Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[oneniltothearsenal]

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.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I don't look at those at the same thing but I think they are fundamentally different.

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.

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.

 

[Jippy]

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.

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

Indeed, but more museums, the industry, and people involved are pushing the argument not to.

 

[Jippy]

It really baffles me that historians could destroy historic artefacts.

 

[VorZakone]

It really baffles me that historians could destroy historic artefacts.

What are they destroying?

 

[Jippy]

What are they destroying?

Historic books, anything related to human remains it seems.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

 

[jadaba]

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.

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

 

[Ubik]

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.

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.

 

[Scandi Red]

Most were. But there are cases of accidental mummification, like Ötzi.

I get that he got increasingly immobile near the end of his Arsenal stint, but that's harsh.

 

[Jippy]

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 think we disagree on this one.

I do remember some controversy about displaying shrunken heads years back, which polarised opinion.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

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.

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.

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

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.

 

[Maticmaker]

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

You can still show glimpses of the past including the good, bad and gruesome, just in different ways.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[maniak]

Have we reached the point where being against genocide is being woke?

 

[Scandi Red]

Have we reached the point where being against genocide is being woke?

The word "woke" lost all meaning a long time ago, so we might as well throw "being against genocide" in the shit pile too.

 

[berbatrick]

another free hit from the free speech crowd. the fact that they're so openly and totally hypocritical doesn't matter because of the mental caliber of those who follow them.

 

[The Corinthian]

another free hit from the free speech crowd. the fact that they're so openly and totally hypocritical doesn't matter because of the mental caliber of those who follow them.

Both hilarious and sad watching the US cannibalise itself in different ways and walks of everyday life from the fall out of backing Israel to the hilt.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

This Morning presenter Cat Deeley has apologised to viewers after she joked about having a seizure on Monday's show.

Deeley drew criticism after co-host Ben Shephard asked if she was alright after she began dancing on the ITV programme, and she responded: "I'm fine, I'm just having a seizure."

The Epilepsy Society charity wrote on X, external: "Seizures are no laughing matter for people with #epilepsy @catdeeley. Please do better and educate yourselves about this difficult and poorly understood condition, @thismorning."

On Tuesday, Deeley said during the start of the show: "I just wanted to apologise to anyone who was offended yesterday when I made a light-hearted comment about my dancing style.


It's a joke about her own dancing.

 

[Gehrman]

This Morning presenter Cat Deeley has apologised to viewers after she joked about having a seizure on Monday's show.

Deeley drew criticism after co-host Ben Shephard asked if she was alright after she began dancing on the ITV programme, and she responded: "I'm fine, I'm just having a seizure."

The Epilepsy Society charity wrote on X, external: "Seizures are no laughing matter for people with #epilepsy @catdeeley. Please do better and educate yourselves about this difficult and poorly understood condition, @thismorning."

On Tuesday, Deeley said during the start of the show: "I just wanted to apologise to anyone who was offended yesterday when I made a light-hearted comment about my dancing style.


It's a joke about her own dancing.

"I crapped my pants".

Later an apology to people who suffer from chronic diarrhea.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

 

[SilentWitness]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

Why didn't you just ask them to refer to you in the way which you preferred?

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Why didn't you just ask them to refer to you in the way which you preferred?

Well firstly it wasn’t just how they referred to me. It was other people. When it was referred to as me, for example the receptionist speaking to the security guy, I didn’t see the point because I wasn’t going to be spending time with either

And it wasn’t that deep or anything at the time. I just think “them” and “they” sounds wrong on the ear and wondered if anyone else gets that

 

[decorativeed]

Well firstly it wasn’t just how they referred to me. It was other people. When it was referred to as me, for example the receptionist speaking to the security guy, I didn’t see the point because I wasn’t going to be spending time with either

And it wasn’t that deep or anything at the time. I just think “them” and “they” sounds wrong on the ear and wondered if anyone else gets that

Yeah, you've probably not got the job.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Yeah, you've probably not got the job.

I don’t think you’ve actually read what I’ve said and are just assuming things

 

[The Boy]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

That's really odd, I've worked for the BBC for years and have had lots of interviews for various roles, I've never come across that. In my experience they is only used when people have indicated that that is their preference. Which part of the BBC were you interviewing for?

 

[jojojo]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

Whereas when I was at primary school referring to a teacher or any adult or anyone for that matter as "she" would be greeted by a: "Who's she? The cat's mother."
Because a proper Miss, Mrs, Auntie or whatever title or the person's own name should have been included.

