This thread is 9 years old, crazy. PC still ain’t a fad.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Absolutely. From my perspective, it's more a demonstration of why it's still necessary to protest about fundamental principles. I should have made that clearer.
Far from political correctness going mad - it's a reminder of how far we are from "respect" being a minimum expectation.
Incidentally, the clubs are back in the news again today with Camden and Islington United (Candi) refusing to play MHFC in the QF of the Cup. Candi are the current Cup and League title holders.
Initially they were told they'd be disqualified from the competitions for refusing to play, that's now been revoked during "the investigation" into MHFC. What that investigation entails other than looking at the screen captures of their social media accounts, I'm not quite sure
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ott-second-fixture-against-mhfc-over-misogyny
I’m surprised the league even allowed their registration with a name like that. They can’t just be called MHFC surely? They’d have had to submit their full name.Absolutely. From my perspective, it's more a demonstration of why it's still necessary to protest about fundamental principles. I should have made that clearer.
Far from political correctness going mad - it's a reminder of how far we are from "respect" being a minimum expectation.
Incidentally, the clubs are back in the news again today with Camden and Islington United (Candi) refusing to play MHFC in the QF of the Cup. Candi are the current Cup and League title holders.
Initially they were told they'd be disqualified from the competitions for refusing to play, that's now been revoked during "the investigation" into MHFC. What that investigation entails other than looking at the screen captures of their social media accounts, I'm not quite sure
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ott-second-fixture-against-mhfc-over-misogyny
Shame to trash a historic curio, however gruesome.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
100%. Acknowledge that it was barbaric but it's not like it's a statue glorifying it.Shame to trash a historic curio, however gruesome.
Harvard will remove binding made of human skin from 1800s book
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/28/harvard-book-human-skin
I saw the Evelyn tables at the Hunterian Museum, 17th century medical training 'vein maps' taken most likely from executed prisoners in Genoa and they were fascinating things. By that same token you'd destroy these and loads of other historic artefacts.
I get what you two are saying and part of me agrees. But in the end it’s human remains, forcefully taken, that should be allowed to rest, I guess. It would be different if they had been donated.
Yeah. I hear that. It's a tricky one. I love history because it's really important to acknowledge the horrors of history in the context of societal evolution. Here in Ireland people would rather focus on the 'we don't do that anymore' which is good but I think the horrors of the past are put to best use highlighted and not airbrushed. Not that this is necessarily airbrushing as much as maybe a clumsy attempt to rectify.
You can acknowledge the people now and the brutality of the objects reflects the history of the time and how we've moved on.
When so much time has passed -and oftentimes no-one knows who these people are- you don't have the living family members problem. I agree they need to be exhibited properly, contextualised and not glorified. Flipside being passage of time doesn't allay guilt...
I think it’s mostly an ethical difficulty here. At what point could we argue that our scientifical thirst for knowledge and our desire to preserve memories of the past become more important than a persons right to their own body? I don’t think it’s possible to identify that point in a fair and objective way. Therefore destroying these bindings seems like the only fair solution to me, even though I agree that it’s a drastic step. We definitively lose something along the way if we go into this direction. But as cheesy as it sounds, we also gain a lot if we uphold ethical principles. Especially in cases like these.
Ideally we would do a digital copy or something like that of these bindings to preserve these memories, these warnings of horrors and atrocities. Seems like the fairest compromise to me.
This exactly. In order to learn from the past we shouldn't hide its mistakes, but show them as such; mistakes not to be repeated.
Though I do realise that the same argument I just made could be used for some mummies and the like. It’s a tough one.
Weren't the mummies generally royalty or nobility and signed up to the practice?
There's a big push in museums and the heritage industry currently regarding ethics and human remains, particularly in the US due to issues when it comes to indigenous remains but also in the wider scope regarding consent.
I hear people's thoughts regarding learning from past mistakes but I think that's very different when you start to consider that the past mistake is human skin of a patient that gave no consent for their remains to be used in such a way. Photographs of the piece can be preserved and used as a reminder for example.
I hear people's thoughts regarding learning from past mistakes but I think that's very different when you start to consider that the past mistake is human skin of a patient that gave no consent for their remains to be used in such a way. Photographs of the piece can be preserved and used as a reminder for example.
Well seeing as there hasn't been a string of gruesome unexplained deaths surrounding the book, you'd have to think she's cool with it.
