Trump's Culture War Targets America's Museums

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 7:45 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Huh? You were tying "Westernized/Euro culture" to the ending of slavery, but from the actual evidence we can see so-called "Westernized/Euro culture" was the perpetrator of the last great wave of enslavement.

Just to make sure we're not going to down a rabbit hole of semantics here...

You realize I'm using the colloquial definition of Westernized here, and not just the literal semantic geographical definition, right? For instance, Australia (despite being situated completely in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres) are considered to be part of the "Western world".

And the attributes I mentioned before are what defines that.

Spain was certainly not part of the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club when that was going on. It wasn't until the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club was founded, that we started to see slavery getting ended.

Not only was Spain a larger offender

They ended it later:

Spain officially ended slavery in its last significant colony, Cuba, on October 7, 1886. This marked the final abolition of slavery in the Spanish Empire, freeing the remaining people still held under the residual “patronato” system. Prior to this, slavery had been abolished in Puerto Rico in 1873, but it persisted longest in Cuba due to the island’s plantation economy and planter opposition. This made Spain the last major empire to abolish slavery, two years before Brazil.

And it should be noted that the only reason Spain and Portugal ended it, was due to British pressure to do so...and that British pressure came about from their democratic, secular, pluralistic parliament.

Pommer · Sunday at 1:54 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Just to make sure we're not going to down a rabbit hole of semantics here...

You realize I'm using the colloquial definition of Westernized here, and not just the literal semantic geographical definition, right? For instance, Australia (despite being situated completely in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres) are considered to be part of the "Western world".

And the attributes I mentioned before are what defines that.

Spain was certainly not part of the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club when that was going on. It wasn't until the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club was founded, that we started to see slavery getting ended.

Not only was Spain a larger offender

View attachment 369002

They ended it later:

Spain officially ended slavery in its last significant colony, Cuba, on October 7, 1886. This marked the final abolition of slavery in the Spanish Empire, freeing the remaining people still held under the residual “patronato” system. Prior to this, slavery had been abolished in Puerto Rico in 1873, but it persisted longest in Cuba due to the island’s plantation economy and planter opposition. This made Spain the last major empire to abolish slavery, two years before Brazil.

View attachment 369003

And it should be noted that the only reason Spain and Portugal ended it, was due to British pressure to do so...and that British pressure came about from their democratic, secular, pluralistic parliament.

Countries abandoned slavery when they found out that the “peculiar institution” was hurting their chances at continued existence?

Yeah, that’s how that works.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 10:20 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Just to make sure we're not going to down a rabbit hole of semantics here...

You realize I'm using the colloquial definition of Westernized here, and not just the literal semantic geographical definition, right? For instance, Australia (despite being situated completely in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres) are considered to be part of the "Western world".

And the attributes I mentioned before are what defines that.

Spain was certainly not part of the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club when that was going on. It wasn't until the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club was founded, that we started to see slavery getting ended.

Not only was Spain a larger offender

View attachment 369002

They ended it later:

Spain officially ended slavery in its last significant colony, Cuba, on October 7, 1886. This marked the final abolition of slavery in the Spanish Empire, freeing the remaining people still held under the residual “patronato” system. Prior to this, slavery had been abolished in Puerto Rico in 1873, but it persisted longest in Cuba due to the island’s plantation economy and planter opposition. This made Spain the last major empire to abolish slavery, two years before Brazil.

View attachment 369003

And it should be noted that the only reason Spain and Portugal ended it, was due to British pressure to do so...and that British pressure came about from their democratic, secular, pluralistic parliament.

The thing is, the Smithsonian is primarily about American history, not world history. Slavery and its aftermath are important parts of this history. To give a long, detailed world history of slavery each and every time our history of slavery is featured just seems gratuitous. Do we really need the disclaimer "Hey, we're not the worst!" on every exhibit? I think not.

durangodawood · Sunday at 10:20 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
......If me and five other people all did something really bad and stupid like robbing a bank, and people wanted to talk about what all six of us did and our level of involvement... that's completely reasonable.

However, if whenever the bank robbery subject comes up, the only name brought up is mine, and nobody ever talks about the other five guys, and when people did talk about it, they portrayed it as if my entire existence is based on bank robbery --- yeah, I'm going to have some objections to that.

Its more like we're writing your biography rather than a history of just that bank robbery. Your culpability in that context looks equally bad whether it was you alone or if there were 5 others involved.

Plus imagine if your crime wasnt just stealing the money but doing every single trick you could conjure to stash away and hide the stolen money even after caught and convicted. That way we could see your nature. Did your better instincts lead you to rehabilitate yourself? Or did you have to be constantly monitored and goaded at every step?

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 10:46 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Just to make sure we're not going to down a rabbit hole of semantics here...

You realize I'm using the colloquial definition of Westernized here, and not just the literal semantic geographical definition, right? For instance, Australia (despite being situated completely in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres) are considered to be part of the "Western world".

Yes, I do realize that. Which is why the "offspring" of the West are "Western". You seem to be confusing "Western" with "Children of the Enlightenment".