Language changes and a place like the BBC will often find itself ahead of the crowd, as they hear the people the voices who are directly impacted earlier. If only because of the sheer number of voices they hear.

Personally I don't mind the they but then I often used it as a singular in the past, long before the current pronouns debate began - it sounds right to my ear. I can see why it strikes oddly to someone who doesn't use it that way themselves. I will say though that language keep moving and I often have to play catch-up.

 

[Rado_N]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

How would you refer to someone if you didn’t know their gender?

 

[M16Red]

I went for an interview at BBC in London and nobody said a pronoun the whole time. Everyone is “they” or “them”

I don’t find it offensive - but does anyone else hate being referred to as a “they” or “them”? It hits my ear as rude. Like I’m not even an identity, I’m just an ‘it’

As a side note: in primary school we got in trouble with the teacher for calling people “them” rather than he or she - how times change

It's not really that bad, is it?

if you went in holding an England flag then you'd be a racist, worse than an "it".

 

[LawCharltonBest]

That's really odd, I've worked for the BBC for years and have had lots of interviews for various roles, I've never come across that. In my experience they is only used when people have indicated that that is their preference. Which part of the BBC were you interviewing for?

“External communications” is what it says on the email.

Perhaps it was just the bit I was in. I also didn’t mean the BBC but to become the important part of my post, it was just a prelude to my they/them query. So I appreciate people will have different experiences with the BBC

Just for me I was there maybe an hour, give or take, and spoke to perhaps 6 different people and overheard staff conversations in the building and there was a lot of “they/them” and no “he” or “she” - maybe I’d go back tomorrow and get the opposite

 

[LawCharltonBest]

How would you refer to someone if you didn’t know their gender?

Yes I get that. It’s a tough one. I’m not criticising the people who say it as I’m thinking that’s how it’s being received on here. To simplify I just wondered if “they” and “them” sounded wrong to anyone else

It's not really that bad, is it?

if you went in holding an England flag then you'd be a racist, worse than an "it".

It’s not that bad. I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was

 

[SilentWitness]

Well firstly it wasn’t just how they referred to me. It was other people. When it was referred to as me, for example the receptionist speaking to the security guy, I didn’t see the point because I wasn’t going to be spending time with either

And it wasn’t that deep or anything at the time. I just think “them” and “they” sounds wrong on the ear and wondered if anyone else gets that

I don't really see it as a big deal. As Rado says, if you don't know someones gender then they and them is a neutral way of being able to speak about someone. If you prefer to be referred to in another way it's an easy problem to solve.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Whereas when I was at primary school referring to a teacher or any adult or anyone for that matter as "she" would be greeted by a: "Who's she? The cat's mother."
Because a proper Miss, Mrs, Auntie or whatever title or the person's own name should have been included.

Language changes and a place like the BBC will often find itself ahead of the crowd, as they hear the people the voices who are directly impacted earlier. If only because of the sheer number of voices they hear.

Personally I don't mind the they but then I often used it as a singular in the past, long before the current pronouns debate began - it sounds right to my ear. I can see why it strikes oddly to someone who doesn't use it that way themselves. I will say though that language keep moving and I often have to play catch-up.

Oh yeah I had that “cats mother” speech from my auntie once too

I know it’s a hard one to get right and I want to stress that my post wasn’t a criticism of the people at the BBC

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I don't really see it as a big deal. As Rado says, if you don't know someones gender then they and them is a neutral way of being able to speak about someone. If you prefer to be referred to in another way it's an easy problem to solve.

Of course it’s not a big deal. The people at the BBC were lovely people. And I’d probably do the same in their shoes. Just cringe a bit when someone refers to me when speaking about me as “they/them”. I’ll of course say “he” is fine if necessary

 

[M16Red]

Yes I get that. It’s a tough one. I’m not criticising the people who say it as I’m thinking that’s how it’s being received on here. To simplify I just wondered if “they” and “them” sounded wrong to anyone else

It’s not that bad. I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was

They and them doesn't sound wrong.

It does take getting used to, just drop the he/him and her

 

[Scandi Red]

How would you refer to someone if you didn’t know their gender?

Maybe I'm insensitive, but I would just ask them.

If they clearly try to present as one gender then using he/she is only wrong if they are non-binary. That's a risk I'm willing to take for the time being.