That's fair enough actually.
First owner of the book sounds a completely normal chap.
I don't see much positive about the museums decisions. Feels more like sweeping things under rug and trying to ignore barbaric practices of the past than anything done out of some higher moral principle. Don't see much point in destroying it. If that was my ancestor that feels far more disrespectful than displaying the historical object for what it is.
For me, I don't think photos really have the same effect as seeing the actual object which forces people to think about things in a way a photo might not. At least when I think about high school age me, a photo doesn't do the same thing as actually seeing the physical object.
For me, I don't think photos really have the same effect as seeing the actual object which forces people to think about things in a way a photo might not. At least when I think about high school age me, a photo doesn't do the same thing as actually seeing the physical object.
Most were. But there are cases of accidental mummification, like Ötzi.
They dig up bodies in bogs now and again that are perfectly preserved. I doubt they fancied being ogled behind a piece of museum glass, but if 5000 years has passed we say tough shit. Which tells me somewhere between 200 and 5000 is the sweet spot.
My reaction to reading the article was similar to the point raised by @oneniltothearsenal, that it feels like a way of almost sweeping the barbaric past under the rug rather than confronting it. And then funnily enough, I had a completely different reaction to the related article beside it on the Guardian website about the American Museum of Natural History removing its large collection of human remains.
In both cases the human remains were obtained through non-consensual means, in both cases the institutions are trying to 'return' or find a respectful resting place for them, but I still can't help but feel that Harvard book removal is in some way being insincere about the past, leaving it there would be the more honest stance, while feeling that the Natural History Museum's human remains removal is the right response to reflection on how those bodies were used for eugenics and past crimes.
In both cases the human remains were obtained through non-consensual means, in both cases the institutions are trying to 'return' or find a respectful resting place for them, but I still can't help but feel that Harvard book removal is in some way being insincere about the past, leaving it there would be the more honest stance, while feeling that the Natural History Museum's human remains removal is the right response to reflection on how those bodies were used for eugenics and past crimes.
Why is it insincere?
Removing the skin isn't erasing history in the same way that removing statues during BLM wasn't. It's how you narrate the history after doing such things that determines if it's erased or not.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I don't look at those at the same thing but I think they are fundamentally different.
I don't view those examples as the same at all. A statue glorifies the person or topic. It sends a message that those people were heroes. The book binding is totally different. It serves as a reminder of barbaric things we don't want to repeat and serves more as a warning. I think the book is more powerful than just an image the same way seeing pictures of Auschwitz now is not the same emotional effect as visiting Auschwitz.
For the book, if that happened to me I would absolutely prefer the book with my skin be kept intact as what happened than some rando administrator deciding what to do. It almost feels like another violation because it's not the person is consenting to whatever the Harvard admins are choosing to do either. Are they going to bury it, cremate it, preserve in some secret vault? Unless you have a confirmed descendant making the choice, Harvard isn't doing anything morally better than leaving the book in place. As I said, I'd prefer my sacrifice be left as an example myself where it at least does some good.
Also very different than Native American remains which have established burial practices that were violated.
They still display human remains. This guy they reckon had been crucified -they highlight the nail in his ankle- was at the Romans exhibition at the British Museum last month.
As an aside, the crocodile suit of armour they had was kinda cool.
You don't need to have the physical book to serve as a reminder though.
Tbh I think there is a blurred line when it comes to Auschwitz and similar places too, which are also seen as tourist spots aside from that emotional reflection of a dark part of history. In this example the book wasn't really viewed by people as an emotional piece of reflection but used as a tool to make a sick joke + originally the book was also created in a sick manner with no consent from the individual involved to be used in this manner.
I think that's a massive stretch to say that it's another violation to remove the skin from the book and wish to deposit the remains in a respectful manner and I'm not sure why you are calling it a sacrifice either, it wasn't and isn't.
At the end of the day, I think it's good we are starting to have these conversations and reflections of what may or may not be appropriate and how we navigate displaying and remembering them, whatever choices that are ultimately made.
Last edited:
Indeed, but more museums, the industry, and people involved are pushing the argument not to.They still display human remains. This guy they reckon had been crucified -they highlight the nail in his ankle- was at the Romans exhibition at the British Museum last month.
As an aside, the crocodile suit of armour they had was kinda cool.
