Out-Wellcoming the Wellcome, the Dean of Trinity thinks Christ was trans, on the basis of some second rate renaissance painters being a bit shy of depicting his willy.
Her opinion of Wellcome closing its core exhibition?
"A thoughtful, ethical & brave approach to rethinking what a museum is from @ExploreWellcome 👏👏👏"
They are APPLAUDING it
A friend of mine is a pretty senior guy in the widget manufacturing world. He's recently been for a couple of interviews, and apparently the main theme of the questioning is not how he'll get tip top widgets produced, but rather how he'll ensure woke stuff. Can you give examples as to how you've promoted equality? What would be your strategy to ensure minorities are represented in your team? It's no longer good enough to be entirely fair and unbiased, you now have to demonstrate that you've somehow fought a war against perhaps yours and others views to ensure this.
That's different. It's basic legal and personnel stuff, not woke, tbf.
For all I know they thought his widgets were great but wanted to probe in other areas.
When the basic legal and personnel stuff becomes the most important issue though it has to be a concern.
Even GPT-3, no GPT-2, perhaps even GPT-1 could have written a better passage of prose to explain how Marx was right and everybody else was a racist for that exhibit.....
Mind you, Marx was a white man who provided the theory used to justify a large number of genocides. Including quite a number of non-white people.
Shouldn’t he be cancelled?
Well he was also antisemite, but that also gets glossed over, while other individuals who after digging through millions of words they wrote, we have found one or two iffy sentences have to get canned.
Which brings us to another interesting effect of editing the past of annoying things (statues and exhibits)
Racist writers tend not to be consistently and 100% racist all the time. Case in point - Kipling. I have, somewhere, a complete works if I purchased in a second hand bookshop. His poetry and prose all mingled together.
In one story, he describes the inner thoughts and ideas of a poor Indian orphan girl with devastating humanity.
Practically over the page is an essay he wrote about going on patrol with the police in an Indian city. When they come across an English woman married to an Indian, his rant reads exactly like an article in Der Sturmer - all about race defilement.
The essay is no longer published. I have encountered people who don’t believe Kipling was racist because they have never read anything racist by him.
People in the past were just as complex as we are today, and no less full of contradictions.
It is a crime to suppress our access to first-hand sources of their knowledge and understanding, and we are perfectly capable of judging right from wrong for ourselves.
It’s quite open now. They want to tear down our culture and history. They admit it
I have to admit that made me laugh.
It's funny that for all the hostility to privileged cis white men throughout history they seem to make an exception for Karl Marx. Or just Marx if you prefer.
Naturally the man who wants to dismantle white infrastructure is a fellow of an Oxford college, and white:
I quite like the irony of an archaeologist saying "time's up"
Yep, "time's up, who needs all this old shit?"
That placard reads like a parody, like something from Private Eye.
Every sentence is a keeper.
If Wellcome think that the very idea of museums is exploitatively “re-centering the white cis-male body” they shouldn’t stop at one collection but simply close the doors full stop.
Imagine being working class - both repulsed and intrigued by Bentham’s skin, naturally - and hoping to learn more about Bentham and how his skin got there.
You’d come way shrugging, wondering why you wasted your bus fare.
Yes, it is an agenda to close every single museum (and university, and art gallery, etc). Or turn them into conversation spaces for Black poets to express their angst
That's not what behind it. And they aren't going to close every university.
It's similar to the "Aryanising" of German institutions and culture in the 1930s. All officials and all institutions must keep to the message. In most cases the officials obey without question. If they're senior enough, they mustn't just keep to it: they must push it and make sure that others push it too. It doesn't matter whether they believe in it. Much of the time it contradicts itself anyway. Get them only to believe in power. That doesn't take long to achieve. They were already ¾ of the way there.
Sometimes it's preferable to choose absolute garbage to feed to people when there's a choice between absolute garbage and stuff that's only semi-garbage, for reasons that from a behavioural engineering POV - aka mind control - should be clear.
It's also similar to Stalinism in the USSR where there would be e.g. gatherings of officials where someone would spout some absolute sh*t about "workers' power" and everyone would clap and cheer, sometimes for 15 or 20 minutes, and they'd only stop when the leaders stopped, because if they stopped first they might get sent to a labour camp.
"They thought they were free", as Milton Mayer put it.
"similar to Aryanising and Stalinism" what is, specifically?
Or people who live and work somewhere dare to take action against a measure that the authorities opposed on them?
That's not vandalism.
Perhaps turning the whole street into a prison is the solution.
Meanwhile, on the very same day, the British media gleefully report popular protests against lockdown in faraway China, mostly framing them as protests against the "zero covid policy".
I suppose the real question for you is:
Would you rather live in Oxford or China?
That question has no relevance to my life whatsoever.
I will follow this story because I'm interested in whether the people will be tracked down and prosecuted.
It's wrong to call this vandalism. Criminal damage, yes. Vandalism is done for kicks.
I have a bad cold and had a weird fever dream featuring Leon last night. First he was berating me on Bloomberg, lots of random capitalisation. Then we met in person. I don't remember exactly what occurred but I think it featured a lot of drinking and shouting on his part. Very strange.
It’s quite open now. They want to tear down our culture and history. They admit it
I have to admit that made me laugh.
