Columbus Circle monument could be next statue to go
You can delete the individual or the image thereof but you cant delete the history.
I dont see why this statue attention of certain people is making such brouhaha ?
After all history is about the past, not the present.
Nutters who've got nothing else to do ?
Hattie McDaniel not MacDonald (thinking about Ronald)Hattie McDanielAmerican actressHattie McDaniel was an African American stage actress, professional singer-songwriter, and comedian. WikipediaI did my best, and God did the rest.As for those grapefruit and buttermilk diets, I'll take roast chicken and dumplings.Faith is the black person's federal reserve system.
- "European cultural achievements deserve recognition and respect ... what they don't deserve is being trashed by 'activists'.
Don't get too sensitive, the trashing has gone on back and forth for a very long time. Develop a thick skin and be willing to do some introspection. Controversies are easier to solve if we see ourselves as part of the human race and not just an individual with a certain skin color and costumes.
By the way, I do believe that the ideas that came out of Europe were and still are superior to anything else in the world. That's obviously a bias opinion since I have lived in the West my whole life.
Much of the reason for greater European advancement than African advancement
was that Europe was riddled with rivers and Africa was not at a time when
shipping was important for tranportation of goods and ideas.
The native/indigenous view of relationship to land and cultivation of the land is far superior to the European capitalist concept of owning and dominating the land (and far more sustainable).
I don't know what America should do with it's statues but Columbus was a horrendous man, I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to celebrate him.
"The native/indigenous view of relationship to land and cultivation of the land is far superior to the European capitalist concept of owning and dominating the land (and far more sustainable)." - Laika
That view has merit where a population is small. However modern populations are far larger than anything native/indigenous peoples had to deal with/work with. Smaller populations require different management practices of land due to a lack of man power as well as a lack of technology; you should also consider the lack of defence against natural events that can decimate crops/populations.
Larger populations require different management techniques and the modern version of sustainability has little to do with the older style; indeed the older style would not work (unless you happen to be rich enough to buy enough land to support your family). So therefore our modern "European Capitalist" methods of sustainability is fit for purpose and far superior to that of ancient peoples living at different times with different needs.
"modern version of sustainability" is this a joke? There is no such thing as a modern version of sustainability, the only thing our land management techniques are fit for is the purpose of destruction.
The native/indigenous view of relationship to land and cultivation of the land is far superior to the European capitalist concept of owning and dominating the land - really?
I live in a capitalist country. If I want meat - a food item often viewed as a luxury - I can visit one of the many supermarkets in my area. Some meats are pricey, such as lamb. But others are quite cheap and there are always deals - 30% knocked off the price, two for the price of one, etc. And vegetables are fairly cheap.
There are soup kitchens for those people who have no money. There they can eat for free.
Compare that to indigenous hunter-gatherers. The women find and gather fruits and vegetables. There's no guarantee that their haul will be adequate. The men hunt animals for food. Again, there's no guarantee that they won't come home empty handed. If there's a drought or outbreak of disease that wipes out their game, they'll starve or become malnourished. No supermarkets, no soup kitchens.
Now, I know that capitalism is sometimes (or maybe often) done irresponsibly and western-style farming can ruin the soil, cause livestock to suffer, etc. But our society is self-correcting. There are animal welfare groups and farming standards that press for livestock welfare. Environment groups and committees seek to improve the land that is farmed. Improvements are being made, wrinkles are ironed out.
You're not saying indigenous people's way of living is superior, are you?
In order to get some meat, would you try your hand at hunting or nip to the local supermarket ...
""modern version of sustainability" is this a joke?" - Laika
No it's not. You seem to think that our farming management should be perfect and then go on to attack it because it is not perfect. What you said about native/indigenous people's view of sustainability is irrelevant to modern discourse because it applies to a different time (smaller populations and no modern technology). Perhaps I could apply the same logic you are applying and expect their understanding of their environment to be perfect for us. I won't do that though because that would be too simplistic and not realistic.
The opinion piece you linked to did not supply any primary source material or links to such things...