It really baffles me that historians could destroy historic artefacts.
What are they destroying?
Historic books, anything related to human remains it seems.
The book hasn't been destroyed. The book originally had no skin binding, so technically they've restored the book to it's original state.
Perhaps insincere wasn't the right choice of words, but I definitely don't see it as comparable to removing statues because as pointed out, statues are glorification while this is not. I'm still not sure what I feel towards it because I also hold the view that a photograph wouldn't convey the same impact as the physical version would.
Since it's a book in a library, it's something that can be used and touched by strangers, but as it's a Harvard library, it's not exactly accessible the way a display in a museum would be. Removing the skin is likely the most respectful thing that can be done, but perhaps leaving it as is and placing it in a museum would be most impactful in conveying the uncomfortable reality of the act.
Still I certainly agree with your point that it's ultimately a good thing that we're assessing the ethics of remembering and displaying, and actually acting upon it.
Completely understand your view even though we disagree.
In terms of the statues, I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison, more using it as the example of how we can alter and change something historic but still ensure that we narrate it with it's full provenance.
From my perspective, if that was my ancestor I'd want it taken off immediately. Your description of it as an "object" is part of the problem - whilst it remains in that state, it also remains objectified, turned from a person into a curio. It offers absolutely nothing intellectually about human nature that I can't see in plenty of other stuff happening as we speak.
I get that he got increasingly immobile near the end of his Arsenal stint, but that's harsh.
I think we disagree on this one.The book hasn't been destroyed. The book originally had no skin binding, so technically they've restored the book to it's original state.
I do remember some controversy about displaying shrunken heads years back, which polarised opinion.
I wouldn't say it's a massive stretch it's just a different point of view. I'm not sure about the book not being used to reflect, we have no idea how different people viewed the book or how anecdotal the stories were or why they were chosen.You don't need to have the physical book to serve as a reminder though.
Tbh I think there is a blurred line when it comes to Auschwitz and similar places too, which are also seen as tourist spots aside from that emotional reflection of a dark part of history. In this example the book wasn't really viewed by people as an emotional piece of reflection but used as a tool to make a sick joke + originally the book was also created in a sick manner with no consent from the individual involved to be used in this manner.
I think that's a massive stretch to say that it's another violation to remove the skin from the book and wish to deposit the remains in a respectful manner and I'm not sure why you are calling it a sacrifice either, it wasn't and isn't.
At the end of the day, I think it's good we are starting to have these conversations and reflections of what may or may not be appropriate and how we navigate displaying and remembering them, whatever choices that are ultimately made.
Any analogy is imperfect but a lot of people choose to be organ donors or donate bodies to science. While this isn't quite the same thing, as I said, if it happened I'd certainly prefer the book be preserved as what actually happened than some rando admin 100+ years later thinking they know what's best.
Because there isn't a family requesting this, I'd say the gesture feels more performative than anything else and doesn't really achieve anything overall.
Indeed, they choose to organ donate etc. whereas the person who was used to be the skin binding didn't choose or consent to being used in this way.
We will have to agree to disagree as i don't think it's performative at all, it's been a nuanced process of assessing how the binding was made, how the book was used or reflected upon in present society and the ethical implications regarding both of those factors.
I always thought that is why museums exist, to show us glimpses of our past including the good, the bad.... and the gruesome! They contribute to us being able to learn from the past and not (hopefully) to repeat it.
It's not worth the investment if all we are going to get is a sanitized version. Perhaps we should just shut them all down, it will stop the 'hand-wringing and save money, nobody can be offended, and then that money can be spent on the here and now, and for the future.
It's not worth the investment if all we are going to get is a sanitized version. Perhaps we should just shut them all down, it will stop the 'hand-wringing and save money, nobody can be offended, and then that money can be spent on the here and now, and for the future.
You can still show glimpses of the past including the good, bad and gruesome, just in different ways.I always thought that is why museums exist, to show us glimpses of our past including the good, the bad.... and the gruesome! They contribute to us being able to learn from the past and not (hopefully) to repeat it.
It's not worth the investment if all we are going to get is a sanitized version. Perhaps we should just shut them all down, it will stop the 'hand-wringing and save money, nobody can be offended, and then that money can be spent on the here and now, and for the future.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Have we reached the point where being against genocide is being woke?