It's funny that for all the hostility to privileged cis white men throughout history they seem to make an exception for Karl Marx. Or just Marx if you prefer.
Naturally the man who wants to dismantle white infrastructure is a fellow of an Oxford college, and white:
Her opinion of Wellcome closing its core exhibition?
"A thoughtful, ethical & brave approach to rethinking what a museum is from @ExploreWellcome 👏👏👏"
They are APPLAUDING it
Grow up.
You don't really have interesting or original thoughts, do you?
There is nothing remotely interesting or original about a ranty old man who is losing the ability to change with the times.
Actually Leon is quite right about this particular instance, even if I demur on many of his other Twitter-inspired diatribes.
Just read what Wellcome have said, it’s bonkers.
I just read it, seems a bit provocative (no doubt intentionally in order to raise their profile), but what is specifically bonkers?
It makes a series of questionable, sententious assertions about how problematic everything is (the objects, the founder, possibly the act of curation itself), before concluding that the only moral choice is to close down the very collection at the heart of the Museum.
Along with that gibberish on the Bentham placard, it’s unadulterated newspeak.
It’s quite open now. They want to tear down our culture and history. They admit it
I have to admit that made me laugh.
It's funny that for all the hostility to privileged cis white men throughout history they seem to make an exception for Karl Marx. Or just Marx if you prefer.
Naturally the man who wants to dismantle white infrastructure is a fellow of an Oxford college, and white:
They always are.
“No women or people of colour were harmed, involved, consulted or interested in our performance”
It is this kind of thing which makes you understand Malcom X on the subject of white… helpful people.
On topic Liz Truss has stated that she intends to remain an MP. If you are betting against you are betting on illness or on her losing her seat (hint: she will not do the latter)
The pricing suggests shes trying to get a job in every Tesco store that will let her in.
Any chance Truss might get invited back into the Shadow Cabinet by LOTO Badenoch (or whoever else would succeed Sunak if the Tories lose the next GE)? Hague, IDS, and Ed Miliband all managed to eventually get back onto the frontbench after 'failed' tenures as leaders of their respective parties. Though I suppose the magnitude of Truss' failure was greater than theirs's.
It’s quite open now. They want to tear down our culture and history. They admit it
I have to admit that made me laugh.
It's funny that for all the hostility to privileged cis white men throughout history they seem to make an exception for Karl Marx. Or just Marx if you prefer.
Naturally the man who wants to dismantle white infrastructure is a fellow of an Oxford college, and white:
Any chance Truss might get invited back into the Shadow Cabinet by LOTO Badenoch (or whoever else would succeed Sunak if the Tories lose the next GE)? Hague, IDS, and Ed Miliband all managed to eventually get back onto the frontbench after 'failed' tenures as leaders of their respective parties. Though I suppose the magnitude of Truss' failure was greater than theirs's.
"They describe Henry Wellcome as "a man with enormous wealth, power and privilege." His father was a poor farmer. He was born in a freaking log cabin. He built his company from scratch, studied other cultures his whole life, and left his company shares to charity. What an a@@hole"
"Wellcome was born in a frontier log cabin in what would later become Almond, Wisconsin, to Rev. S. C. Wellcome, an itinerant missionary who travelled and preached in a covered wagon, and Mary Curtis Wellcome"
In his will, Wellcome vested the entire share capital of his company in individual trustees, who were charged with spending the income to further human and animal health. The Wellcome Trust is now one of the world's largest private biomedical charities"
This is the terrible privileged billionaire white man who is so evil his medical collection must be dismantled, and hidden from the world, by the curators of the museum he still funds, via his legacy
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
Quite so.
Unfortunately, few on the Left share your intelligence.
Anyone get on a Costa Rica, Morocco, Canada treble today?
It's a strange old World Cup, isn't it? More surprising results than I can ever recall. Of the major teams only France, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Brazil, have looked really good.
"They describe Henry Wellcome as "a man with enormous wealth, power and privilege." His father was a poor farmer. He was born in a freaking log cabin. He built his company from scratch, studied other cultures his whole life, and left his company shares to charity. What an a@@hole"
"Wellcome was born in a frontier log cabin in what would later become Almond, Wisconsin, to Rev. S. C. Wellcome, an itinerant missionary who travelled and preached in a covered wagon, and Mary Curtis Wellcome"
In his will, Wellcome vested the entire share capital of his company in individual trustees, who were charged with spending the income to further human and animal health. The Wellcome Trust is now one of the world's largest private biomedical charities"
This is the terrible privileged billionaire white man who is so evil his medical collection must be dismantled, and hidden from the world, by the curators of the museum he still funds, via his legacy
Its because like the eco-fascists, their primary driver isn't the environment (or trying best to educate about nuanced and balanced history)....the useful idiots provide them with cover.
Anyone get on a Costa Rica, Morocco, Canada treble today?
It's a strange old World Cup, isn't it? More surprising results than I can ever recall. Of the major teams only France, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Brazil, have looked really good.
Neymar out for at least the next two games for Brazil, should be interesting to see what impact having the great sulk not playing.
