Right wing authoritarianism isn’t subtle.
edit:
added context:
Here is what Ben is replying to:
Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.
Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain’s support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.
Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14
Tired of writing this, the hand wringing over university property being compared to ~30k lives and ~600k starving people has to stop.
This painting is not some culturally important piece of art. It’s a little over 100 years old (literally painted the same year my Granddad was born), hanging in a university, of a man that was responsible for massacres in Ireland (Mitchelstown Massacre) which got him the name “Bloody Balfour”, openly said that black people should be treated worse than white people, and was a known anti-semite that brought about the Aliens Act of 1905 to try and keep Jewish people out of Britain & Ireland.
Imagine a group of Princeton students cutting up a minor painting of Jefferson Davies hanging in their halls and you get roughly the same amount of “cultural loss”.
I agree with ya, but it’s Jefferson Davis
Ahh whoops! Though I don’t feel that bad about misremembering his name 😂
Lol, valid
Damn I thought it was Davies too.
It seems to be more about the entitlement of the people representing the movement than about the art itself from what I’m seeing.
There’s clearly a major issue that needs attention, destroying a painting that’s kinda sorta related does nothing but make you look stupid and distract from the actual issues at hand as we’re seeing here. We’re talking about a painting and not about the failing hostage negotiations or the aid that desperately needs to flow…
This vandal should absolutely face criminal repercussions for this though imo. Doesn’t matter what side of the issue you’re on, what this person did was illegal and there needs to be consequences for breaking the laws of the land.
that’s kinda sorta related
I mean, heavily related and glorifying (by being in one of the most prestigious universities in the world).
This vandal should absolutely face criminal repercussions for this though imo
I don’t know my own mind on this. First, respecting the law of the land is not always good (see: the Holocaust and slavery) and societal justice and moral rightness aren’t the same thing. Second, they did something they believe in and should absolutely be prepared to face societal justice. That doesn’t mean I would pass a sentence myself…it’s a hard one and luckily I have no power or sway in what happens to them because I’d be deliberating with myself for hours haha
Wait, did damaging this painting really bring back the dead and save all those people in Gaza? That’s amazing, why isn’t that the lead story in the news everywhere?
It allowed a group of people tainted by association to stop being tainted by association. It created international news coverage. It highlighted dissatisfaction at one of the leading “politician” schools in the world.
Not a bad trade for a painting that isn’t even one of the ones highlighted on the dudes Wikipedia pagee.
That sounds a lot different and more nuanced than weighing the painting against the entire suffering of the Palestinian people.
I don’t particularly care about this painting, and I hope this ends up doing something positive. But I worry that it is dangerous to celebrate violence just because we like the cause.
the hand wringing over university property being compared to ~30k lives and ~600k starving people has to stop.
Literally was my first line. The thing that got my goat was the comments lamenting the painting and saying they were now less sympathetic to Palestinians because a thing they had never heard of or seen before was destroyed in protest of that person’s legacy.
But I worry that it is dangerous to celebrate violence just because we like the cause.
I find it very disingenuous to compare vandalism to violence. When a house is burning, what’s the advice people give? Leave everything behind: things can be replaced, people can’t. This painting is digitised. It’s a minor painting. There are dozens of others. Comparing its vandalism to the violence the Palestinian people are facing is what prompted me to say “nothing of value has been lost”.
People shouldn’t mess with historic art, no matter how good they think their cause is.
It takes a lot of effort by many dedicated people throughout history to preserve art like this. These works are not individual possessions, but rather owned by us all. They’re part of our shared heritage; we’re merely guardians of it so future generations can enjoy them.
It’s very disrespectful to those efforts when someone attacks a painting.
I think this improved the painting. We have tons of paintings of rich white dudes, we don’t need to preserve them all. And the damage to this painting adds depth and meaning to an otherwise unremarkable piece.
We destroy art daily. Consider all the yiff porn that’s been made over the years.
Why should I respect a painting of a racist asshole more than I respect the effort that went into producing pornography that at least made some innocent people happy while not glorifying genocide?
This painting is there because that guy was rich and donated money to Cambridge. That’s it. Is not even that old (1917). It has no significant historical value any more than a portrait of your town’s Mayor from the same period has.
And frankly, I’d care more about pho tears if I didn’t know about the Anne Frank memorial in my city, that is yearly desecrated (sometimes multiple times in a year) by Nazi shitheads. Yet have you heard about that? No? I wonder why. Why can a memorial of a Holocaust victim get vandalized without a peep yet when a genociders painting is destroyed art is precious?
Briahna is saying a counter to that way of thinking, due to the genocide that is happening.
What is more important, property or to do anything possible to help stop the killling.
Briahna then states the following is what is chosen:
Property over human life, every time.
‘property over human life, every time’ sounds like a nice gotcha. It also simply isn’t applicable here.
That statement would be appropriate if say, Israel bombed a museum in Gaza, and people were upset about the paintings lost rather than the people killed by that same strike.
That statement does NOT apply when someone actively destroys something completely unrelated to it in order to get attention for their cause. Because THEY are the ones doing the destroying. I’d much rather see these ‘protesters’ do something productive like organize aid for civilians in Gaza or collect funds. Nobody in Gaza is helped by people destroying art halfway around the world. In fact, it only turns people away from that cause.
