Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

[peteblue]

Nor me. I saw a white kid standing on a black kid. My take on it, (never seen it, never knew it, the medal, even existed) was a sign of colonial oppression.

Its far more disgusting and offensive than a statue in Bristol, thats for sure.

And the symbolism of a white policeman kneeling on a black man isnt lost on me neither

Perhaps this version gives a better understanding, especially as it’s called the Order of St Michael and St George....look closely and you can even see the devils horns....

 

[Lee Smith]

Really? I had absolutely no idea that was St Michael defeating Satan and no idea Satan is depicted as darker skin.

I'm sure many others will be the same.

In all honesty, until I saw that image this afternoon, neither did I. And yeah at first glance it looks iffy, especially when viewed now with everything that’s going on. But it only took 10 mins of research to understand the context of it. Hence why I said “when looked at in context” in my post.

 

[peteblue]

In all honesty, until I saw that image this afternoon, neither did I. And yeah at first glance it looks iffy, especially when viewed now with everything that’s going on. But it only took 10 mins of research to understand the context of it. Hence why I said “when looked at in context” in my post.

But surely it would be better to burn anyone who has ever been awarded the honour just in case.....Millennials going Mad....

 

[gonetomorrow]

Perhaps this version gives a better understanding, especially as it’s called the Order of St Michael and St George....look closely and you can even see the devils horns....

View attachment 91417

The angel looks like he's vaping.

 

[Blueclouds]

This insignia depicts the archangel St. Michael defeating Satan during the War in Heaven. As with the majority of renaissance art and beyond, Satan has for the most part been depicted as a dark colour, be it brown, red, green, black.

When it was founded in 1818, I doubt King George IV said to his artists “hey lads, for the bantz, whack a picture of a white fella standing on a brown fella’s head on there for me will ya please?”

It’s depicting the “historical” (LOL) image as it would have been for portrayed for centuries before, not just in the UK, but elsewhere in the world. I don’t see this as a case of the UK/GB being “racist” as that tweet suggests. Because I reckon most people would look at that picture in context and say “oh look, that’s St. Michael defeating Satan”, rather than, “why is there a white lad standing on a black lad’s head?”.

Lol someone who actually knows the subject before posting responses. Lol

 

[peteblue]

Lol someone who actually knows the subject before posting responses. Lol

He’ll probably get hounded out....

 

[Brennan]

Always said St. Michael was a racist.

 

[Ihaters]

I know nothing about this and havn't read further back a page, but thought I would chime in with an ill informed opinion anyway

To me that's depicting light v dark... i.e good v evil... rather than whites v blacks, but I'm just going by the picture.

ps just did a very quick look. first picture from the first result google bought up when I typed bible devil...

 

[degsy]

Really? I had absolutely no idea that was St Michael defeating Satan and no idea Satan is depicted as darker skin.

I'm sure many others will be the same.

This.
99% of people will only see Its a white guy standing on a black guy

I bet Robertsons are glad they sorted out their Marmalade labels years ago

 

[mill]

There is a history of white washing historical depictions though isn’t there?

The traditional depiction of Jesus being the most obvious one.

I know these things are historical but I think the issue is with the subtleties of the ‘saviour‘ being depicted as white and the baddie being depicted with darker skin and never the other way around.

The thing is, when you look at any of these things in isolation, they seem trivial. But when you put all of these things together, the nuances of all of the depictions, how people of colour are represented in society and the messages these seemingly small in isolation things send in aggregate, it’s death by a million paper cuts.

The issue is that so much of society is built on white supremacy, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past. The constant reminder of that is painful to a lot of people.

 

[PhilM]

There is a history of white washing historical depictions though isn’t there?

The traditional depiction of Jesus being the most obvious one.

I know these things are historical but I think the issue is with the subtleties of the ‘saviour‘ being depicted as white and the baddie being depicted with darker skin and never the other way around.

The thing is, when you look at any of these things in isolation, they seem trivial. But when you put all of these things together, the nuances of all of the depictions, how people of colour are represented in society and the messages these seemingly small in isolation things send in aggregate, it’s death by a million paper cuts.

The issue is that so much of society is built on white supremacy, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past. The constant reminder of that is painful to a lot of people.

Perhaps people (not implying yourself) are over analysing the situation and making assumptions based on the current context and their own understanding.

The saviour is often depicted as white. However, in the Middle Ages many of the countries (England, France and Italy) will have been predominately white.

How many Englishman or Italians will have ever seen a person of colour? Jesus's own ethnicity wouldn't have been understood by most: think of empiricism.

I don't believe that Jesus was intentionally whitewashed, but rather they were depicted in the image that people of the time understood through their experiences.

Satan's depiction is much the same because at first he was often depicted as blue, but over time the image morphed because of lots of different external factors.

Doesn't Dante's Inferno refer to him like as a bat like figure from the bowels of the Earth? Scorched heat? The light of the Earth versus the darkness of hell?

Are people suggesting that in that context "light" means white people and "darkness" means BME rather than the underpinning concept of good versus evil?

Yes, 99% of people may see a white person stood on a black person, but that's assuming that the original rationale and the context are the same as theirs.

 

[Tubey]

Perhaps people (not implying yourself) are over analysing the situation and making assumptions based on the current context and their own understanding.