Any chance Truss might get invited back into the Shadow Cabinet by LOTO Badenoch (or whoever else would succeed Sunak if the Tories lose the next GE)? Hague, IDS, and Ed Miliband all managed to eventually get back onto the frontbench after 'failed' tenures as leaders of their respective parties. Though I suppose the magnitude of Truss' failure was greater than theirs's.
None.
Seconded.
Hague, IDS and MiliEd failed by being leaders of the opposition who didn't get enough votes.
Truss's failure was her entire vision blowing up spectacularly before it even happened.
Anyone get on a Costa Rica, Morocco, Canada treble today?
It's a strange old World Cup, isn't it? More surprising results than I can ever recall. Of the major teams only France, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Brazil, have looked really good.
Anyone plotted results against average maximum wetbulb temperatures in the football season of competitor countries?
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Any chance Truss might get invited back into the Shadow Cabinet by LOTO Badenoch (or whoever else would succeed Sunak if the Tories lose the next GE)? Hague, IDS, and Ed Miliband all managed to eventually get back onto the frontbench after 'failed' tenures as leaders of their respective parties. Though I suppose the magnitude of Truss' failure was greater than theirs's.
None.
Seconded.
Hague, IDS and MiliEd failed by being leaders of the opposition who didn't get enough votes.
Truss's failure was her entire vision blowing up spectacularly before it even happened.
She's not coming back from that.
Boris really let the side down for the Tory party. Truss? She's wrecked the party's fortunes for a generation.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
Indeed. This is the core of the movement in question - it rejects conversation, argument, debate.
Instead
1) You are for us or against us 2) There is no debate. All must speak only The Writ 3) Anyone advocating debate is a Heretic - see (1)
The resemblance to religious fundamentalism* is interesting. But not surprising.
We could also see Germany out by 9pm this evening.....
No we can't. They can lose and still have a pretty good chance of going through. Would only take Spain beating Japan and then they'd only have to beat Costa Rica and they are probably through on goal difference with three points.
We could also see Germany out by 9pm this evening.....
No we can't. They can lose and still have a pretty good chance of going through. Would only take Spain beating Japan and then they'd only have to beat Costa Rica and they are probably through on goal difference with three points.
Good point....although I wonder how hard Spain would go against Japan if that was the situation.
Anyone get on a Costa Rica, Morocco, Canada treble today?
It's a strange old World Cup, isn't it? More surprising results than I can ever recall. Of the major teams only France, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Brazil, have looked really good.
11 teams won their opening game (there were five draws).
Of these, at most four will win their second game (France have, Spain v Germany and Portugal v Uruguay to come - and Brazil and Switzerland play each other).
We could also see Germany out by 9pm this evening.....
I don't think that's possible.
Even if Germany lose to Spain, they could still secure 3 points and a better goal difference than Japan or Costa Rica by beating the latter by sufficient goals seeing Spain beat Japan.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
We could also see Germany out by 9pm this evening.....
No we can't. They can lose and still have a pretty good chance of going through. Would only take Spain beating Japan and then they'd only have to beat Costa Rica and they are probably through on goal difference with three points.
Japan were foolish today. A draw was a good result for them. Okay, it was counting on a Spain win tonight, but I think they’d have been better off hoping for that. As it is, they almost certainly have to beat Spain.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
Indeed. This is the core of the movement in question - it rejects conversation, argument, debate.
Instead
1) You are for us or against us 2) There is no debate. All must speak only The Writ 3) Anyone advocating debate is a Heretic - see (1)
The resemblance to religious fundamentalism* is interesting. But not surprising.
*Or, indeed, to Trumpism.
Part of the trouble is that the worst examples of anti-woke are just as illiberal in another way.
Centrist Dads for the negotiated compromise.
(The Wellcome stuff sounds rum, to say the least, and if I were a trustee, I'd be calling my curators to a meeting without many biscuits for 8.30 sharp Monday morning. Agenda "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.")
We could also see Germany out by 9pm this evening.....
No we can't. They can lose and still have a pretty good chance of going through. Would only take Spain beating Japan and then they'd only have to beat Costa Rica and they are probably through on goal difference with three points.
Yes, the classic one team beats everyone else and the others win one game each scenario.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome.
The interesting thing about medical history is how useless counter productive and plain wrong everything thing is, from hippocrates up to Florey (not Fleming) discovering penicillin. Gotta hope the child has malaria and that is quinine in the glass.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
Yes, agreed. Much better to display and explain. This is a silly over-reaction by the Wellcome Trust.
Interesting that previous protests have had success correcting simlar misplaced censorship (e.g. Waterhouse's Hylas and the Nymphs is not back on display in Manchester, I believe) so it is right to protest against such nonsense.
The number of people we now get having their say at half time in tv coverage of football matches can often be 6....and yet there is no analysis beyond absolute surface level trash with each "pundit" getting a few seconds to try and blurt out something.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I generally find the complaints about woke to be overblown, but the one place they are justified is against the BBC. The national broadcaster has a mission to inform the public, but quite frequently they deliberately censor information from the reader. For example, if someone has said something deemed offensive by the woke activist groups, they will simply report controversy without mentioning what was actually said. How is the reader possibly supposed to judge whether the offense is justified or not? I suppose the BBC's answer would be that the reader can't be trusted and they should just be delivered the interpretation of the incident, not the actual facts.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I generally find the complaints about woke to be overblown, but the one place they are justified is against the BBC. The national broadcaster has a mission to inform the public, but quite frequently they deliberately censor information from the reader. For example, if someone has said something deemed offensive by the woke activist groups, they will simply report controversy without mentioning what was actually said. How is the reader possibly supposed to judge whether the offense is justified or not? I suppose the BBC's answer would be that the reader can't be trusted and they should just be delivered the interpretation of the incident, not the actual facts.
