The author has done very well here. Half the audience seem to think that the piece is a damning indictment of modern culinary habits, and the other that it's a wonderful takedown of modern iconoclasm.
Full marks! Science fiction done right.
Full marks! Science fiction done right.
This whole talking point about 'history erasure' is just really strange, because monuments have never been about history. That's why you can have a statue of liberty, a fourth plinth, the kryptos, etc.
What I do mind is the removal of monuments of persons celebrated for specific civilian accomplishments because of some political ideologies, typical of their times, that they may have held (and even, depending perhaps on circumstances untypical of their times).
A brilliant physicist who also happened to write a letter to a journal in support of phrenology? I can let that pass.
A prolific philanthropist who made his fortune on the backs of the enslaved? Yeah, that can go.
I do applaud every effort to do green or ethical investing and such, I am by no means apathetic to these issues. I just think they need to be addressed systematically and productively.
* To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice?
* The degree that were they aware of the unethical practice
* What level of control did they exercise in relation to the unethical practice?
* Even if unaware, were they negligent in relation to the unethical practice?
* What practical steps did they take to mitigate the damage they did upon becoming aware of the unethical nature of their venture?
I agree a systematic approach is the only way to actually solve problems. However, I think the debate around icons isn't about solving problems, but rather one of justice. Is it just for a person who imparted misery upon others to be commemorated, whilst their victims are forgotten?
It's also about making a statement about our values as a society. These things matter because they help set societal expectations about acceptable behaviour. Nobody complains about the the destruction of history when Nazi iconography is destroyed despite Nazism being one of the most influential ideologies in world history.
There's an interesting debate going on in the post-Soviet-Union countries right now about removing soviet iconography from the public square. Some Russians see it as destroying history, whilst many Ukrainians see it as breaking with a past that brought colonisation, starvation, servitude, and general misery.
As for the more nuanced cases, I think I'd probably go for an explanatory plaque. People are complex. One example that comes to mind is Josiah Wedgewood. On the one hand, he was an prominent slavery abolitionist. On the other hand, he employed child labourers to work with poisonous glazes, many of whom died before reaching adulthood.
The problem is, many statues are more or less obnoxious attempts by dominant groups to impose their ideology on public spaces, then the present-day sympathists tend to try and muddy the water by talking about heritage and history, when it's really nothing to do with the monuments in question.
1) Being an omnivore doesn't mean you participate in factory farming. It blurs these together and doesnt make a distinction between the two.
2) Eating meat of any kind - including factory farming - isnt genocide. this is solely an emotionally charged statement.
3) The petition to take down the statue came from college kids. Not a groundswell of issue-centric political support or sweeping national changes, but "a group of students". 21-year olds. The people most likely to be emotionally engaged and least likely to know what theyre talking about.
Don't take my post as a defense of factory farming. I havent participated in years, and look forward to caring for my own chickens on my own land. My point is simply that this article doesnt seem to be some dualistic thinkpiece that reveals the readers biases.