probably did not know that the slave trader, saved the lives of thousands of former prisoners who would have been killed by their captors, the weakest would have had their heads hacked off by children as young as six years old who due to their lack of strength could take as long as an hour to hack a head off.

But hey, being made a slave was far worse than that.
The times were barbaric, the prisoners of war which is what those slaves were in the early years were always killed in sacrifices to the various Gods, slavery removed them from being a threat and at the same time made those very prisoners a valuable asset.

That does not make the slave trade right, but it does add an extra dimension that should be taken into account.
There were many thing in the past that are unacceptable by the standards of today but in their day they were acceptable.
I also have no doubt that in a few hundred year the people will look back on the barbaric practices of 21st century UK and condemn them.
Cheers
Guy

[Mike in Cumbria]

No need to wait a few hundred years.

[bearkat]

There's an interesting article on the BBC website

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752

[Tickettyboo]

I take the same view as Thumper's Mum
If you can't say nothing nice, don't say nothing at all.

Bottom line is if you 'know' its going to offend don't say it, don't use the terminolgy, even in fun - its not fun if it hurts.

The problem is , the plea of 'well, we didn't mean it in a derogatory manner so what's all the fuss about?' doesn't really hold water but indicates that at some time (and sadly still) it was a belief that some sections of humanity just didn't have feelings like 'us' (whoever the current 'us' was/is) - so how can it be derogatory?

That goes for any section of society who had a different skin colour/religion/accent/ area of birth / education/ amount to live on/ whatever the current easily identifiable thing to pick on was/is.

Just my opinion  - and its okay I've got my coat :-)

Boo

[Erato]

"if you 'know' its going to offend"

There are a lot of people who will use racist language when they think it's okay because they're talking to a fellow white person so there's no one to take offense.  I've heard some pretty bad stuff aimed at a variety of targets and not all of it from English speakers  -  the top five [in no particular order]:  an American man [an in-law!], an English woman [a blood relative!], two Ecuadorians [one the brother of a vice president and the other a concentration camp survivor] and one Peruvian.  I only struck back on one occasion [the in-law] because I'd had it with him.

[Maiden Stone]

Today, in connection with another RootsChat thread, I came across an example of someone erasing a  representation of the past instead of learning from it.
A painting of William of Orange with his army before a battle used to hang in Stormont (Northern Ireland Parliament). Someone took a dislike to the picture in the 1930s and slashed it. The picture was removed. The vandal wasn't an Irish Nationalist but a Unionist. What he'd objected to was the inclusion of Pope Innocent XI blessing the army of Protestant William prior to battle. The Pope and William were on the same side during the War of the League of Augsburg, both being members of the Grand Alliance against King Louis of France. True, the Pope wasn't present at the event illustrated - the depiction in the painting was symbolic.

2 programmes on Radio 4 on Saturday evening from the archives touched on themes relevant to this discussion. One was a Reith lecture by Hilary Mantel.   

[deebel]

Maybe Germans are offended by films where Americans call them 'krauts'.  Having one's countrymen called 'cabbages' must be offensive.

I thought Her Majesty was called "cabbage" by the chookiembra 

[ThrelfallYorky]

Totally irrelevant really to this discussion, except that it involves erasing the original image - Isambard Kingdom Brunel's best known photograph originally showed him with a generously sized cigar in his mouth - usually, now, images of him show exactly the same picture, but sans cigar.
I don't object really to that, I'm a confirmed, lifelong NON-smoker, but - it does somehow change the image from how he would be seen in his own time, doesn't it?

[BumbleB]

Totally irrelevant really to this discussion, except that it involves erasing the original image - Isambard Kingdom Brunel's best known photograph originally showed him with a generously sized cigar in his mouth - usually, now, images of him show exactly the same picture, but sans cigar.
I don't object really to that, I'm a confirmed, lifelong NON-smoker, but - it does somehow change the image from how he would be seen in his own time, doesn't it?

Exactly    And I, personally, totally DISAGREE with attempting to change the facts of the past.  It was what it was - whether we, in the present, like it or not, or whether we agree with it or not - it HAPPENED.