The saviour is often depicted as white. However, in the Middle Ages many of the countries (England, France and Italy) will have been predominately white.

How many Englishman or Italians will have ever seen a person of colour? Jesus's own ethnicity wouldn't have been understood by most: think of empiricism.

I don't believe that Jesus was intentionally whitewashed, but rather they were depicted in the image that people of the time understood through their experiences.

Satan's depiction is much the same because at first he was often depicted as blue, but over time the image morphed because of lots of different external factors.

Doesn't Dante's Inferno refer to him like as a bat like figure from the bowels of the Earth? Scorched heat? The light of the Earth versus the darkness of hell?

Are people suggesting that in that context "light" means white people and "darkness" means BME rather than the underpinning concept of good versus evil?

Yes, 99% of people may see a white person stood on a black person, but that's assuming that the original rationale and the context are the same as theirs.

That's the case now. Only 13% of people in the USA are black, 87% of the UK is white.

Hence the white saviour trope in movies. It's because traditionally movie makers believe that for the largest audience to self-identify with the lead role, the ethhicity has to be white.

The same principle holds true in Bollywood, where any ethnic minority incursion has been met with quite a bit of backlash - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture...ritish-actresses-told-to-leave-Bollywood.html - it is by and large a natural reaction. We can't pretend that people are colourblind; they aren't. It doesn't mean they're racist; it means the self-identify with their own culture first and foremost.

The trope isn't anywhere near as blatant as it once was and big strides have been made, but ultimately a degree of realism has to be in play. Black people and white people are different in many many ways culturally. They like different things. There's crossover of course but ultimately you're still going to get movies that largely appeal to white sensibilities simply because they're the majority and therefore offer the largest opportunity for profit.

As for the religious aspects, light vs. dark/good vs. evil actually underpinned a lot of early racism as said above, but again, context. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of years ago - the term "racism" was barely a thing. Too many people are looking at these issues exclusively through a modern lens.

 

[mill]

Perhaps people (not implying yourself) are over analysing the situation and making assumptions based on the current context and their own understanding.

The saviour is often depicted as white. However, in the Middle Ages many of the countries (England, France and Italy) will have been predominately white.

How many Englishman or Italians will have ever seen a person of colour? Jesus's own ethnicity wouldn't have been understood by most: think of empiricism.

I don't believe that Jesus was intentionally whitewashed, but rather they were depicted in the image that people of the time understood through their experiences.

Satan's depiction is much the same because at first he was often depicted as blue, but over time the image morphed because of lots of different external factors.

Doesn't Dante's Inferno refer to him like as a bat like figure from the bowels of the Earth? Scorched heat? The light of the Earth versus the darkness of hell?

Are people suggesting that in that context "light" means white people and "darkness" means BME rather than the underpinning concept of good versus evil?

Yes, 99% of people may see a white person stood on a black person, but that's assuming that the original rationale and the context are the same as theirs.

I didn’t say it was intentional but that’s beside the point anyway.

Whether there was intention or not, the point still stands. The issue is with representation and that, whilst in isolation each individual instance might see trivial, in aggregate I can appreciate how it might be beyond frustrating. I can’t really put into words how it might make me feel.

Am I saying we should completely rewrite the now widely universal depiction of Jesus? No.

But I wouldn’t have a problem with a person of colour playing Jesus. in the same way I have no problem with a person of colour playing Bond (as the colour of his skin is implicit anyway). Just think about the reaction to a black actor playing Jesus for a moment. Imagine the reaction. When in reality it’s no less ridiculous than a white actor playing him.

I realise that that these depictions were created in the Middle Ages but they also thought that the world was flat back then and that the earth was the centre of the universe and we haven’t carried on with those traditions have we?

I think we need to be conscious of the fact that the world that we’ve built isn’t as inclusive as we like to think. And I try to consider how I would feel if my own home made me feel marginalised (even unintentionally).

There are unconscious biases that everyone holds whether they like it or not. These things have been programmed and people need to make a conscious decision to put structures in place to counteract these things.

It’s not hard. We just think we need to question and challenge things more. Like why are people of colour underrepresented in leadership positions but over represented in prison?

I do not believe that it’s because people of colour are biologically designed to be rubbish leaders and biologically more inclined to be criminal.

So I believe it’s societal. And that maybe we need to redress the balance of things.

 

[trueblue84]

There is a history of white washing historical depictions though isn’t there?

The traditional depiction of Jesus being the most obvious one.

I know these things are historical but I think the issue is with the subtleties of the ‘saviour‘ being depicted as white and the baddie being depicted with darker skin and never the other way around.

The thing is, when you look at any of these things in isolation, they seem trivial. But when you put all of these things together, the nuances of all of the depictions, how people of colour are represented in society and the messages these seemingly small in isolation things send in aggregate, it’s death by a million paper cuts.

The issue is that so much of society is built on white supremacy, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past. The constant reminder of that is painful to a lot of people.

The bigger issue for me is not the colour of Jesus, but the obvious subversive homoeroticism of making him look unnaturally ripped. I think that's why so many clergymen end up in trouble.

 

[mill]

The bigger issue for me is not the colour of Jesus, but the obvious subversive homoeroticism of making him look unnaturally ripped. I think that's why so many clergymen end up in trouble.

Are you trying to tell us that you fancy Jesus?