"human zoo" exhibition in Barbican cancelled after black protests

  • 49 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paracelsus

A proposed "human zoo" exhibition in London's Barbican which featured black actors in chains as well as in cages( and whose creator was a South African white individual old enough to have grown up during apartheid) was yesterday cancelled by the organizers after widespread black protests( full disclosure: although I did not take part in these protests I did not deny my support for them).

Claims made by not just the artist but other cast members(including the black ones) that the cancellation amounted to "censorship" and that "freedom of expression" was at issue can only be regarded (at least by myself) as self-serving hypocritical BALONEY- to quote John McEnroe- "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!".

Whilst I am loathe to "join the bookburners"( as the late US President Dwight David Eisenhower cautioned against doing in a sadly overlooked speech at Dartmouth College in 1954) as I am an artist and aspiring author, I think the proponents of "free expression" should ask where they were earlier this week when author Hilary Mantel was threatened with prosecution for publishing in last Saturday's Guardian an IMAGINARY story about the IRA's assassination of the late Baroness Thatcher?

Free speech for me but not for thee it seems.

Secondly, as we saw during the controversies regarding "The Satanic Verses", the "blasphemous Danish cartoons", plays like "Behzti" and "Seven Jewish Children", when push comes to shove at the risk of violent reprisals from an outraged community( be it ethnic or religious) and the sacred cow of "free expression", the authors almost invariably back down.

"Freedom of expression" in this context seems to mean freedom to respect the sensitivities and sensibilities to every groupMuslims, Jews, Hindus) save blacks it seems.

Anybody think as I do?

Terry

Avatar image for keenko
Keenko

5308

Forum Posts

1431

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 10

I think if old white guy and black actors all had an agreement and weren't hurting anything, leave them alone.

Avatar image for the_stegman
the_stegman

41911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#2 the_stegman  Moderator

Seems fine to me, if you're offended, don't go see it.

Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

People protest about everything these days and it's just making people more close minded, how are we ever going to accept and move on from a past event if it's constantly made into a huge problem when not even intended that way?

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#4  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@paracelsus

I won't speak on the freedom of speech part since it didn't take place in the United States and I am not overly familiar with their system of rights and privileges guaranteed to their citizens there.

However it is censorship, and if everyone taking part is doing so of their own free will and volition then I see no reason that such an exhibit should be censored.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be censored. I also don't see the inherent problem with this. It seems to me that it is merely a realistic depiction of history. The whole race controversy is baseless in my opinion. Is not the point of such exhibits to educate people? Does not such an exhibit call attention to the historical tragedy of human zoos? If anything it is promoting awareness of these travesties of European colonial history. The individuals in the exhibit are professional actors are they not, getting paid to put on a show. They are not actually being held captive in chains. This is no different than a film depicting such actors as slaves in the rural Pre- Civil War south.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#5 Lunacyde  Moderator

@erik

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Avatar image for mikethekiller
mikethekiller

9915

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

good

Avatar image for The_Deathstroker
The_Deathstroker

8074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Ugh. The world couldn't get any more sensitive. Soon people will be protesting my house when I step on an ant.

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The artist and creator of the show, Brett Bailey is, as has been noted in my OP,a South African white apparently old enough to have lived during the apartheid era and has claimed that the "human zoo" is expressly "anti-racist". True, his South African heritage may not endow him with any expressly racist views(any more than it did actresses such as Janet Suzman and Charlize Theron- the former fled South Africa out of disapproval of the apartheid regime and Ms Theron was only a teenager when it collapsed in 1991), but at the very least he seems to be arguing to black critics- "Never you mind, the" Great White Father" knows what's best for you, so don;t you "kaffirs"( Afrikaaner derogatory phrase for blacks- it has the same semantic overtones as the "n-word" for Americans) worry your little heads, just go one being good little "coloured people"!

His argument is as arrogantly absurd as if I as a man should take it for myself to declare what is best for women!

Terry

Avatar image for _ophelia_
_Ophelia_

1996

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lunacyde said:

@paracelsus

I won't speak on the freedom of speech part since it didn't take place in the United States and I am not overly familiar with their system of rights and privileges guaranteed to their citizens there.

However it is censorship, and if everyone taking part is doing so of their own free will and volition then I see no reason that such an exhibit should be censored.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be censored. I also don't see the inherent problem with this. It seems to me that it is merely a realistic depiction of history. The whole race controversy is baseless in my opinion. Is not the point of such exhibits to educate people? Does not such an exhibit call attention to the historical tragedy of human zoos? If anything it is promoting awareness of these travesties of European colonial history. The individuals in the exhibit are professional actors are they not, getting paid to put on a show. They are not actually being held captive in chains. This is no different than a film depicting such actors as slaves in the rural Pre- Civil War south.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#10 Lunacyde  Moderator

"Never you mind, the" Great White Father" knows what's best for you, so don;t you "kaffirs"( Afrikaaner derogatory phrase for blacks- it has the same semantic overtones as the "n-word" for Americans) worry your little heads, just go one being good little "coloured people"!

Is this an actual quote....or are you making up what you imagine he would say?

Avatar image for nickthedevil
nickthedevil

14954

Forum Posts

3121

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

To pretend the atrocities never happened, is moreso insulting. These things are history, and, as bad as it is, it's integral to the making of this country, and many other countries.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#12 Lunacyde  Moderator

To pretend the atrocities never happened, is moreso insulting. These things are history, and, as bad as it is, it's integral to the making of this country, and many other countries.

Precisely.

Avatar image for nickthedevil
nickthedevil

14954

Forum Posts

3121

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#13  Edited By nickthedevil

@lunacyde said:

@nickthedevil said:

To pretend the atrocities never happened, is moreso insulting. These things are history, and, as bad as it is, it's integral to the making of this country, and many other countries.

Precisely.

Might as well start picketing National Geographic on documentaries about the American slavery.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#14 Lunacyde  Moderator

@lunacyde said:

@nickthedevil said:

To pretend the atrocities never happened, is moreso insulting. These things are history, and, as bad as it is, it's integral to the making of this country, and many other countries.

Precisely.

Might as well start picketing National Geographic on documentaries about the American slavery.

Essentially what I said in my initial post :)

Avatar image for nickthedevil
nickthedevil

14954

Forum Posts

3121

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@lunacyde:

Heh. Didn't read that at the time, mate. My bad.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#16 Lunacyde  Moderator

@paracelsus:

So essentially you are saying he shouldn't be allowed to put on a production because he's an old white South African, despite having no actual evidence of racism on his part.

Doesn't this strike you as....racist?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a162dd41dd64
deactivated-5a162dd41dd64

8662

Forum Posts

2294

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 100

User Lists: 6

Censorship is a bit of a touchy issue. While I don't believe that every offensive thing should be censored without question, I do think that there are some things nobody needs to see or hear. This piece of...performance art, I guess it would be called, sounds unnecessarily offensive, and I frankly can't see the point in it. Using offensive themes and ideas tastefully when needed to prove a point is, generally speaking, fine, but this "human zoo" thing sounds tactless and...well, stupid. Seriously, why just black actors, what could that possibly hope to achieve?

On a side note, while I agree with the concept of freedom of speech, I find it funny that people seem to believe that it should protect them from the consequences of their actions.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#18 Lunacyde  Moderator

@squares:

Human Zoos are a real thing historically. They existed. This piece calls attention to a tragic and often ignored historical occurrence. It has educational value. It's only black actors because that is historically accurate. Europeans put natives from the lands they conquered on display in these human zoos. Hence why they aren't portrayed by white actors. It's really no different than National Geographic or documentaries.

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Whilst I am NOT quoting Mr Bailey directly ( apropos of the "Great White Father" and "kaffir"), I am trying to paraphrase what in effect he is arguing in response to his critics- "I KNOW what is in the best interests of blacks- shades of Bill O'Reilly on FOX TV!- so don't you worry your heads about that). According to his Wikipedia entry Mr Bailey was born in 1967, which meant that during his most formative years he has imbibed the racist ethos of the apartheid state(much like a Southern US white who grew up under segregation) at least subliminally. Now simply being born white in South Africa during the apartheid era may NOT de facto imply racist sentiments( pace not just Janet Suzman whose aunt Helen is a known opponent of apartheid and Charlize Theron whom I think has not only become a US citizen but has adopted an African American child- or am I confusing her with Sandra Bullock?) but it is hard to disagree with the longer you live under a system like apartheid, the more its racist poison seeps into you! Given his background, Bailey should NEVER have come up lwith an idea like the"human zoo"!

