Wing Attack Plan R
Full Member
This thread is 9 years old, crazy. PC still ain’t a fad.
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.Don’t see a lot wrong with that, I’ll be honest!
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Initially they were told they'd be disqualified from the competitions for refusing to play, that's now been revoked during "the investigation" into MHFC.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
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.100%. Acknowledge that it was barbaric but it's not like it's a statue glorifying it.
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.
You can acknowledge the people now and the brutality of the objects reflects the history of the time and how we've moved on.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Weren't the mummies generally royalty or nobility and signed up to the practice?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.
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.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.
That's fair enough actually.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.
Most were. But there are cases of accidental mummification, like Ötzi.Weren't the mummies generally royalty or nobility and signed up to the practice?
Why is it insincere?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.