The more vague the report the more my BS detector goes off that perhaps it isn't quite as offensive as one might be being led to believe.
Also, with the website, they could easily have the direct quote or picture as set to hidden by default, only revealed by clicking a button to reveal (and if logged in as a child account not able to do that).
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
The number of people we now get having their say at half time in tv coverage of football matches can often be 6....and yet there is no analysis beyond absolute surface level trash with each "pundit" getting a few seconds to try and blurt out something.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I generally find the complaints about woke to be overblown, but the one place they are justified is against the BBC. The national broadcaster has a mission to inform the public, but quite frequently they deliberately censor information from the reader. For example, if someone has said something deemed offensive by the woke activist groups, they will simply report controversy without mentioning what was actually said. How is the reader possibly supposed to judge whether the offense is justified or not? I suppose the BBC's answer would be that the reader can't be trusted and they should just be delivered the interpretation of the incident, not the actual facts.
The more vague the report the more my BS detector goes off that perhaps it isn't quite as offensive as one might be being led to believe.
Also, with the website, they could easily have the direct quote or picture as set to hidden by default, only revealed by clicking to reveal.
And of course the end result is that a big chunk of the public start mentally classifying the BBC as not reliable, and seek out other, less reliable media sources.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
Yes, agreed. Much better to display and explain. This is a silly over-reaction by the Wellcome Trust.
Interesting that previous protests have had success correcting simlar misplaced censorship (e.g. Waterhouse's Hylas and the Nymphs is not back on display in Manchester, I believe) so it is right to protest against such nonsense.
Doh! '...now back on display', not '...not back on display'. Fecking autocorrect poster incompetence, eh?
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It’s crap. A piece of propaganda unto itself.
But wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how many missionaries were active in Africa? What they thought they were achieving? The quality (or otherwise) of the medical treatment they provided? Also, the concomitant rush for exotic plants and the extent to which it furthered medical knowledge?
One would think you’d be able to get a basic understanding of that at the Wellcome.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
Tbh I am always shocked by the amount of art that is locked away from sight in the vaults of galleries. If they are not going to display it, they should flog some of it off to fund enough display space to show the rest.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The fact that this has wound you up so much almost justifies it imo.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I generally find the complaints about woke to be overblown, but the one place they are justified is against the BBC. The national broadcaster has a mission to inform the public, but quite frequently they deliberately censor information from the reader. For example, if someone has said something deemed offensive by the woke activist groups, they will simply report controversy without mentioning what was actually said. How is the reader possibly supposed to judge whether the offense is justified or not? I suppose the BBC's answer would be that the reader can't be trusted and they should just be delivered the interpretation of the incident, not the actual facts.
The root of most of these problems is really nothing to do with "wokeness" or any other political viewpoint.
The question is whether the BBC, or museums, or whoever, should be trying to push any political viewpoint at all. Of course it can be argued that it's impossible to report the news or exhibit historical objects and information without (even by implication) having some viewpoint or other. There's obviously some truth to that. But there's a big difference between recognising that problem and trying to remain as neutral and factual as possible on the one hand, and being on a mission to support a particular political narrative on the other..
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
I'd say the only really incorrect thing about it is the colour of Jesus's hair.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The fact that this has wound you up so much almost justifies it imo.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
It is, again, possible to do both. To worry about yer heating bills AND express concern at the Wokeification of the arts, media, academe, charities, and so on
To my mind Wokeness is a potential culture-killer, a lethal threat to our civilisation, esp via its attack on education
You will dismiss this as hysteria, of course. Meh. Knock yourself out
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It’s crap. A piece of propaganda unto itself.
But wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how many missionaries were active in Africa? What they thought they were achieving? The quality (or otherwise) of the medical treatment they provided? Also, the concomitant rush for exotic plants and the extent to which it furthered medical knowledge?
One would think you’d be able to get a basic understanding of that at the Wellcome.
It was quite common at the time to think that Europeans were on a Christian civilising mission to Africa, and that this was a good thing.
If museums aren't there to help us understand the past, and what people thought and why, then there is little point in them.
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
Not sure that’s entirely fair on Southgate. Semi final and then final of last two tournaments. Qualification without struggling, or indeed failure. Southgate is a cautious manager focussed on tournament football. You win tournaments by not conceding goals. England were two decent penalty kicks from winning the Euros. Personally I think both the semi final loss and the final were games that a braver manager could have won by gambling on a more attacking approach when they had the advantage, but we might also have conceded.