Terry

Avatar image for laflux
laflux

25242

Forum Posts

2367

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@keenko said:

I think if old white guy and black actors all had an agreement and weren't hurting anything, leave them alone.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#21 Lunacyde  Moderator

@paracelsus:

He didn't come up with the idea. Human Zoos are a real part of history. He is calling attention to a forgotten and widely unknown travesty of European colonialism.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#22  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@squares

I do think that there are some things nobody needs to see or hear.

Then don't go to the exhibit. people have free will to not see the exhibit if they don't want to.

On a side note, while I agree with the concept of freedom of speech, I find it funny that people seem to believe that it should protect them from the consequences of their actions.

Censorship is not a consequence of free speech though, it is infringing said speech. A consequence comes after the speech, not before it can even be expressed. A consequence of free speech would be an actor being racist and a bunch of people refusing to go see their latest movie, or a guy getting punched for calling someone a N*&^%r. Those are consequences of free speech.

Avatar image for The_Deathstroker
The_Deathstroker

8074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Paracelsus

As I noted in my OP "free speech/freedom of expression" arguments are pretty specious in this context, given the calls for author Hilary Mantel to be prosecuted (presumably along with the Guardian newspaper which on Saturday last published an IMAGINARY story about the IRA assassination of Baroness Thatcher who of course died of natural causes) by some of the same newspapers calling for "freedom of expression" for the "human zoo" exhibition to go ahead. Two wrongs may not make one right but the differing reactions to either Ms Mantel and Mr Bailey are eye-opening!

Terry

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#26 Lunacyde  Moderator

That case is ridiculous and doesn't mean we should allow rights to be infringed in other cases. People calling for something to happen doesn't make it so, and two wrongs don't make a right.

So your argument is that because the media cannot present an unbiased account of both situations in regards to freedom of speech that somehow validates censorship despite the fact that both are wrong and both infringe on freedom of speech? These are merely opinions. Opinions spouted by the media have no basis for effecting the rights of citizens.

You still haven't given a single valid and clear argument as to why this exhibit should not be allowed. If you are going to use this site as a soapbox for your views at least be able to back them up with something. You just keep talking in circles without actually addressing any key points.

Avatar image for russellmania77
russellmania77

17601

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If they give me internet, food and cable tv then they can literally put me in the mexican exibit naked

Avatar image for erik
Erik

32502

Forum Posts

284

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Erik

@lunacyde said:

I won't speak on the freedom of speech part since it didn't take place in the United States and I am not overly familiar with their system of rights and privileges guaranteed to their citizens there.

However it is censorship, and if everyone taking part is doing so of their own free will and volition then I see no reason that such an exhibit should be censored.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be censored. I also don't see the inherent problem with this. It seems to me that it is merely a realistic depiction of history. The whole race controversy is baseless in my opinion. Is not the point of such exhibits to educate people? Does not such an exhibit call attention to the historical tragedy of human zoos? If anything it is promoting awareness of these travesties of European colonial history. The individuals in the exhibit are professional actors are they not, getting paid to put on a show. They are not actually being held captive in chains. This is no different than a film depicting such actors as slaves in the rural Pre- Civil War south.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Something is wacky with the quote button but this is how I feel about it too. This is art and no one (including the black participants) are there against their will. This is art and the cancellation of display of the art because some hypersensitive people got their panties in a wad is censorship. It's disgusting and the assumption that someone is racist because they are white and were old enough to come from a time when racism was commonplace is in itself, a very bigoted mindset.

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

What? that sounds like a easy job to me! id take it! i dont mind if they make me act like im picking fruit in the fields (im mexican)

Avatar image for gymgoer205
Gymgoer205

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By Gymgoer205

@squares: So you speak for the masses? What gives you the right to decide what people should see or hear? Just because something sounds offensive to you why do you assume that it's offensive to others? Are you the benchmark for morality? Do you feel that you must deem things appropriate before other people can see or hear it? If that's how you feel then don't attend the event. I don't agree with it either but I'm not one to impose my will on others or tell others what they should see or hear. I just won't attend the event.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a162dd41dd64
deactivated-5a162dd41dd64

8662

Forum Posts

2294

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 100

User Lists: 6

No Caption Provided

@gymgoer205: Seriously, though, calm down, there's no need to be so aggressive. I'll reply to your questions all in one block, because I can't be bothered to format it properly for you.