Part of the reason Palestinians are suffering so much is specifically because Israel is attacking property. Attacking and destroying property leading to the death of people. Obviously a painting like this isn’t going to lead to the death of someone, but it’s a bit of a shallow statement when property is also important. In the event of a fire, human life over property.
I think we would agree that a ceasefire would help stop the genocide and the destruction of Palestinian property.
The tweet is focusing on the backlash from Ben vs. his stance on the genocide of Palestinians.
So I guess you’d say the same thing if somebody was defacing paintings of hitler? Oh I know you think your cause of bringing attention to the holocaust is noble but this isn’t the way - this only turns people away and destroys our valued shared heritage of oppression and violence 🥰
And there’s Godwin’s law in action, right on cue.
But to answer your question, yes: I’d say the same thing. Because they are arguably much more historically significant than the painting in this topic. Because Hitler’s shitty painting career in part led him to become the madman he was.
Also, there’s no reason to destroy his paintings to bring attention to the Holocaust. Because it’s taught in literally every history class.
I was meaning an actual portrait, but even Godwin didn’t think his law was a fallacy.
And in this case I think it’s actually quite apt, considering we are discussing somebody defacing a painting, instead of, you know, the actual genocide going on right now?
Like I’ll gladly drop this argument and go protest against the ongoing war crimes - will you do the same?
These works are not individual possessions, but rather owned by us all
It is the reason they are doing it. Attacking corp property will bring only justice and people will not be interested much.
What’s the context behind this?
Here is what Ben is replying to:
Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.
Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain’s support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.
Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14
Of all the ways to try to get support for your cause, this has got to be one of the least effective strategies ever
Because it’s not about gaining support. It’s about hurting people that you hate by destroying things they care about, like art.
Property over human life, every time.
You may be right, but that is why the above statement was made.
Backlash over historic paintings vs. 30,000+ deaths and counting.
I guess that is what the protestors want…
There are atrocities of different scales happening all the time. There are only so many irreplaceable historical artifacts. If you destroy a historical artifact for every atrocity, eventually there will be no historical artifacts left and atrocities will still be happening.
Tired of writing this: this painting is not some culturally important piece of art. It’s a little over 100 years old, hanging in a university, of a man that was responsible for massacres in Ireland (Mitchelstown Massacre) which got him the name “Bloody Balfour”. Regardless of where you stand on Palestine, Balfour was not a good human and this is akin to toppling a minor statue of a Confederate in America - one that is not even on display to the wider public.
EDIT to add a quote from Balfour when asked about whether the treatment of Black people in South Africa was immoral:
“We have to face the facts,” Lord Balfour said. “Men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities: they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change.”
Christ what an asshole Balfour was. Bigotry is so fucking wrong I can’t even make coherent words.
Can’t find any evidence that this is even a real tweet. These “text on image” posts should always be vetted with an actual link.
Added context.
With direct link to video.
Thanks!
Gotta say destroying art, especially historic, is a pretty shitty thing to do. It’s literally irreplaceable.
Edit: Oh, I should add that I still can’t see the posts on twitter itself. Not sure what their settings are like for non-users these days though, but it looks like it should be there. None of the posts I can see have that format either, with the “breaking news” heading and red light emoticon.
Looking at it from the protestors view:
Protesting the genocide happening: 30,000+ dead
Are Palestinians replaceable as well…
Property over human life, every time.
Okay, but what actual reason is there to weigh the two against each other. Destroying art has no actual benefit towards effecting change in Gaza.
I think the protestors wanted backlash and social media coverage.
Again to highlight the genocide in Palestine.
I was able to find this:
Palestine Action vows to continue their direct campaign until Elbit is shut down and British complicity with the colonisation of Palestine ends.
These protests have actually made me less sympathetic to Palestine, not more so. Destroying property, in particular irreplaceable artwork, is not something I can accept under any circumstances.
Says a lot that people are wringing their hands over this painting so much
Probably graffiti?
I have added context.
North Korea is left-wing authoritarianism though…
Ehhh, on paper, yes. In practice, it has traits of both LWA and RWA and transcends simple classification like that.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’m with Ben on this one. That was an artwork painted long before any living person was born, and should be still around long after any of us die.
Destroying history in the name of a cause should never be acceptable.
…Arthur Balfour died in 1930 and was painted in 1914 (7 years after the oldest living person was born). It’s hanging in Trinity College, not the National Gallery. It’s really not a culturally significant piece of art.
The painting is actually more recent than I thought, but destroying it is still scummy.
The house I just bought has pipes almost as old, and just as artistically significant as this random nonsense. I’m still going to replace them
Ok let’s extend your logic to its maxima - so what you’re saying is that if you had to choose between destroying all paintings in the world or everyone dying - you’d choose everyone to die and save the paintings?
Most sane centrist ever…
Your heart is in the right place, but this is a strawman argument.
People do die for culture, choose to die to protect their heritage. I’m sure there’s several philosophy PhDs worth of conversation to be had about that.
In this case: no history has been lost, no culture destroyed, and nothing of value lost. I suggest avoiding getting lost in hypotheticals because the actual case is a lot more clear cut. No one should lose their lives (inc the damage of a lengthy prison sentence) for this instance.
I’d reserve that for those who live in maximal terms. They’re worth less than the paintings 😘
