[HN Gopher] Cancelled by his college
___________________________________________________________________
Cancelled by his college
Author : 34679
Score : 57 points
Date : 2021-12-05 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thecritic.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (thecritic.co.uk)
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| I guess since I'm not a student there this doesn't make me that
| mad. Why would i care? Did they remove his research & discoveries
| out of the libraries too?
| emilfihlman wrote:
| It's one of the most awful things we nowadays do, erase and hide
| history because somone complains. I hope we stop before it's too
| late.
| jrmg wrote:
| This argument that we should keep statues (or windows) to
| remember history doesn't seem to hold water to me.
|
| What are we remembering by keeping them? I don't think that
| anyone argues that we should be _erecting_ statues to figures
| we don't admire - who, if they're intended as cautionary tales
| are surely _more_ worthwhile to think about. So it's not just
| that they serve to help us remember figures from the past.
|
| So should we instead keep them to remember that the people
| _were_ once admired enough to get statues? That seems like a
| very odd second-order reason to keep something.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| I'm not arguing one way or the other, but how does a window
| teach history?
|
| If we're comparing it to statues what do they teach? What do
| they symbolize?
|
| Are we required to keep them forever?
|
| Under what circumstances is it acceptable to change, replace or
| remove them?
| 1270018080 wrote:
| He was a eugenicist throughout his entire career.
|
| That's a good enough reason to not worship him.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| So was Margaret Sanger yet we still love our abortion clinics
| acdha wrote:
| You're confused on one point -- she staunchly _opposed_
| abortion except to preserve the mother's life (her support of
| birth control was to avoid needing one) -- and Planned
| Parenthood isn't shying away from acknowledging the bad parts
| of her legacy:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/opinion/planned-
| parenthoo...
|
| That seems to be the right way to handle this: the history is
| still there for anyone curious but nobody is saying she's a
| role-model for the future.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| I don't see any stained glass windows of Margaret Sanger
| anywhere. What is your point?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Are our only options to worship someone or erase them?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Removing a window isn't erasing anybody.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| He wasn't being worshipped and hasn't been erased, so I'd say
| no.
| geofft wrote:
| The question here is about who gets a literal stained-glass
| window in their honor. If not having a stained-glass window
| means you're erased, then we'd better start making a whole
| lot more stained-glass windows.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| People who make significant contributions to science get
| stained-glass windows and such. If removing the ones for
| people we're trying to memory hole as being part our own
| histories isn't trying to erase them, what is it?
| pvg wrote:
| For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass windows
| and such' and beside that, our capacity to remember
| people is independent of stained-glassed windows. It
| takes overly broad, maximalist interpretations to make
| this into much of an argument to begin with.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > For the most part, they don't get 'stained-glass
| windows and such'
|
| Then why did this guy have one to begin with?
|
| > our capacity to remember people is independent of
| stained-glassed windows.
|
| Then why do we build them for people we do like?
|
| The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously
| notable for something good and notable for something bad
| doesn't cancel out and make them notable for nothing.
| They did the good thing they did, which we should
| remember, and they did the bad thing they did, which we
| should also remember.
|
| But institutions have the incentive to present only the
| good in their histories. Which is how we forget our
| mistakes and make them again.
|
| You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and build
| whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his bad
| acts.
| pvg wrote:
| _Which is how we forget our mistakes and make them
| again._
|
| It's not, though, that's just the somewhat circular
| premise of your argument. Nobody is forgetting this guy.
| He's on the Nobel Prize site, on Wikipedia, in the
| scientific literature, etc. Fiddling with a stained
| glassed window doesn't change any of that. Society
| changing its mind about whom to honour, how and where is
| a thing that happens all the time.
|
| _The problem is this: Having someone be simultaneously
| notable for something good and notable for something bad
| doesn 't cancel out and make them notable for nothing._
|
| Installing or removing a stained glass window is not
| really taking a position on this supposed 'problem'.
| geofft wrote:
| > _Then why did this guy have one to begin with?_
|
| Because the college wanted to celebrate _itself_ and
| demonstrate how it has notable alumni. So any alum of any
| defensible level of notability would have worked here.
| Nobody looked at the story of Sir Ronald Fisher and
| decided he need a window somewhere; they looked at the
| yearbooks of Gonville and Caius and found who could fit
| on the windows.
|
| If we can at least be honest about that, then we can
| conclude that the college has a vested interest in
| claiming that the guy is stained-glass-window-worthy, and
| therefore the fact that he has a stained-glass window now
| is not a reliable argument that he ought to have one.
| notahacker wrote:
| > You don't like this guy? Leave the window alone and
| build whatever the opposite of a window is to condemn his
| bad acts.
|
| Ironically, the article includes a photo of someone who
| has done just that: stencilled some critical graffiti.
| It's in the process of being erased. The author who is so
| keen to preserve the window doesn't seem to mind _that_
| opinion being cancelled.
|
| But probably neither windows nor graffiti are actually
| good ways to evaluate historical figures and their good
| and bad contributions to science.
| ljm wrote:
| I'm not sure why the discussion always jumps to this
| extreme. The entire thread for this article is full of
| people jumping to a similar conclusion, which I also
| think exaggerates the situation. It makes the window or
| the statue or whatever far more important than it really
| is. It's like bikeshedding, but for outrage.
|
| Firstly, the real world isn't immutable. Just because a
| college made a stained-glass window for someone doesn't
| mean they have to preserve it for all eternity. Doesn't
| matter who it is, it's just a piece that was commissioned
| once and now the owner of it doesn't value it the same
| way any more.
|
| Secondly, we're in an age where information is so
| abundant that an internet search or a trip to a library
| will allow you to learn as much as you care to learn
| about a notable person. Lecturers and professors may
| choose to disclaim this person's work when teaching it,
| such that the value of the science remains but the
| history of the scientist is laid bare.
|
| If we're talking about erasing people or memory-holing
| them, the thing to worry about isn't a commemorative
| decoration, but the education system itself.
|
| In that sense, a far more egregious crime is to, for
| example, balance out an atrocity like the Holocaust by
| giving equal credence to Holocaust denial. Or to attempt
| to ban the teaching of slavery and other unpleasant
| aspects of a country's history by blocking the literature
| in schools. In these cases, unsavoury history very much
| _is_ being erased, and replaced with a version that is
| more 'family friendly'.
| CJefferson wrote:
| There are thousands of scientists who didn't get windows.
| In practice the methods by which "who contributed the
| most" were often not particularly fair. Isn't it possible
| we could re-evaluate who we want to have a window? The
| other people are still in books.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| No, those aren't the only two options.
|
| They removed the stain glass window worshiping him. Did you
| read the article? What do you think erasing means?
| glenda wrote:
| I tend to think what you're reacting to is just history
| moving forward. Unfortunately not everyone will be remembered
| forever.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Removing idols is not erasure.
| pitched wrote:
| "No one is safe from the future" and all that. It feels sad on
| one hand that someone's legacy can be brought down so quickly. On
| the other hand, our legacies don't belong to us anymore, after we
| leave. When it's up to our children to decide how to run the
| place, they also get to choose their own idols.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Eugenism is one of the most useful things to do for humans
| hapiness given that 40% of happiness is derived from genetics.
| JakeAl wrote:
| All selective breeding is eugenics. If you believe in aborting
| babies with Down Syndrome, you're a eugenicist. If you believe in
| choosing a sperm donor based on genetic fitness, you're a
| eugenicist. If you selectively breed cattle, or your dog, you're
| a eugenicist. There are rare but debilitating genetic diseases
| that can arise from mixed race procreation as anyone who's
| watched Discovery Health may know. Before people judge, they
| should study the topic and motivation thoroughly. Eugenics does
| not means racist or genocide, nor does it mean a eugenicist is
| motivate by hatred or racism. The word for that is racist.
| There's a whole field of Genetic Counseling that exists for the
| purpose of eugenics and catering to the biological health of
| offspring that have emerged since our science has advanced enough
| to understand the role genes play in biological, physical and
| mental health. Read up on the topic. It's quite revealing.
| fmajid wrote:
| A better approach would be damnatio memoriae, as with the
| Venetian Doge Marin Falier, whose official portrait was covered
| with black velvet and a mention this was done for his crimes
| (attempting a coup).
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| To be clear, "canceled" in this case means... removing a
| commemorative stained-glass window.
|
| No one has made a stained-glass window to commemorate me. Am I
| also being canceled?
| cgrealy wrote:
| I am puzzled by the "oh no, this is erasing history" people.
|
| There are many people throughout history that are known and
| studied without being celebrated.
|
| Statues, windows, etc. are there to commemorate and celebrate
| people. If we decide that we shouldn't celebrate an individual
| (confederate generals for example), removing that statue is not
| the same as erasing them from history.
| Veen wrote:
| > If we decide that we shouldn't celebrate an individual
|
| That's precisely what's at issue. Who decides who should be
| celebrated and who should not? What are the criteria for
| deciding? And what story are we telling about our history with
| those decisions.
| akerl_ wrote:
| I didn't think I'd have to type this tonight but:
|
| Let's agree not to celebrate racists or other bigots?
| Veen wrote:
| That would leave approximately no one from more than a
| century ago and almost no one from the last century,
| especially if you're going to exclude anyone who might be
| considered a bigot by modern progressive standards.
| akerl_ wrote:
| Yes, I'm cool with that.
|
| We can remember these people existed and the things they
| did without celebrating them.
|
| Removing statues is an example of that.
| notatoad wrote:
| >who decides
|
| in this case, the leadership at Caius College. in every other
| case, the same people or organization who made the decision
| to celebrate the individual in the first place. in a broader
| sense, history does - the same people who rail against taking
| down statues seem to like talking about how history will view
| the leaders of today. "cancelling" historical figures is the
| literal implementation of "history will judge my actions".
| history has judged this guy, and decided that eugenics aren't
| cool.
| [deleted]
| 1cvmask wrote:
| They actually cancel academics for saying the "wrong" thing. This
| is not even anything close to that. Having a window removed is
| not a big deal at all:
|
| But now the college Fisher loved has turned its back on him. It
| has removed from the Hall a stained-glass window commemorating
| him, one of a set of six installed to celebrate him, Crick, Venn,
| Chadwick and two other distinguished college figures, Sir Charles
| Sherrington and George Green. It has done so because of
| accusations that Fisher was a proponent of eugenics.
| notahacker wrote:
| Ironically, whilst arguing that only crazy woke leftists could
| possibly see postwar enthusiasm for the race science of literal
| Nazis as a reason not to venerate a [very clever] eugenicist,
| the same "pushback against dangerous consensus" publication
| carries other columns twisting Popper's paradox of tolerance
| into a case for the Civil Service to purge anyone sufficiently
| left wing to criticise the government.
|
| It's almost the reductio ad absurdum version of culture war
| bullshit.
| Veen wrote:
| > only crazy woke leftists could possibly see postwar
| enthusiasm for the race science of literal Nazis
|
| Let's not forget that eugenics was not an exclusively right-
| wing position. Many socialists were pro-eugenics: the Webbs,
| Shaw, C.P. Snow, Haldane, and many more. Eugenics was widely
| supported by many academics of all political stripes in the
| early 20th Century.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| At some point eugenics was very much "progressive" way of
| thinking. People tend to forget that every old idea at some
| point was progressive and new, progress itself doesn't mean
| it will we judged right by future generations.
|
| Also its very much as alive right now - we abort the vast
| majority of fetuses with known birth defects, we just don't
| want to call it that. Doesn't matter your view of abortion
| but its difficult to argue against it.
| muglug wrote:
| The article has a lot of waffle, but it seems clear that even in
| the author's viewpoint, Fisher _was_ a eugenecist, and argued for
| the cause even in the wake of WW2:
|
| > (6) Fisher, in a testimonial for von Verschuer after the war,
| supported von Verschuer's "wish to benefit the German racial
| stock, especially by the elimination of manifest defectives, such
| as those deficient mentally".
|
| You can say "we should judge people by the standards of their
| time", but it seems that he fell short even by those standards.
| mc32 wrote:
| One of the progressive HR departments I'm familiar with
| recently celebrated Messrs. Sanger and Anthony (Susan B.)
| either in full knowledge (presumably given they passed over
| celebrating others they found problematic) or totally ignorant
| of their histories (which given their sensitivity, seems
| unlikely). If the latter, then it looks like it could depend on
| the person whether they are "forgiven" for their sins.
|
| Also, mr Sharpton is known for his past history of bigotry and
| the great majority of people pretend he never uttered bigoted
| words is not only on TV but is celebrated as a civil rights
| leader.
| motohagiography wrote:
| After reading that quote, I can sympathize with why the people
| behind the cancellation were concerned. However, I still think
| it's valuable to preserve the ugly parts of history in
| particular as waypoints.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| I think we should be able to compartmentalise and recognise it
| is possible to admire someone for one thing while condemning
| them for another.
|
| The commemoration was for mathematical contributions, not
| humanitarian efforts.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > You can say "we should judge people by the standards of their
| time", but it seems that he fell short even by those standards.
|
| Just out of curiosity, what are notable examples of people
| saying "we should judge people by the standards of their time"
| in a reasonable way?
|
| I most frequently hear it used for many of the "American
| forefathers" or other prominent people during that time to
| refer to their views on slavery and the treatment of indigenous
| people. In that case it's clearly laughable, since A) there
| were prominent contemporary critics and B) a lot of those
| people spent considerable effort performing mental gymnastics
| in writing to defend these things, which one wouldn't expect if
| they were simply unaware of any potential moral problems with
| their actions and views.
| g42gregory wrote:
| Interestingly, Margaret Sanger Awards were stopped quietly in
| 2015 but never given the negative press. For example, Wikipedia
| article is completely silent on that point [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger_Awards
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-05 23:01 UTC)