Obviously I don't speak for the masses, why are you asking such weird questions? Why are you questioning me in particular, anyways? Yes, I assume that if I find something offensive that it might offend at least one other person, but why do you ask? Nobody's the benchmark for morality, that's kind of the point, do you have no understanding of how the concept of morality works? I don't live in London, I can't attend the event anyways. Since when am I imposing my will? I was under the impression I was just stating my opinion.

Avatar image for legacy6364
legacy6364

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Wow.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#34 Lunacyde  Moderator
Avatar image for juiceboks
juiceboks

26044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 juiceboks  Moderator

..not even gonna try.

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As for who is the "benchmark for morality" and who has the right to speak for a given community( be it religious or racial), when it is obvious that a novel, "The Satanic Verses", a play "Perdition" or "Seven Jewish Children" or a film "The Last Temptation Of Christ", offends the views of a significant section of said community, then obviously the authors need to think again.

To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes- "no one has the right to shout "FIRE!" falsely in a crowded theatre".

Terry

Avatar image for _rose_
_Rose_

1220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@paracelsus: Circle talking you are, not enjoy that Yoda does.

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#38 Lunacyde  Moderator

As for who is the "benchmark for morality" and who has the right to speak for a given community( be it religious or racial), when it is obvious that a novel, "The Satanic Verses", a play "Perdition" or "Seven Jewish Children" or a film "The Last Temptation Of Christ", offends the views of a significant section of said community, then obviously the authors need to think again.

To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes- "no one has the right to shout "FIRE!" falsely in a crowded theatre".

Terry

No they don't. Artists need not be at the mercy of the crowds. They can and should be able to create whatever art they want so long as it is not actually harming anyone. Someone, or even a community taking offense to a piece of art does not mean that art should be censored, or that artist's views should be stifled. The idea that someone's ideas and beliefs should be silenced because they are a minority is a very dangerous one. Of course you can only comprehend that people that don't agree with you should be censored, without giving thought to the pandora's box that opens up allowing for you to be censored as well if the majority doesn't agree with you. What you advocate is more like Stalinist Russia than an enlightened freedom loving country. Grow up.

Shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Do you know a single thing about the law? The Court Case you referred to with this quote is Schenk v. United States (1919). In it he went on to say "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger." The quote you used is in reference to speech that could incite imminent lawless action or presents a clear and present danger of lawless action or harm. This has nothing to do with censoring someone because you find their art offensive. Furthermore the case you quoted WAS OVERTURNED by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and is no longer legal precedent. Brandenburg v. Ohio dealt with a KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg who in a broadcasted speech called for KKK members across the nation to march upon Washington and take "reveangance" upon those who oppose the clan. In this case the SCOTUS ruled that even the advocacy of violence is protected under the First Amendment, as long as it did not incite "imminent lawless action."

If you want to bring U.S. Law into it that is great I would love to have this discussion. What about Tinker vs. Des Moines? What about Johnson v. Texas? What about Cohen v. California? All of these court cases explicitly state that someone being offended by your freedom of speech does not negate your freedom of speech. In Johnson the question was Flag burning and as offensive as that is to many (and it is) it is protected speech according to the SCOTUS. In Cohen it is in regards to a jacket that said "F&^% the draft". Once again the SCOTUS ruled that though many would be offended by that jacket those people's offense does not dictacte that his freedom of speech could be censored. In Tinker it dealt with student wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. Once again the SCOTUS upheld the right to symbolic speech despite the fact that people were offended. YOU being offended by something does not give you the right to take away other people's freedoms and rights. If wearing a swastika in a march through a largely Jewish neighborhood is Constitutionally protected free speech as stated in National Socialist party v. Skokie, then an art exhibit of this nature is certainly protected under free speech. A direct SCOTUS qoute from that ruling..."the use of a swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to first amendment protections."

Come on, you are going to have to step up your game if you want to win this argument. So far you've been flailing like a petulant child.

Avatar image for erik
Erik

32502

Forum Posts

284

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

@paracelsus: Bringing up US law against the guy that studies it was a pretty bonehead move. :p

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I like to think that I am aware of what is and is not acceptable to me as an individual (and by extension my wider community) than my critics. The "freedom" alluded to by playwright Bonnie Greer in today's Daily Telegraph and in a Times leader( www.thetimes.co.uk ,www.telegraph co.uk, Sept 26, 2014) strikes me as the dubious freedom to say whatever you say, whenever you feel like saying it, ignoring the sensibilities of an outraged community(which in the case of blacks amount to freedom to wilfully traduce a community that long felt the sting of prejudice)be it ethnic or religious- even in the US this is a ludicrous line of argument- try exercising your "freedom" to play loud music into the night, to publish troop movements in wartime( which would get you thrown in prison at the very least if not tried and possibly executed on treason charges) or simply to walk down the local high street buck assed naked!

One of my favourite aphorisms is that "freedom for the pike is death-or considerable inconvenience at the very least- for the minnow". Whilst we're on the general subject of ruminations of US jurisprudence, one of my favourites is that of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart- "I can't define hard core pornography precisely but by golly, I know it when I see it!" ( substitute racism for hard core pornography and there is my view). Given that until 1966, the Hays Code governed how Hollywood could cover certain "sensitive" topics such as religion and the Lord Chamberlain's office in the UKcould "legally" censor plays as recently as 1968, I find this specious and self serving insistence on "freedom", strikes me as the height of hypocrisy!

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This reminds of the Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals and holding up all those signs on the side of the road. This is a disadvantage for lack of a better word, something you have to deal with when it comes to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly. I guess if you don't like it, then you should mind your business and avoid it. It's the price we have to pay for such a broad right. Sure some stuff will offend some people, but you have to realize that you have to deal with it because many people died to give us these rights. We wouldn't want to end up like the world of 1984, now would we?

Like the others said, if the white dude and the black dudes all agreed to it, the they must have been more than ok with it.

Avatar image for strangetales
strangetales

1866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bruxae said:

People protest about everything these days and it's just making people more close minded, how are we ever going to accept and move on from a past event if it's constantly made into a huge problem when not even intended that way?

Avatar image for gymgoer205
Gymgoer205

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@squares:

1) I am calm, and frankly your red herring with the purpose of eliciting an emotional response is a little weak in my opinion.

2) I know you don't literally speak for the masses, the question was rhetorical. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't sorry. I should have specified.

3) You assume that if you find something offensive that at least one other person will find it offensive? Sounds reasonable however in your post you weren't speaking for just 1 other person, you were speaking for everyone. "I do think that there are some things nobody needs to see or hear." That is a direct quote from you. That sounds to me like your attempting to dictate what the masses should see or hear.

4) I agree with you, nobody is the benchmark for morality, however you're contradicting yourself, because in your 1st post you tried to make yourself the benchmark for morality.

Just because you think it's "tactless" and " stupid" doesn't mean everyone else does. Those who find it interesting should be able to attend. Those who find it tasteless should not attend. Simple as that.

Sorry for the late reply, I posted last night but the post wouldn't appear for some reason. I just got around to posting it again.

Avatar image for rouflex
Rouflex

35970

Forum Posts

16652

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#44  Edited By Rouflex
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for gymgoer205
Gymgoer205

1267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@paracelsus: What do you consider a significant section of the community?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a162dd41dd64
deactivated-5a162dd41dd64

8662

Forum Posts

2294

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 100

User Lists: 6

@gymgoer205 said:

@squares:

1) I am calm, and frankly your red herring with the purpose of eliciting an emotional response is a little weak in my opinion.

2) I know you don't literally speak for the masses, the question was rhetorical. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't sorry. I should have specified.

3) You assume that if you find something offensive that at least one other person will find it offensive? Sounds reasonable however in your post you weren't speaking for just 1 other person, you were speaking for everyone. "I do think that there are some things nobody needs to see or hear." That is a direct quote from you. That sounds to me like your attempting to dictate what the masses should see or hear.

4) I agree with you, nobody is the benchmark for morality, however you're contradicting yourself, because in your 1st post you tried to make yourself the benchmark for morality.

Just because you think it's "tactless" and " stupid" doesn't mean everyone else does. Those who find it interesting should be able to attend. Those who find it tasteless should not attend. Simple as that.

Sorry for the late reply, I posted last night but the post wouldn't appear for some reason. I just got around to posting it again.

1) Okay, not sure what that's supposed to mean.

2) How am I supposed to tell which questions are and aren't rhetorical? You asked so many.

3) I wasn't attempting to dictate what the masses should see or hear, I was attempting to voice my opinion. There's a difference.

4) No, I didn't.

Why are you being so aggressive, anyways?

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#47 Lunacyde  Moderator

I like to think that I am aware of what is and is not acceptable to me as an individual (and by extension my wider community) than my critics. The "freedom" alluded to by playwright Bonnie Greer in today's Daily Telegraph and in a Times leader( www.thetimes.co.uk ,www.telegraph co.uk, Sept 26, 2014) strikes me as the dubious freedom to say whatever you say, whenever you feel like saying it, ignoring the sensibilities of an outraged community(which in the case of blacks amount to freedom to wilfully traduce a community that long felt the sting of prejudice)be it ethnic or religious- even in the US this is a ludicrous line of argument- try exercising your "freedom" to play loud music into the night, to publish troop movements in wartime( which would get you thrown in prison at the very least if not tried and possibly executed on treason charges) or simply to walk down the local high street buck assed naked!

One of my favourite aphorisms is that "freedom for the pike is death-or considerable inconvenience at the very least- for the minnow". Whilst we're on the general subject of ruminations of US jurisprudence, one of my favourites is that of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart- "I can't define hard core pornography precisely but by golly, I know it when I see it!" ( substitute racism for hard core pornography and there is my view). Given that until 1966, the Hays Code governed how Hollywood could cover certain "sensitive" topics such as religion and the Lord Chamberlain's office in the UKcould "legally" censor plays as recently as 1968, I find this specious and self serving insistence on "freedom", strikes me as the height of hypocrisy!

Terry, can I call you Terry? Quite frankly I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of your posts are nonsensical rambling interspersed with quotations that sometimes if we are lucky vaguely coincide with the issue being discussed. You try to make yourself come off as an intellectual, but it is pretty clear you haven't the slightest clue about most of the topics you bring up.

Since you keep on changing the topic at hand every time I prove you wrong...

I have never once in this debate argued that freedom of speech is absolute. It is not, but the exceptions for what is not protected speech are very narrow and limited and nothing about this particular exhibit falls under the umbrella of unprotected speech. You keep on naming situations where speech is not protected, but you fail to realize that none of those situations apply to this issue. The exceptions for First Amendment Protection in the United States are false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, threats, commercial speech, speech owned by others(intellectual property), and defamation. This specific case does not fall under any of those categories. If black people are offended by the exhibit then they don't have to go see it. The exhibit itself is not hurting the black community in any way. In fact it is calling attention to the horrors of such historical institutions and educating people about a little known part of history. If anything it is benefiting the black community indirectly by telling the untold story of blacks and other conquered native peoples who were historically held in "Human Zoos". If anything to forget those people would be far more shameful and cruel. This exhibit is no different than actors portraying a plantation in the Pre-Civil War South.

You do not legally have any ground to stand on in calling for the infringement of other's rights simply because it offends you, or some section of the general populace. There is a ton of legal precedent against you, including numerous cases I have already explained to you, and many more. By all means actually provide some legal support for your opinion.

You must completely lack critical thinking skills. The exhibit is not racist, unless National Geographic is racist too. It is an accurate depiction of historical events. I suppose history books are racist too. Do you think before you type?

What exactly is hypocritical about what I am saying? How exactly am I a hypocrite? If anything you are the hypocrite. You want to be able to censor other people's speech with no ramifications to your own. I merely advocate that any speech that isn't unprotected for the previously listed reasons should be protected regardless of that person's views, or the views of the mob.

Lastly there are no pikes and no minnows here. Frankly the idea you are putting forth there is vaguely racist in and of itself.

Avatar image for paracelsus
Paracelsus

2361

Forum Posts

342

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

How is my argument "vaguely racist"? As for your description of the protests by the demeaning and condescending phrase "mob", if a "mob" can be described as any group of people who are (rightly or wrongly in my view) very angry about what they consider to be an insult to their sensibilities( religious or racial), then the Irish and Irish American protests against the play" The Playboy Of The Western World" by J.M.Synge in 1907, the Muslims who objected first to the publication of "The Satanic Verses" and then the "blasphemous" Danish cartoons, the Jews who denounced the plays "Perdition"(which alleged that Zionist leaders in wartime Europe collaborated with the SS) "Seven Jewish Children", those Christians of all denominations who picketed the showings of "The Last Temptation Of Christ" in 1989 are as much"mobs", the Hindus who forced the clsoure of the play "Behzti" in 2004 as those black protestors who successfully forced the closure of Exhibit B are in pretty good company!

Few things irritate me and other blacks than the sanctimonious arrogance of those whites who claim that they know best for us!

Terry

Avatar image for deactivated-611928878d365
deactivated-611928878d365

3240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If everyone was okay with it, what's the problem? I see this kind of thing all over the internet. In the Taylor Swift's music video "Shake It Off", many people were complaining about the lack of black dancers, yet no one complained about the lack of white dancers in Nicki Minaj's music video "Anaconda". (Full disclosure, both are terrible songs and videos).

Avatar image for lunacyde
Lunacyde

32410

Forum Posts

9520

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#50  Edited By Lunacyde  Moderator

@paracelsus said:

How is my argument "vaguely racist"? As for your description of the protests by the demeaning and condescending phrase "mob", if a "mob" can be described as any group of people who are (rightly or wrongly in my view) very angry about what they consider to be an insult to their sensibilities( religious or racial), then the Irish and Irish American protests against the play" The Playboy Of The Western World" by J.M.Synge in 1907, the Muslims who objected first to the publication of "The Satanic Verses" and then the "blasphemous" Danish cartoons, the Jews who denounced the plays "Perdition"(which alleged that Zionist leaders in wartime Europe collaborated with the SS) "Seven Jewish Children", those Christians of all denominations who picketed the showings of "The Last Temptation Of Christ" in 1989 are as much"mobs", the Hindus who forced the clsoure of the play "Behzti" in 2004 as those black protestors who successfully forced the closure of Exhibit B are in pretty good company!

Few things irritate me and other blacks than the sanctimonious arrogance of those whites who claim that they know best for us!

Terry

How is my argument "vaguely racist"?

We are all human and we are all equal. To divide us up into what you see as "minnows and Pikes" carries the connotation that certain people are superior to others.

As for your description of the protests by the demeaning and condescending phrase "mob", if a "mob" can be described as any group of people who are (rightly or wrongly in my view) very angry about what they consider to be an insult to their sensibilities( religious or racial), then the Irish and Irish American protests against the play" The Playboy Of The Western World" by J.M.Synge in 1907, the Muslims who objected first to the publication of "The Satanic Verses" and then the "blasphemous" Danish cartoons, the Jews who denounced the plays "Perdition"(which alleged that Zionist leaders in wartime Europe collaborated with the SS) "Seven Jewish Children", those Christians of all denominations who picketed the showings of "The Last Temptation Of Christ" in 1989 are as much"mobs", the Hindus who forced the clsoure of the play "Behzti" in 2004 as those black protestors who successfully forced the closure of Exhibit B are in pretty good company!

Just because they are in good company doesn't make them right. Firstly I never said the black community did not have the right to picket or protest. Of course they can it is perfectly within their rights.

I said that legally their offense at the exhibit does not give the government the right to infringe on the right to free speech of the artists and people behind the exhibit. You are conflating a myriad of different things together. The right to free speech is only protection from the government infringing those rights. Private corporations and entities have the right to not show anything they don't wish to and that is why this case is not really about free speech rights. The Barbican decided it was against their interests as a corporation to show such an exhibit because the community was angry about it and they feared the backlash. This however is not support of the idea of the government censoring people's free speech which you have advocated.

Few things irritate me and other blacks than the sanctimonious arrogance of those whites who claim that they know best for us!

Please quote where I or anyone else that has anything to do with the topic said anything about knowing what is best for you or the black community....go ahead, I am waiting. It's not a question at all about what is best for you in the first place. I am telling you that you have no idea about this topic so you should probably stop rambling about things you don't understand because of your ignorance of the topic, not anything else.