Activists shocked to learn of other views
19th century monument reflects 19th century views, exclaims pack of fools. Well duh, what would you expect it to reflect? Your views?
Prince Albert’s memorial in Kensington is “problematic” and “highly offensive”, drawing on “racial stereotypes” that reflect a “Victorian view of the world that differs from mainstream views held today”, its presentist custodians at The Royal Parks charity say (Evening Standard, GB News, Telegraph).
That’s because it was created by people who had the views that people had then as opposed to the views that people have now. I think you’ll find that’s a general pattern. It’s difficult to adopt the views of people a century or two in the future because you don’t know what they are going to be. Do you see what I mean? That’s a closed box to us. If we knew what they were, and we agreed with them, they would be our views. We don’t know what they will be, so we can neither agree nor disagree with them, because of the not knowing.
The Royal Parks have now offered a presentist critique of the monument, with the four statues that represent Asia, Africa, America and Europe described as reflective of a “Victorian view of European supremacy”.
“Representations of certain continents draws on racial stereotypes that are now considered offensive,” updated information about the plinth now reads on the Royal Parks website.
The page continues: “Though the Empire has traditionally been celebrated as a symbol of British supremacy, many today consider this view as problematic because colonialism often relied on the oppression and exploitation of people, resources and cultures.”
Please, point out the obvious some more.
Just bury this stuff, push it all over, empty all the museums, and build apartments on top. Maybe the ancient Romans were onto something. Leave it for future archaeologists to be scandalized by. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. Then while doing that, rewrite history and make sure to ‘queer’ it, lest anyone feel left out.
Forget about what Santyana said about the past. Oh, burn the books too, can’t have those laying around. We have AI to tell us what’s what now. :P
People in the future might have a view of the world that is considerably different than ours; therefore, let’s carpet bomb everything contemporary now.
Imagine what they’d think of Stonehenge; its world view is prehistoric
Well, to be honest, I could do without autotuned singing, social media “influencers,” and the phrase “content creators” is welcome to die in a fire.
There’s a rather unpleasantly misogynistic little story by Saki about the Suffragettes planning to erect replicas of the Victoria Memorial in conspicuous places throughout Britain in order to further their cause, and the sensible (in Saki’s eyes, not mine) prime minister of the time, when he hears of the plan, quickly passing a bill that prevents monuments from being erected in places that are less than a mile away from a thoroughfare.
Yes, people probably expect exactly that because they think that different from all people in the past, their current moral and ethical values are the endpoint of ethics evolution. It is totally inconceivable to most people that some things we today take for granted may be viewed as horribly wrong in the future. Even if you point out that people 200 years ago thought the same thing, they still do not see the relativity of the situation.
Furthermore, they also do not see how they stand on the shoulders of past people to actually arrive at their moral values. They all assume that, had they lived 300 years ago, of course they would have been horrified at cat burnings or public executions. Ask any scientist and they will most probably tell you that back in the days of Galilei, of course they would have immediately been convinced by the arguments that earth moved around the sun. (Many of the same scientists will also tell you how “sex is binary” is of course wrong….)
Almost no-one tends to ask the question “Which practice that is common today will horrify people 200 years from now?” or “Why, if I had lived in the past, do I believe that I would still have my modern values despite the fact that they agree with and were formed by the world around me?” The closest they may come to this is talking about “the right side of history” and assuming that in the future, all of their values will be seen as the correct ones.
But actually thinking about the fact that all of us are probably doing something that “the right side of history” will view as wrong is rarely done.
I’m… not sure I see the issue here, honestly.
1: No one seems to be calling for the plinth to be removed or even reworked. There is no burying of history going on here.
2: Sure, “Victorian views of the world were often racist and imperialist, with all the baggage that goes with it” is a pretty obvious statement. But unfortunately, we live in an era when some people deny the Holocaust and talk about the benefits of slavery (to the slaves), so I don’t see an issue with being obvious about the fact that past eras included a lot of harmful ideas that we are best to move far, far away from. I’d much rather we include a little obviousness, in fact, starting with a frank discussion about the portrayals of women in art, and how they are often objectified and/or sexualized in almost absurd fashion. (Remember the discussion on this very blog about the painting of the 12-year-old girl in her undergarments? We need more of that, not less, and I don’t see any reason for racial and cultural critiques to not be carried on as well.)
It never does start with a frank discussion about the portrayals of women though, does it. I keep noticing that.
You probably have a point though. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent some time staring in wonder at the Albert Mem – it’s just so obviously ridiculous in so many ways.
[…] a comment by Sonderval on Activists shocked to learn of other […]