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
And Eddie Jones
England rugby were truly dire yesterday. One of their worst ever performances. And they have such talent, in theory
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
I'd say the only really incorrect thing about it is the colour of Jesus's hair.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Looks like the missionary chap is taking the knee. My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role. This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
Not sure that’s entirely fair on Southgate. Semi final and then final of last two tournaments. Qualification without struggling, or indeed failure. Southgate is a cautious manager focussed on tournament football. You win tournaments by not conceding goals. England were two decent penalty kicks from winning the Euros. Personally I think both the semi final loss and the final were games that a braver manager could have won by gambling on a more attacking approach when they had the advantage, but we might also have conceded.
England's midfield and front three are world class plus we have top grade wing backs and Southgate deploys the talent poorly.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Looks like the missionary chap is taking the knee. My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role. This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
And Eddie Jones
England rugby were truly dire yesterday. One of their worst ever performances. And they have such talent, in theory
They look so utterly lost. No idea what to do, or who is in control. It’s going to be a tough six nations.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Looks like the missionary chap is taking the knee. My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role. This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
1916.
The sentiment is Victorian anyway. I'm surprised anyone could be bothered to churn out this kind of garbage during ww1.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
I'd say the only really incorrect thing about it is the colour of Jesus's hair.
better?
?
Did you deliberately leave untouched the one thing I said was incorrect?
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
Not sure that’s entirely fair on Southgate. Semi final and then final of last two tournaments. Qualification without struggling, or indeed failure. Southgate is a cautious manager focussed on tournament football. You win tournaments by not conceding goals. England were two decent penalty kicks from winning the Euros. Personally I think both the semi final loss and the final were games that a braver manager could have won by gambling on a more attacking approach when they had the advantage, but we might also have conceded.
England's midfield and front three are world class plus we have top grade wing backs and Southgate deploys the talent poorly.
We have a surfeit of talented attacking players, but just as with Gerard and Lampard, only 11 can play at a time. I have no doubt we have one of the deepest squads in the World Cup, but it’s only eleven aside. On Friday they were nearly undone by fitness, drilling and arguably a lack of respect for their opponents. Southgate said he knew what was coming, but it didn’t look like he had a plan to get round the problem. Again though, avoid losing by 4 goals to Wales and the first task is secured. Never forget the ignominy of Brazil 2014.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It’s crap. A piece of propaganda unto itself.
But wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how many missionaries were active in Africa? What they thought they were achieving? The quality (or otherwise) of the medical treatment they provided? Also, the concomitant rush for exotic plants and the extent to which it furthered medical knowledge?
One would think you’d be able to get a basic understanding of that at the Wellcome.
It was quite common at the time to think that Europeans were on a Christian civilising mission to Africa, and that this was a good thing.
If museums aren't there to help us understand the past, and what people thought and why, then there is little point in them.
Still quite a common belief in Africa. Most Africans are far more religious than Europeans and greatly appreciate the benefits of Christian or Islamic missionaries, in both spiritual terms and also in practical things like education and missionary schools.
Sure, there is still a whiff of colonialism about, but the difference between a missionary and an aid worker is not very marked, apart from missionaries being there for the long term, and generally much more modest stipends.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
I'd say the only really incorrect thing about it is the colour of Jesus's hair.
better?
?
Did you deliberately leave untouched the one thing I said was incorrect?
This Wellcome Collection thing is interesting. I can understand why it’s got the wokehunters riled.
I’m a bit of a history nerd. I read history for my undergraduate degree. For me, what the Wellcome Trust are doing isn’t controversial. They’re just reflecting the evolution of the study of history as a discipline. It’s history from below, giving a voice to those who have been, in traditional historiography, voiceless.
The right see it as an attack on our history. I think it makes our, British, history richer. I don’t think these historians want to erase our history, to make us feel guilty about a past we had no control over. Like Germans born after the war who have no blame for Nazism or the Holocaust, we should feel no personal guilt for Empire.
But perhaps we would be healthier as a country if we had a better understanding, more of a reckoning with our history, than we generally do.
What the Wellcome Collection are doing, for me, is trying to recognise and contextualise, understand and explain, the creation of the Collection as an artefact in its own right. To explain that its creation, an extremely enlightened act by an enlightened man in the mores of the day, can now be seen, from a modern perspective, to be excluding the voices and experiences of many of the people whose artefacts Wellcome was so enlightened in recognising and curating. His work should be celebrated, recognised and respected, but also contextualised from a modern perspective.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The fact that this has wound you up so much almost justifies it imo.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
Those who accept the absurdities of wokery because it rubs those they disagree with up the wrong way would do well to remember that the counter revolution is generally fiercer than the revolution itself.
Liberalism, the centre, needs to hold against this rubbish. Or we'll all be worse off.
Belgium were really poor today gor the quality of their players. I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Same as Southgate. Mediocre manager blessed with incredible players.
Not sure that’s entirely fair on Southgate. Semi final and then final of last two tournaments. Qualification without struggling, or indeed failure. Southgate is a cautious manager focussed on tournament football. You win tournaments by not conceding goals. England were two decent penalty kicks from winning the Euros. Personally I think both the semi final loss and the final were games that a braver manager could have won by gambling on a more attacking approach when they had the advantage, but we might also have conceded.
It's not at all fair on Southgate and it really fucking winds me up when England fans don't appreciate how effective a manager he has been.
It also makes me understand why the rest of the world see England fans as arrogant and entitled
Hello everyone, not had much time to be on here this week. Hope everyone is keeping well.
In the news its good to see protests mounting in China against Zero Covid, with people now openly calling for Xi to go.
Unfortunately I doubt that Xi can or will be ousted but hopefully we are now reaching a point where Covid restrictions are increasingly unthinkable even in authoritarian dictatorships.
I have a bad cold and had a weird fever dream featuring Leon last night. First he was berating me on Bloomberg, lots of random capitalisation. Then we met in person. I don't remember exactly what occurred but I think it featured a lot of drinking and shouting on his part. Very strange.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The fact that this has wound you up so much almost justifies it imo.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
Those who accept the absurdities of wokery because it rubs those they disagree with up the wrong way would do well to remember that the counter revolution is generally fiercer than the revolution itself.
Liberalism, the centre, needs to hold against this rubbish. Or we'll all be worse off.
I noted the other night on the "issues of concern to voters" thread that no issue of Woke or gender politics, nor indeed much of anything to do with "culture war" featured in voters concerns.
This Wellcome Collection thing is interesting. I can understand why it’s got the wokehunters riled.
I’m a bit of a history nerd. I read history for my undergraduate degree. For me, what the Wellcome Trust are doing isn’t controversial. They’re just reflecting the evolution of the study of history as a discipline. It’s history from below, giving a voice to those who have been, in traditional historiography, voiceless.
The right see it as an attack on our history. I think it makes our, British, history richer. I don’t think these historians want to erase our history, to make us feel guilty about a past we had no control over. Like Germans born after the war who have no blame for Nazism or the Holocaust, we should feel no personal guilt for Empire.
But perhaps we would be healthier as a country if we had a better understanding, more of a reckoning with our history, than we generally do.
What the Wellcome Collection are doing, for me, is trying to recognise and contextualise, understand and explain, the creation of the Collection as an artefact in its own right. To explain that its creation, an extremely enlightened act by an enlightened man in the mores of the day, can now be seen, from a modern perspective, to be excluding the voices and experiences of many of the people whose artefacts Wellcome was so enlightened in recognising and curating. His work should be celebrated, recognised and respected, but also contextualised from a modern perspective.
All of which can be achieved without the vain introspection that post-modernist theory makes out to be academic and intellectual.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Looks like the missionary chap is taking the knee. My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role. This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
1916.
The sentiment is Victorian anyway. I'm surprised anyone could be bothered to churn out this kind of garbage during ww1.
You think we should have been concentrating on the miiltary effort rather than thinking about tending to sick Africans? That doesn't seem quite right.
This Wellcome Collection thing is interesting. I can understand why it’s got the wokehunters riled.
I’m a bit of a history nerd. I read history for my undergraduate degree. For me, what the Wellcome Trust are doing isn’t controversial. They’re just reflecting the evolution of the study of history as a discipline. It’s history from below, giving a voice to those who have been, in traditional historiography, voiceless.
The right see it as an attack on our history. I think it makes our, British, history richer. I don’t think these historians want to erase our history, to make us feel guilty about a past we had no control over. Like Germans born after the war who have no blame for Nazism or the Holocaust, we should feel no personal guilt for Empire.
But perhaps we would be healthier as a country if we had a better understanding, more of a reckoning with our history, than we generally do.
What the Wellcome Collection are doing, for me, is trying to recognise and contextualise, understand and explain, the creation of the Collection as an artefact in its own right. To explain that its creation, an extremely enlightened act by an enlightened man in the mores of the day, can now be seen, from a modern perspective, to be excluding the voices and experiences of many of the people whose artefacts Wellcome was so enlightened in recognising and curating. His work should be celebrated, recognised and respected, but also contextualised from a modern perspective.
But they ain't doing none of that. They aren't putting it in a Wokey context and they've given up attaching feeble Woke poems next to problematic items.
Instead, over a single weekend, they've decided that the entire collection is too problematic to even exhibit, as it was gathered by one rich patriarchal racist blah blah (while offering zero evidence for this), so the entire core of the Wellcome Collection has been shut. For good, Without debate. In a weekend. Announced on Friday closed on Sunday. And without any clear plan of what comes next, if indeed they are thinking of doing anything next. Given what they believe it seems difficult for them to show any of this stuff ever again
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
I've changed my mind now. It's such a crap painting, no museum visitors ever deserve to have to it inflicted on them.
It tells us something about a Victorian medical missionary psyche, but that's all. And how much that needs saying is another matter. After all, any museum (like statues in a town) boils down to having too much stuff for the available space.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is reversed. There might be some emollient language, but they won't back down on the essential decision, nor its rationale. This is what they believe, and boy, do they believe it
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
The fact that this has wound you up so much almost justifies it imo.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
Those who accept the absurdities of wokery because it rubs those they disagree with up the wrong way would do well to remember that the counter revolution is generally fiercer than the revolution itself.
Liberalism, the centre, needs to hold against this rubbish. Or we'll all be worse off.
I noted the other night on the "issues of concern to voters" thread that no issue of Woke or gender politics, nor indeed much of anything to do with "culture war" featured in voters concerns.
I'm not in the least surprised. Sometimes the most important issues of the day are not those which are widely debated. Policy isn't about pleasing people all of the time.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Looks like the missionary chap is taking the knee. My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role. This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
1916.
The sentiment is Victorian anyway. I'm surprised anyone could be bothered to churn out this kind of garbage during ww1.
You think we should have been concentrating on the miiltary effort rather than thinking about tending to sick Africans? That doesn't seem quite right.
I'm not sure this painting healed anyone. It's just propaganda.
The thing I find offensive here is that the activity and language of the Wellcome Museum is the precise opposite of the empancipatory, liberal values of the Enlightenment.
Instead of engaging, it seeks to exclude. Instead of accessibility, it’s literally closing. Instead of education, the idea is to shame.
My issue with the general “Tory” campaign against woke is that it doesn’t position itself in liberal values either. It’s just knockabout stuff to eke out coverage in the Mail.
We need a proper liberal critique of “woke”.
The liberal critique of it is easy: that opposing ideas should be engaged with and not cancelled. That ideas should be judged on their merit and not the person who spoke them.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Well, the Wellcome morons are getting tremendous pushback on Twitter and near universal condemnation, so maybe, in this rare instance, the Wokeness will be defeated
But I'm not betting on it
Well the BBC are unconcerned....
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
Here it is. It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
It looks a bit like the imagery I've seen on some evangelical Christian leaflets that get handed out by city-centre crazies. Just needs a couple of diplodocus wandering about in the background to really complete it.
I'd say the only really incorrect thing about it is the colour of Jesus's hair.
better?
?
Did you deliberately leave untouched the one thing I said was incorrect?
yup.
I'm afraid I missed the point you were trying to make by doing that, if there was one.
Comments
Out-Wellcoming the Wellcome, the Dean of Trinity thinks Christ was trans, on the basis of some second rate renaissance painters being a bit shy of depicting his willy.
It is a crime to suppress our access to first-hand sources of their knowledge and understanding, and we are perfectly capable of judging right from wrong for ourselves.
Middle Class Mastercard Marxism is obvious, since it consists vomiting a pool of indigested fragments of nonsense onto the guilty* page.
Fuckwit Performative Environmentalism as well.
Brexit could also be an interesting vein to mine….. hmmmmm
*the page is white. Pure white. Therefore is obviously guilty of something
I will follow this story because I'm interested in whether the people will be tracked down and prosecuted.
It's wrong to call this vandalism. Criminal damage, yes. Vandalism is done for kicks.
Along with that gibberish on the Bentham placard, it’s unadulterated newspeak.
It is this kind of thing which makes you understand Malcom X on the subject of white… helpful people.
"They describe Henry Wellcome as "a man with enormous wealth, power and privilege." His father was a poor farmer. He was born in a freaking log cabin. He built his company from scratch, studied other cultures his whole life, and left his company shares to charity. What an a@@hole"
https://twitter.com/PetraStPete/status/1596899658755981312?s=20&t=-51NA_RUJzfjXtdWWOkGFw
And this is true. Wiki:
"Wellcome was born in a frontier log cabin in what would later become Almond, Wisconsin, to Rev. S. C. Wellcome, an itinerant missionary who travelled and preached in a covered wagon, and Mary Curtis Wellcome"
In his will, Wellcome vested the entire share capital of his company in individual trustees, who were charged with spending the income to further human and animal health. The Wellcome Trust is now one of the world's largest private biomedical charities"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wellcome
This is the terrible privileged billionaire white man who is so evil his medical collection must be dismantled, and hidden from the world, by the curators of the museum he still funds, via his legacy
Unfortunately, few on the Left share your intelligence.
Hague, IDS and MiliEd failed by being leaders of the opposition who didn't get enough votes.
Truss's failure was her entire vision blowing up spectacularly before it even happened.
She's not coming back from that.
I also agree that the Tory critique is often misplaced and based on them not liking an opposing view. For example, I'd argue choosing to remove a statue of a slave owner from a public place is a reasonable, non-woke position to take. Such artifacts are divisive, so depending on the wider achievements of said person, may be better suited to a museum.
But where things should definitely not be cancelled is in a museum. That is a place where people go by choice and the curation can explain where pieces are controversial.
Or do we, say, have to chose between tackling racism and sexism?
But I'm not betting on it
Instead
1) You are for us or against us
2) There is no debate. All must speak only The Writ
3) Anyone advocating debate is a Heretic - see (1)
The resemblance to religious fundamentalism* is interesting. But not surprising.
*Or, indeed, to Trumpism.
Would only take Spain beating Japan and then they'd only have to beat Costa Rica and they are probably through on goal difference with three points.
Of these, at most four will win their second game (France have, Spain v Germany and Portugal v Uruguay to come - and Brazil and Switzerland play each other).
Even if Germany lose to Spain, they could still secure 3 points and a better goal difference than Japan or Costa Rica by beating the latter by sufficient goals seeing Spain beat Japan.
Edit: I see Dixie beat me to it.
Controversial objects include a 1916 painting titled "A Medical Missionary Attending to a Sick African" which depicts an African person kneeling in front of a white missionary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63772864
What is interesting here is that this is now totally verboten. Are we to say that never happened? Of course you could easily put context of we need to be careful here about the motivates of such a painting etc etc etc.
Centrist Dads for the negotiated compromise.
(The Wellcome stuff sounds rum, to say the least, and if I were a trustee, I'd be calling my curators to a meeting without many biscuits for 8.30 sharp Monday morning. Agenda "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.")
Shouting at them, not you. They lie about it, everybody is too squeamish to reproduce it, and away we go.
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/a-medical-missionary-attending-to-a-sick-african-125813
Bloody hilarious, but it's the white man who is kneeling in front of someone; the black woman is supporting the sick child.
It’s quite crap art, and surely inessential, but it’s not what it’s been represented as by Wellcome (and parroted by the BBC).
Interesting that previous protests have had success correcting simlar misplaced censorship (e.g. Waterhouse's Hylas and the Nymphs is not back on display in Manchester, I believe) so it is right to protest against such nonsense.
Also, with the website, they could easily have the direct quote or picture as set to hidden by default, only revealed by clicking a button to reveal (and if logged in as a child account not able to do that).
I think Martinez has been carried by how good they have been individually previously and now they're a bit older his lack of managing ability is showing.
Spain have the better team though
A piece of propaganda unto itself.
But wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how many missionaries were active in Africa? What they thought they were achieving? The quality (or otherwise) of the medical treatment they provided? Also, the concomitant rush for exotic plants and the extent to which it furthered medical knowledge?
One would think you’d be able to get a basic understanding of that at the Wellcome.
Even so, 8.30 tomorrow. No biscuits for you curators. I'm going to eat biscuits, because I'm having to be dragged in for an early meeting. I'm damn well not doing that without biscuits.
From online research, it looks like the Wellcome Collection has been entirely captured by Wokerati. They are all in this. There is not one sane voice
And this is what Wokeness does, as well, of course. You impose the regime, and then weed out anyone who has the slightest doubt. You are then left with loyal a cadre. The similarities to other extreme political movements are uncanny
Meanwhile, in the real world, people are trying to work out how they can afford their heating this winter.
The question is whether the BBC, or museums, or whoever, should be trying to push any political viewpoint at all. Of course it can be argued that it's impossible to report the news or exhibit historical objects and information without (even by implication) having some viewpoint or other. There's obviously some truth to that. But there's a big difference between recognising that problem and trying to remain as neutral and factual as possible on the one hand, and being on a mission to support a particular political narrative on the other..
To my mind Wokeness is a potential culture-killer, a lethal threat to our civilisation, esp via its attack on education
You will dismiss this as hysteria, of course. Meh. Knock yourself out
If museums aren't there to help us understand the past, and what people thought and why, then there is little point in them.
England rugby were truly dire yesterday. One of their worst ever performances. And they have such talent, in theory
better?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/27/keir-starmer-rules-out-return-free-movement-britain-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
My favourite take on missionaries in Africa is this one: when they came, we had the land and they had God. Then suddenly they had the land and we had God. I think that more or less summarises their role.
This painting should take pride of place in a museum of hilarious Victorian kitsch. If such a thing doesn't exist perhaps Leon could start one.
Did you deliberately leave untouched the one thing I said was incorrect?
Sure, there is still a whiff of colonialism about, but the difference between a missionary and an aid worker is not very marked, apart from missionaries being there for the long term, and generally much more modest stipends.
I’m a bit of a history nerd. I read history for my undergraduate degree. For me, what the Wellcome Trust are doing isn’t controversial. They’re just reflecting the evolution of the study of history as a discipline. It’s history from below, giving a voice to those who have been, in traditional historiography, voiceless.
The right see it as an attack on our history. I think it makes our, British, history richer. I don’t think these historians want to erase our history, to make us feel guilty about a past we had no control over. Like Germans born after the war who have no blame for Nazism or the Holocaust, we should feel no personal guilt for Empire.
But perhaps we would be healthier as a country if we had a better understanding, more of a reckoning with our history, than we generally do.
What the Wellcome Collection are doing, for me, is trying to recognise and contextualise, understand and explain, the creation of the Collection as an artefact in its own right. To explain that its creation, an extremely enlightened act by an enlightened man in the mores of the day, can now be seen, from a modern perspective, to be excluding the voices and experiences of many of the people whose artefacts Wellcome was so enlightened in recognising and curating. His work should be celebrated, recognised and respected, but also contextualised from a modern perspective.
Liberalism, the centre, needs to hold against this rubbish. Or we'll all be worse off.
It also makes me understand why the rest of the world see England fans as arrogant and entitled
In the news its good to see protests mounting in China against Zero Covid, with people now openly calling for Xi to go.
Unfortunately I doubt that Xi can or will be ousted but hopefully we are now reaching a point where Covid restrictions are increasingly unthinkable even in authoritarian dictatorships.
Instead, over a single weekend, they've decided that the entire collection is too problematic to even exhibit, as it was gathered by one rich patriarchal racist blah blah (while offering zero evidence for this), so the entire core of the Wellcome Collection has been shut. For good, Without debate. In a weekend. Announced on Friday closed on Sunday. And without any clear plan of what comes next, if indeed they are thinking of doing anything next. Given what they believe it seems difficult for them to show any of this stuff ever again
It is book burning, Knowledge that must be burned