The Enlightenment was a movement in Western culture.
Modern "democracy, secularism, pluralism" are products of that Enlightenment.
The Western world was converted to Christianity, which is why the "Western Church" is another cultural marker of Western society.

ThatRobGuy said:
And the attributes I mentioned before are what defines that.

Spain was certainly not part of the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club when that was going on. It wasn't until the "democracy, secularism, pluralism" club was founded, that we started to see slavery getting ended.

Not only was Spain a larger offender

View attachment 369002

They ended it later:

Spain officially ended slavery in its last significant colony, Cuba, on October 7, 1886. This marked the final abolition of slavery in the Spanish Empire, freeing the remaining people still held under the residual “patronato” system. Prior to this, slavery had been abolished in Puerto Rico in 1873, but it persisted longest in Cuba due to the island’s plantation economy and planter opposition. This made Spain the last major empire to abolish slavery, two years before Brazil.

View attachment 369003

And it should be noted that the only reason Spain and Portugal ended it, was due to British pressure to do so...and that British pressure came about from their democratic, secular, pluralistic parliament.

I weep for the poor understanding of Classical culture and history.

wing2000 · Sunday at 10:50 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
The objections stem from the notion that it's something "uniquely American".

ThatRobGuy said:
It's more like them not wanting to be the only one who doesn't have their negative history glossed over...and furthermore, not wanting to have that negative history used to define what the nation is all about.

Is this "notion" that it is "uniquely American" apparent in the Museum of American History? Or any other museum focused on the American experience?

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:16 PM

wing2000 said:
Is this "notion" that it is "uniquely American" apparent in the Museum of American History? Or any other museum focused on the American experience?

No, but like I noted, this whole thing is a sentiment that's rooted in over-correction.

So because these themes are being disproportionately injected everywhere else, some folks would prefer to have a place where they're not injected at all.

Or another way of wording it

If nine other entities are hyper-fixating on it in a very one-sided way, a tenth entity covering it from a neutral perspective is going to seem like just more "piling on" (at least from the perspective of the recipient)

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:18 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I weep for the poor understanding of Classical culture and history.

Is there something in particular with regards to the numbers or dates I cited that were inaccurate?

I don't recall this kind of fine tooth comb approach coming from anyone on the left when things like like The 1619 Project came out...

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:21 PM

durangodawood said:
Its more like we're writing your biography rather than a history of just that bank robbery. Your culpability in that context looks equally bad whether it was you alone or if there were 5 others involved.

Plus imagine if your crime wasnt just stealing the money but doing every single trick you could conjure to stash away and hide the stolen money even after caught and convicted. That way we could see your nature. Did your better instincts lead you to rehabilitate yourself? Or did you have to be constantly monitored and goaded at every step?

Right, but that still brings us back to the question of why people would be so fixated on writing my biography, and not seeming to have the slightest interest in the biography of the other 5 co-conspirators.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:24 PM

DaisyDay said:
The thing is, the Smithsonian is primarily about American history, not world history. Slavery and its aftermath are important parts of this history. To give a long, detailed world history of slavery each and every time our history of slavery is featured just seems gratuitous. Do we really need the disclaimer "Hey, we're not the worst!" on every exhibit? I think not.

My reply Wing would be my explanation in reply to your post...

This whole thing is a sentiment that's rooted in over-correction.

So because these themes (suggesting that it is uniquely American, and suggesting that we were the worst) are being disproportionately injected everywhere else, some folks would prefer to have a place where they're not injected at all, as a counter balance.

Or another way of wording it

If nine other entities are hyper-fixating on it in a very one-sided way, a tenth entity covering it from a neutral perspective is going to seem like just more "piling on" (at least from the perspective of the recipient)

durangodawood · Sunday at 4:34 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Right, but that still brings us back to the question of why people would be so fixated on writing my biography, and not seeming to have the slightest interest in the biography of the other 5 co-conspirators.

Choose whatever reason you need such that youre important enough to be of particular interest to people. And maybe they get their own bios too, with their own life stories just like you did.

BCP1928 · Sunday at 4:43 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
My reply Wing would be my explanation in reply to your post...

This whole thing is a sentiment that's rooted in over-correction.

How do you know it's over correction?

ThatRobGuy said:
So because these themes (suggesting that it is uniquely American, and suggesting that we were the worst) are being disproportionately injected everywhere else, some folks would prefer to have a place where they're not injected at all, as a counter balance.

Not the worst--just not as good as you seem to want to pretend.

ThatRobGuy said:
Or another way of wording it

If nine other entities are hyper-fixating on it in a very one-sided way, a tenth entity covering it from a neutral perspective is going to seem like just more "piling on" (at least from the perspective of the recipient)

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:49 PM

durangodawood said:
Choose whatever reason you need such that youre important enough to be of particular interest to people. And maybe they get their own bios too, with their own life stories just like you did.

We already know what the particular interest is with regards to the reason...

In this case, it's because there's social credit to be gained by "going hard" on the privileged group.

Modern descendants of American slave owners are primarily White European ancestry...thereby "privileged group"

Modern descendants of Spaniard slave owners are, well... not white. So being critical of Spanish slavery would introduce a faux pas.

But where this conversation becomes perceived as "unfair", and why people want to do a "counterbalance/overcorrection"....

The institutions of Academia and and Entertainment are already heavily stacked in favor of one viewpoint. Yet, when a person from the other side who wields some power wants to take a different institution and stack it in favor of a different viewpoint, all of the sudden there's pearl clutching over an institution taking a non-neutral position.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:52 PM

BCP1928 said:
Not the worst--just not as good as you seem to want to pretend.

To be clear, nothing about the slavery ordeal is "good"

Every entity who played a part in that ugly ordeal should be viewed as complicit and have to own that.

What I'm saying is that when other prevailing institutions in the culture seem dead set on only holding one particular conspirator accountable, and have seemingly zero interest in the rest (for modern political reasons), it's perfectly understandable why some people objecting to the idea that they should be the only ones publicly maligned and left holding the bag for it -- and being expected to sign on to every modern day proposal that claims to be "in the service of correcting for the past".

durangodawood · Sunday at 5:00 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
We already know what the particular interest is with regards to the reason...

In this case, it's because there's social credit to be gained by "going hard" on the privileged group.

Modern descendants of American slave owners are primarily White European ancestry...thereby "privileged group"

Modern descendants of Spaniard slave owners are, well... not white. So being critical of Spanish slavery would introduce a faux pas.

All the countries who can seem have institutions and museums etc devoted to their own national histories, with themselves the center of interest. Thats why, here in the USA, we get a much closer look at USA history than say France or Russia history. Its the nature of national history generally. Nothing to do with "privilege" or that whole conversation.

ThatRobGuy said:
But where this conversation becomes perceived as "unfair", and why people want to do a "counterbalance/overcorrection"....

The institutions of Academia and and Entertainment are already heavily stacked in favor of one viewpoint. Yet, when a person from the other side who wields some power wants to take a different institution and stack it in favor of a different viewpoint, all of the sudden there's pearl clutching over an institution taking a non-neutral position.

Not sure what exactly thats referring to.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 5:03 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
In this case, it's because there's social credit to be gained by "going hard" on the privileged group.

Pity the poor privileged! Alas for the top of the totem pole!

Slavery and its aftermath is an important part of our history as was the expansion west. Sugar-coating it doesn't change what it was or what it is. I don't understand how offended some people get to learn that our ancestors weren't all heroes and saints. That I have benefited from privilege is a fact but I haven't striven for it and I see no reason to deny it (although I'm middle of the totem here).

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 5:28 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Is there something in particular with regards to the numbers or dates I cited that were inaccurate?

I don't recall this kind of fine tooth comb approach coming from anyone on the left when things like like The 1619 Project came out...

I didn't pay attention to your numbers. Spain and Portugal are part of Western civilization and have been for 2000 years. I don't know why this is so hard to grok.

durangodawood · Sunday at 5:34 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I didn't pay attention to your numbers. Spain and Portugal are part of Western civilization and have been for 2000 years. I don't know why this is so hard to grok.

"Western" is a floaty term. In one context it means the Judeo-Greek heritage. In another it means more specifically Enlightenment values. In yet another it almost means Roman Catholic vs Orthodox.

Too easy to equivocate, even accidentally.

Hans Blaster · Sunday at 6:11 PM

durangodawood said:
"Western" is a floaty term. In one context it means the Judeo-Greek heritage.

I think you meant "Greco-Roman" which is a traditional dividing line.

durangodawood said:
In another it means more specifically Enlightenment values.

Not one I'd heard before.

durangodawood said:
In yet another it almost means Roman Catholic vs Orthodox.

Or Soviet/NATO.

durangodawood said:
Too easy to equivocate, even accidentally.

Agreed. But it is really hard to exclude Spain & Portugal, but yet he tries.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 6:12 PM

DaisyDay said:
Pity the poor privileged! Alas for the top of the totem pole!

Slavery and its aftermath is an important part of our history as was the expansion west. Sugar-coating it doesn't change what it was or what it is. I don't understand how offended some people get to learn that our ancestors weren't all heroes and saints. That I have benefited from privilege is a fact but I haven't striven for it and I see no reason to deny it (although I'm middle of the totem here).

Correct, but if one group wants to hyper-fixate on it for social brownie points, its entirely predictable that the other group will want to "counter-punch" by downplaying it.

If you notice, there weren't any large-scale calls to "tone it down" and "avoid talking about certain stuff" prior to there being a concerted effort to make it a central part of every discussion.

The "let's only talk about the good things America did and just avoid talking about the bad stuff" is a direct response to the things like the 1619 project and other efforts to look at every issue through a racial lens with American chattel slavery as the backdrop (done with the aims of tearing down all of the system we have like capitalism and meritocracy)

Trump's Culture War Targets America's Museums

Part of the IT crowd

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

re Member

Raised by bees

E pluribus unum

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Raised by bees

re Member

Raised by bees

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads