218

Right wing authoritarianism isn’t subtle. (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world to c/blackpeopletwitter@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Right wing authoritarianism isn’t subtle.

edit:

added context:

Here is what Ben is replying to:

Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.

Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain's support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.

Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 46 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Tired of writing this, the hand wringing over university property being compared to ~30k lives and ~600k starving people has to stop.

This painting is not some culturally important piece of art. It’s a little over 100 years old (literally painted the same year my Granddad was born), hanging in a university, of a man that was responsible for massacres in Ireland (Mitchelstown Massacre) which got him the name “Bloody Balfour”, openly said that black people should be treated worse than white people, and was a known anti-semite that brought about the Aliens Act of 1905 to try and keep Jewish people out of Britain & Ireland.

Imagine a group of Princeton students cutting up a minor painting of Jefferson Davies hanging in their halls and you get roughly the same amount of "cultural loss".

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I agree with ya, but it’s Jefferson Davis

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Ahh whoops! Though I don't feel that bad about misremembering his name 😂

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Lol, valid

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Damn I thought it was Davies too.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

People shouldn’t mess with historic art, no matter how good they think their cause is.

It takes a lot of effort by many dedicated people throughout history to preserve art like this. These works are not individual possessions, but rather owned by us all. They’re part of our shared heritage; we’re merely guardians of it so future generations can enjoy them.

It’s very disrespectful to those efforts when someone attacks a painting.

[-] iain@feddit.nl 7 points 8 months ago

I think this improved the painting. We have tons of paintings of rich white dudes, we don't need to preserve them all. And the damage to this painting adds depth and meaning to an otherwise unremarkable piece.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

We destroy art daily. Consider all the yiff porn that's been made over the years.

Why should I respect a painting of a racist asshole more than I respect the effort that went into producing pornography that at least made some innocent people happy while not glorifying genocide?

This painting is there because that guy was rich and donated money to Cambridge. That's it. Is not even that old (1917). It has no significant historical value any more than a portrait of your town's Mayor from the same period has.

And frankly, I'd care more about pho tears if I didn't know about the Anne Frank memorial in my city, that is yearly desecrated (sometimes multiple times in a year) by Nazi shitheads. Yet have you heard about that? No? I wonder why. Why can a memorial of a Holocaust victim get vandalized without a peep yet when a genociders painting is destroyed art is precious?

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Briahna is saying a counter to that way of thinking, due to the genocide that is happening.

What is more important, property or to do anything possible to help stop the killling.

Briahna then states the following is what is chosen:

Property over human life, every time.

[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

'property over human life, every time' sounds like a nice gotcha. It also simply isn't applicable here.

That statement would be appropriate if say, Israel bombed a museum in Gaza, and people were upset about the paintings lost rather than the people killed by that same strike.

That statement does NOT apply when someone actively destroys something completely unrelated to it in order to get attention for their cause. Because THEY are the ones doing the destroying. I'd much rather see these 'protesters' do something productive like organize aid for civilians in Gaza or collect funds. Nobody in Gaza is helped by people destroying art halfway around the world. In fact, it only turns people away from that cause.

[-] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Part of the reason Palestinians are suffering so much is specifically because Israel is attacking property. Attacking and destroying property leading to the death of people. Obviously a painting like this isn’t going to lead to the death of someone, but it’s a bit of a shallow statement when property is also important. In the event of a fire, human life over property.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I think we would agree that a ceasefire would help stop the genocide and the destruction of Palestinian property.

The tweet is focusing on the backlash from Ben vs. his stance on the genocide of Palestinians.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

What's the context behind this?

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Can't find any evidence that this is even a real tweet. These "text on image" posts should always be vetted with an actual link.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Added context.

With direct link to video.

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thanks!

Gotta say destroying art, especially historic, is a pretty shitty thing to do. It's literally irreplaceable.

Edit: Oh, I should add that I still can't see the posts on twitter itself. Not sure what their settings are like for non-users these days though, but it looks like it should be there. None of the posts I can see have that format either, with the "breaking news" heading and red light emoticon.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Looking at it from the protestors view:

Protesting the genocide happening: 30,000+ dead

Are Palestinians replaceable as well...

Property over human life, every time.

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago

Okay, but what actual reason is there to weigh the two against each other. Destroying art has no actual benefit towards effecting change in Gaza.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I think the protestors wanted backlash and social media coverage.

Again to highlight the genocide in Palestine.

I was able to find this:

Palestine Action vows to continue their direct campaign until Elbit is shut down and British complicity with the colonisation of Palestine ends.

https://www.palestineaction.org/lord-balfour-painting/

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago

These protests have actually made me less sympathetic to Palestine, not more so. Destroying property, in particular irreplaceable artwork, is not something I can accept under any circumstances.

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If destruction of a painting done in 1914 and hanging in a university of a man responsible for oppression in Ireland and the current Middle East crisis (a known racist and anti-semite that passed the Aliens Act of 1905) makes you less sympathetic to ~600,000 starving people and 30,000 dead people then were you actually sympathetic to begin with?

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Given this conflict started with the Palestinian government launching a military raid with the purpose of outright murdering civilians, not really.

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

That's patently false. The conflict started with the rise of Zionism in the early 20th century fuelled by anti-semitism; wanting Jewish people out of Europe. This led to the Balfour deceleration in 1917, which caused an uprising in Palestine with people demanding an independent homeland. The British crushed this uprising. Then the UN backed a plan in 1947 to give Palestine to Jewish settlers which caused the 1948 war which led to mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland (whom have not been allowed to return since) and the creation of the Gaza ghetto. Every year, more land is taken in what has been called a "Salami" invasion (i.e. one small slice at a time) in Gaza and the West Bank, forcing people into worse and worse conditions in the world's largest open-air prison.

Furthermore, Hamas was not elected. There haven't been elections in Gaza since 2006. The median age in the strip is 18, meaning most of its population wasn't even born when Hamas took power. It is simply the largest gang in the prison.

This is the latest chapter in an incredibly sad story, not the start of it. In fact, just before the Hamas attack, Israel opened fire on unarmed protestors at the boarder. Literally a week before the attack.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

There haven't been elections in Gaza since 2006.

Who won that election again?

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If more than 50% of your population wasn't born during the last election, no one elected you. If there hasn't been an election for 18 years, no one elected you. If you took power via an armed coup to dissolve the unity government (Battle of Gaza, 2007) no one elected you.

NOTE: Gaza as a distinct political entity did not exist during the last election in 2006

[-] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 0 points 8 months ago

Says a lot that people are wringing their hands over this painting so much

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Here is what Ben is replying to:

Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.

Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain's support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.

Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Of all the ways to try to get support for your cause, this has got to be one of the least effective strategies ever

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Because it's not about gaining support. It's about hurting people that you hate by destroying things they care about, like art.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Property over human life, every time.

You may be right, but that is why the above statement was made.

Backlash over historic paintings vs. 30,000+ deaths and counting.

I guess that is what the protestors want...

[-] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago

There are atrocities of different scales happening all the time. There are only so many irreplaceable historical artifacts. If you destroy a historical artifact for every atrocity, eventually there will be no historical artifacts left and atrocities will still be happening.

[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Tired of writing this: this painting is not some culturally important piece of art. It's a little over 100 years old, hanging in a university, of a man that was responsible for massacres in Ireland (Mitchelstown Massacre) which got him the name "Bloody Balfour". Regardless of where you stand on Palestine, Balfour was not a good human and this is akin to toppling a minor statue of a Confederate in America - one that is not even on display to the wider public.

EDIT to add a quote from Balfour when asked about whether the treatment of Black people in South Africa was immoral:

“We have to face the facts,” Lord Balfour said. “Men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities: they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change.”

[-] bloopernova@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago

Christ what an asshole Balfour was. Bigotry is so fucking wrong I can't even make coherent words.

[-] odium@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago

Probably graffiti?

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I have added context.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024

218 points (91.3% liked)

Black People Twitter

758 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago