Posted by dryadin 6 days ago
into the void, or off the edge?
"off the edge" is a clear interpretation of the statue. "into the void" is a bit more of a stretch. IMHO.
But that's art for you. Everyone has their own take on it.
Since that's all the info it gives us, it is acceptable to believe what we are shown is what we are "supposed to" see.
When Whistler paints one half of his mother's profile, I just naturally assume she has the other half of her body, too.
but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about.
> Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy.
note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.
I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.
That is (in this context), don't bother trying to give truth (or even have a reasonable conversation) with those who simply will not listen. Zealots, shill, propagandists... it's like talking to a brick wall. If anyone has a technique for getting them to stop being a brick wall and start actually engaging with what you're saying, I'd like to know what it is.
You can call it "transmit only mode" (hat tip Patrick McClure). When you realize that the person you're talking to is in transmit only mode, you understand how the conversation is going to go if you continue it.
First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
When I say 'false equivalence' in this context I don't mean 'nationalist protesters are all bad and trans rights protesters are all good'. Of course there are bad actors in the trans rights camp, people who are blinded by their own flag; likewise I'm sure there are well-intentioned and peaceful nationalists who are simply misinformed. I submit to you however that the number of, and danger presented by bad actors in the former camp is severely limited compared to the bad actors in the camp of people who hate foreigners and wish to see them expelled and/or commit violence against them. Even without comparing actual events, that would seem to be self-evident given the trans rights cause itself is centered around support and love for a group of people, and once you do compare actual events the difference is obvious. I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march.
Do you really think the two are basically morally equivalent? That someone could not reasonably criticise rising and widespread nationalist hatred if they don't also, with the same vigour, also call out a handful of zealots aggressively pushing for acceptance and fair treatment?
As I said I totally accept I may have misunderstood you and/or the other commenters here, so please enlighten me if so.
If only that were true. As a political project, it's mostly focused on abolishing the boundaries around single-sex spaces, and certainly in terms of rhetoric, mostly those boundaries used to safeguard women and girls.
Just look at the frequent threats of violence and death threats that women who speak out against this, such as JK Rowling, receive from trans ideological activists. This is not a movement of love and support.
> I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march.
That's because you are male and you're not in disagreement with them. If you were female with "terf" views you would almost certainly feel differently. There are some dangerous, violent men who attend these marches, as is the case with the nationalist ones.
Equal rights for trans folks is a political project, eh? Who's the project manager? :)
> Just look at the frequent threats of violence and death threats that women who speak out against [equal rights for trans folks]
What reaction did you expect to someone advocating against equal rights? To someone advocating for unequal rights for people who are different? To someone fanning the flames of the frequent threats of violence and death threats received by the women who speak out for equal rights for trans folks?
You're familiar with Popper's Paradox of Tolerance? It would be counterproductive to expect folks to tolerate any and all intolerance, and it would be cruel gaslighting to expect the victims of abuse to be tolerant towards their persecutors.
But more to the point, while you may think the meaning is a bit obvious, the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test. I'm sure there are tons of people thinking "Ha ha, this is the perfect commentary on all those idiot <people on the other side who I disagree with> wrapping themselves up in their ideology of <patriotism/social justice/cause du jour> as they march <some particular country/society/the world at large off a cliff>".
In other words, I'm guessing you probably felt the meaning was "obvious" because you filled in the blanks in the above madlibs-style statement in a way that feels obvious to you, and I think folks on "the other side" would probably fill in the blanks with the exact opposite notions in a way that feels "obvious" to them.
... anyone who engages in this behaviour, yes. Not anyone nor everyone does.
You'd be very surprised.
Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).
Cornwall has had a white cross on a black flag since 18something. Devon decided to adopt a black edged white cross on a green flag. I remember seeing Devon flag car stickers in the '80s - its a little older than that. Somerset now has ... a flag. Yellow and red I think.
No idea why because people can't decide what it is! The land itself knows exactly what and where it is but the political boundaries ebb and flow with the phases of the moon. Is Avon included ... what is Avon? Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on. Anyway, do Devon and Somerset and co really need a flag? No of course not.
What we really need is a Wessex flag, which will take over Mercia ... and a few other regional efforts ... and end up as a red cross on a white background. Then we could munge that with a couple of other flags and confuse the entire world with something called the Union Flag.
Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!
The seats in parliament that represent it and the local authority structure have changed, of course, the same as everywhere else in the country, but the boundaries of Somerset have remained constant for a long time.
Bristol is absolutely not "North Somerset" as a general case (though certain suburbs do extend into Somerset counties, but on that basis Bristol is as much "South Gloucestershire").
> Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on.
Bath has always been in Somerset and "BANES" literally stands for "Bath and North East Somerset".
Welsh for river.
I often feel like I would understand a lot more names if I bothered learning Welsh. It's pretty popular for made up climbing route names too, because Wales is so good for it I guess. Allegedly some of the classics in the Avon gorge are Welsh derived but I could never figure them out to be sure.
There is a river Avon in England. Welsh at least (inst. celtae) has a noun for "river" which is "afon".
I'm often surprised that Bristol (a lefty city) is surrounded by very right-leaning areas, but I suppose that's the nature of a bubble. I don't think it makes a huge amount of sense to try to lump us in all together, at least politically.
As an aside, it still annoys me when websites put "Avon" as the county - it no longer exists and even the Post Office does this and they're the ones who should definitely know about it.
As far as flags go, I'm very much against the "flag-shaggers" who go around putting up England's St George Cross flag - most of the time, the flags are seen as threatening to minorities which is very much NOT the general Bristolian attitude. (I actually live in St George, Bristol, so somewhat ironic that I'm cross about that flag).
Flags are literally a statement of identity, but I think that comes in two distinct flavors:
1. The national flag which is planted in a state of ownership and assimilation 2. A protest flag to state to others that they are not alone in their protest.
I could be missing something but I think it is effectively this simple.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_who_oppose_Donald_Tr...
If anything, I'm more surprised Banksy didn't depict literal flag-shagging.
This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
※ I admit that Xi Jinping wears a suit, but I'm still classifying that theory under "plausible deniability".
Who necessarily cares what the original design of Waterloo Place is for, it's also just a place in the center of London with lots of foot traffic, visibility and a ton of statues. Or that the place Banksy is from threw a statue into the river (that connection in particular is quite the stretch - are you saying all the things that happened in your home town are inherently reflections of you?).
The more I see people declare that their interpretation is "right" (just see the argument thread over whether right wing or left wing people are more likely to wrap themselves up in a flag), the more I think this is a pretty brilliant piece of art.
The statue is blank because deliberate ambiguity is the arty thing to do, because provocation is supposed to be a praiseworthy aspect of art.
But it's paper-thin ambiguity, and ambiguity isn't praiseworthy anyway. Inexplicit meaning is praiseworthy, but that's something else. This statue just has a veneer to suggest that it might possibly be saying something other than what the artist obviously thinks, if you know all about him, as we do.
You said, "Whether we think he's a hack", which fundamentally changes what is being discussed.
The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy. Not because it is a clever or "deep" piece. It's disappointingly surface level, and the fact that we're talking about that doesn't suggest otherwise.
Baloney. It's a guerilla sculpture put up in the center of London. My guess is we might be talking about it more if it were unsigned as a case of whodunnit.
But for me personally, I roll my eyes at all the ex-art students who always complain "it's a hack" for any piece of art that appeals to a wide audience and isn't some obnoxious 8-layers deep meaning. You literally see it all the time, and half the time it just strikes me as thinly-veiled jealousy, if not from the art student perspective than from the "I'm so much more sophisticated than the unwashed masses" perspective.
It happened on HN a few months ago in a post about Simon Berger, an artist who makes portraits with cracked glass. The artist has achieved relatively wide appeal, and many of the comments here were along the lines of "Meh, he's a talentless hack, he just stumbled along a 'cool' technique but the subjects are boring."
I'd have a lot more respect for folks that could just say "it's not my bag" and move on, rather than pretend they're so much more sophisticated than people who enjoy this art.
I would agree that "it's not my bag" is a fine thing to say about some art gallery piece that fails to inspire you, but when a statue is foisted upon the public square, with possible state cooperation, we're allowed to criticize it. He has inserted it into the conversation.
Moreover, the main complaint about this statue isn't coming from some expert artiste perspective, saying that it's somehow unsophisticated as art. The complaint here is that it's making a truly banal political statement. The entire piece consists of making that statement, with little else to recommend it. (Indeed, most political art is hack, unless it's saying something really original or really well, and it's even worse when it tries to be cute about it.)
So here, the complaints are coming from everyday onlookers who might not be qualified artistically, but who are able to say which sorts of statements are tiresome and overplayed in the culture we all live in. We are all qualified to ask ourselves whether this predictable statement advances or degrades the conversation.
Anyhow, FWIW, I just looked up Simon Berger's portraits based on your comment, and I really like them. Thanks.
I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art but couldn't find it there. The "anti-essentialist" section is good, though, I think. It has Berys Gaut listing ten properties of art, all of which are nice-to-have but none of which are essential. Then if a piece ticks lots of boxes it's a shoo-in, but if it doesn't tick many of them you can argue about it.
Some of those involve eliciting some sort of response, but you could also have a decorative piece with this combo:
(i) aesthetic, (iv) complex, (v) meaningful, (vi) idiosyncratic, (vii) imaginative, (viii) skillful, (ix) art-shaped, (x) intentional
Which would be 8 out of 10, to which we could add "completely ignorable" and it could still be art. I don't see why attention-grabbing and provocation is important, and it certainly isn't sufficient on its own, plus it's irritating.
It's an idea, it describes something real. We can all make our own guesses and our own assertions about what that is, and then we can critique them and try to make them agree. There's no point just saying "we can all think whatever we like about anything" and leaving it there.
From a British perspective there's no ambiguity, flag shagging is a right-wing activity.
Political movements in general don't seem to be particularly immune to flag shagging, only the colors vary a lot.
But I am pretty sure that Banksy means right-wing flag worship as well. He is a master of "provocative conformism" and wouldn't produce anything that would get him into a real risk of controversy. His art is very fine-tuned to the sensibilities of the English and American chattering class; same recipe for success as Paul Krugman or Malcolm Gladwell.
Quantity has quality all of its own. Although many different causes use flags for promotion, the obsession that certain elements of the English right have with the English flag is at a completely different level.
There were definitely places where you had 7-8 of them in your view while walking random streets.
You may want to check the obsession that people on the left have with the Palestinian flag. Any situation is good to show it off even when it has nothing to do with Palestine.
(I’m more likely to see the white rose of the House of York in “opposition” to the flag shaggers than a rainbow or anything else, in my neck of the woods, but there’s only a few of these flying)
I do like the wider interpretation though, that any ideology can blind you.
Personally I kind of thought of Russia which is about the only lot marching off to war with Russian and Z flags all over.
The St George lot mostly just moan about immigrants.
If they do, what do they stand for, and what would someone hanging one, versus the other, be communicating?
The sculpture's message isn't "flags are bad" - it's using a flag as a metaphor for nationalism/blind patriotism (based on the rest of the statue, the location chosen, what it's a response to, and Banksy's other works).
I'm seeing a lot of flags.
Perhaps I should have used the term “sovereign state”, as that’s more precise, even though when most people use the colloquial term “nation” (as in “nationalism”) they’re referring to a sovereign state.
A sovereign state has borders they can enforce to their own discretion (political gridlock notwithstanding), a stable and well-defined (non-transient) population, a single recognized government (both internally and externally), and ability to conduct foreign relations without being stopped by force or decree.
So, with that more precise definition out of the way, you can recognize that the flags in your links do not represent sovereign states, but rather peoples - who, coincidentally, are often fighting for their rights and freedoms.
Elsewhere in the thread are mentions of nation flags, like the Union Jack, which represent a sovereign state, and are instead often associated with national identity, xenophobia and oppression.
Hope that helps!
Who is trans? Anyone who identifies as trans.
Who is British? Anyone who identifies as British.
There's not a lot of difference there. Citizenship COULD be used, but now you're talking about two different domains of language. A person who is British but now has an American citizenship, still talks with a British accent and identifies as British is still British. The same way a trans person with XY is still a woman if she identifies as a women, even though that person is also a male in another domain of speech.
Humans who identify as "humans, not animals" are just stupid and wrong in the scientific domain of speech, but absolutely correct and reasonable in the colloquial domain of speech.
The distinction I’m drawing is that flags that represent peoples are usually more ideologically pure: people seeking justice or rights. They may be co-opted over time by more actors who deviate from the original intention (e.g. Gadsden Flag).
Nation flags, on the other hand, are by definition exclusionary towards an outgroup that exists by legal distinction. In the historical record, nationalism rarely works out well for anyone who sits outside the definition of a nation. Nationalism is a useful tool during wartime, especially during the early years of a nation (e.g. colonial revolutions) or when facing an existential threat (e.g. Ukraine), but it’s an ideological debt that may end up being paid by future generations when someone comes along and wraps themselves and their ideology in the flag and paints their opposition as “unamerican”, for example.
Is your point that all flags have the same ideological utility no matter what they represent? Or is your point not talking about flags at all and instead focusing on the difference between “sovereign state” and “nation”?
I did notice how extremely specific that was. Because the current LGBTQ+ grouping have been quite exclusionary towards even LGB for quite some time now. Your point that they can be coopted is something I absolutely agree with.
> In the historical record, nationalism rarely works out well for anyone who sits outside the definition of a nation.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?". Pax Americana has been ENORMOUSLY beneficial for billions of people starting in 1943 arguably. And obviously the Roman Empire was followed by the Dark Ages. You're cherry picking.
> Is your point that all flags have the same ideological utility no matter what they represent?
I think my original point when posting that there's a lot of flag waving on the left, is that... well.. the post before that claimed there isn't which is just wrong. Now I would say that my point is that ALL movements/nations/corporations/whatever are co-optable. There's absolutely no difference between nations or movements.
It's not a left vs right thing. It never was. People who say it are are historically ignorant, naive, willfully ignorant, or a combination of those. "Right" and "left" are pretty much meaningless anyway. We have to look at individual movements, people, policies, and actions individually without falling back to our own group identity to judge the moral character of the thing.
I've seen people claim that since "the left" were right about women's rights, then it must be ok whatever "the left" is doing now because historically "the left" is always on the right side of history. Just ignoring the 100+ million dead from communism.
You could have left it at that.
Instead you decided on an emotional outburst due to being downvoted by "idiots" - giving us all an absolute textbook example of "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
Thanks!
To deface it would first have to have a face.
- Creator of Black Mirror, 5 years before series premiere
It's got just the right mix of highbrow disdain, unironic self righteousness and naughty language to titillate the average guardian reader though.
(Also, if you're familiar with Charlie Brooker's output, he's not really a 'highbrow' type. He started out in games journalism.)
He got more famous and acclaimed since black mirror.
At the same time it's painfully obvious it riled him up being a more obscure and less famous equivalent of banksy.
I suppose I should've figured that one out.
My mother grew up with the currency around her not being decimal but by her teens the government were explicitly warning that this was coming and she learned that e.g. a pound has 100 new pence in school ready for a career where this would soon go from theory to practice, when she finished school the poster campaigns were running IIRC.
His other works aren't subtle.
I don’t understand this. What speaks pro-establishment in this piece?
If the man holding the flag had been wearing a thawb instead of a suit, or if the statue had been of a woman, I think the establishment's response would be quite different.
1. From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9wlnwl85o "We're excited to see Banksy's latest sculpture in Westminster, making a striking addition to the city's vibrant public art scene. While we have taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy."
2. From https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/world/europe/banksy-londo... "Banksy has a great ability to inspire people from a range of backgrounds to enjoy modern art. His work always draws great interest and debate, and the mayor is hopeful that his latest piece can be preserved for Londoners and visitors to enjoy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_St_James...
It's not exactly subtle. A man goose stepping while blinded by a flag is a contrast to the other military figures portrayed in victorious poses.
That's argumentum ad speculum[0]. You can speculate what the response would be if the statue was different in a way you imagine, but the thing is, it's not.
[0]: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothe...
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/29/uk/st-george-flag-england...
As for Banksy who incidentally also likes making surreptitious additions to other people's property, he's never exactly been subtle about which school of politics he doesn't like
There's nothing about subtly in that claim, and all forms of art are equally valid, if not the same quality.
Bansky's art has always been blunt and whimsical, probably because he makes popular street art. It's meant to be "accessible" for your average passerby who might only engage with it for a fraction of a second, but maybe get a little surprise when they do.
That says more about "the people below" on HN to me. There's a strong strand of contrarian, pseudo-intellectual sophistry. I.e. it's "clever" to talk yourself out of seeing the obvious.
It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
Did you look at his artwork of a judge hitting a protestor with a gavel while the protestor was bleeding on the ground and think “huh, I wonder what this means” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z30p033ro).
By those standards a man wrapped in the flag walking off the edge is the height of subtlety. I guarantee you this - none of the people it should be offending will realise he’s talking about them.
Not sure if you are serious, but my experience is the exact opposite…
Which flag? Or, what kind of flag? Or does it matter?
If you asked 100 people to imagine a particular flag to attach to that statue, 95% of them are going to be current, unrecognized, or former states.
"It's clearly the national flag"
It's not like Banksy is known for being a sophisticated highfalutin MFA student anyway. Like it or not, appealing to the masses with simple and clear moral messages has always been his deal.
Now? He makes millions off his work while still thumbing his nose at capitalism? Doesn't ring the same any more. You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
There really is no winning when you become famous. When people liked you before and you are effectively still the same but just richer they call you part of the problem, if you aren't richer people just don't know you and you most likely arent actually famous. Usually money follows the fame and vice versa (unless you specifically use your money to remain anonymous).
You absolutely can though. This is a false dichotomy.
It depends on what you do with that money, no?
I'll be one of the first to agree that most rich people have likely gotten where the are by doing at least some immoral or unethical things, and that many of those people try to whitewash their image with philanthropy. But there certainly exist rich people who got there as ethically as one can in this world, and use that money to try to change things.
Sure, there are many fewer of the latter people than the former, but I think it's unfair to automatically assume that "made some money" = "part of the system".
What makes you think so? I think it depends on what happens to the money extracted from the system. Do we know how Banksy uses it?
Example: "I'm rich and think I should pay more in taxes because I have it more than good enough" vs "I'm rich and think that I'm already paying too much in taxes". Neither is inconsistent or hypocritical.
Other example: "I got rich by extracting more from my workers than was justifiable compared to what they produced, and that should probably be regulated" vs "I got rich by providing value I got paid for, and created a lot of jobs, and we should have less regulation so I could do more of it".
Banksy is sometimes interesting but he and subtle don't belong on the same planet.
Sadly, in this day and age, that simple one-punch obvious meaning is just what's needed.
I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.
If we don't remind ourselves of these situations to be aware of we can easily get mired in our daily lives and forget these important matters. It becomes easy to ignore. Especially if the bad stuff does not effect you. If one becomes complacent, one becomes part of the problem in the hope the problem won't come after them.
This same thing goes for anything that needs to stick whether its programming, therapy, or playing a musical instrument. The more you practice something the more it sticks.
I also think obviousness is overindexed as the indicator of bad art because it's often the easiest property to articulate about something thoroughly bad. A lot of the tv and movies that make me quote the robot devil ("You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!") would not be improved by making the characters subtler. They could be the same level, or even more forthcoming, if the writing sounded like natural conversations real people have.
“I remember when all this was trees” [1] is maybe the best example. Detroit hasn’t been “trees” in something like two centuries. Platitudes doused in treacle.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/01/ba...
For clarity, the shredder was part of the work and the sale was of the half destroyed piece along with shredder and chaff.
Off the top of my head, I'd guess the message is closer to an observation about being disconnected from history in the modern world leading to vaguely defined feelings of angst and alienation.
"I don't get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave them to the symbol-minded." -George CarlinModern Slavery Stats:
1. Asia and the Pacific: ~29.3 million (6.8 per 1000 ppl)
2. Africa: ~7.0 million (5.2 per 1000)
3. Europe and Central Asia: ~6.4 million (6.9 per 1000)
4. Americas: ~5.1 million (5 per 1000)
5. Arab States: ~1.7 (10.1 per 1000 [highest] )
It also discounts the value of groups, absent concerns about competition. No man is an island, and the society you grow up in, the people you grow up with, greatly affect who you become and what your life is like. To say it doesn't matter who you live around discards all that, or reveals the profound mistake (or lie) of thinking who makes up a society doesn't affect what the society is like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_slave
This is arguably the reason why the Overton window has shifted towards the rejection of human slavery over the last century or so, with the growth of fossil fuel use.
Human slavery will thus likely swing back into fashion again in the future as oil, coal and natural gas run out.
There must be some other solution, surely! If only we could somehow find some other source of energy...
(Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag (put up by Banksy)))) in central London
It is intended to be
((Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag))) (put up by Banksy)) in central London
You really don't see any good ol' fashioned short and sweet headlines that read best to the ear in a Mid-Atlantic accent anymore.
It's an offence against public decency however you slice it!
As for who paid for it, I don't know, possibly the extremely successful and wealthy artist who created it.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.
It's not like the wealthiest city in the UK is lacking in resources to do something about it.
> This urban camouflage guise is very useful for parking in yellow zones, urban/industrial exploration, and crime deterrence. And the thing is… it really works!
There's a (mostly terrible) documentary about a previous bansky "statue" deposited in London that, in one of its better moments, tracks down the people who actually make statues for artists like banksy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banksy_Job
edit: I feel I should clarify that this is not an official Banksy documentary. He made "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is an amazing film which I highly recommend to anyone.
The Wall Street Bull was a guerilla art piece too. It's a real bronze. Weighs about three metric tons. It's hugely popular, although it's been moved a few times. Banksy's work should be replicated in bronze and stone and placed permanently.
And very likely had very little to do with the current state of the place. Pride at age 21? Meaningless vanity, like being proud of being born with a silver spoon. Pride at age 80? Sure, if it was a life well-lived.
Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?
It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.
Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir.
Clear enough?
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs.
You did not choose your parents, country, ancestry, class, era, genes, language, or inherited institutions. You may be inseparable from those facts, but you did not earn them.
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents
> we were so fortunate to inherit from them.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory: treating an ancestor’s achievement as your own personal merit, or using ancestry to rank yourself above others.
> toiled and strived to deliver the place that we were so fortunate to inherit
> our responsibility to defend and improve that place for the coming generations of our people.
So then Native Americans have a stronger claim than European descendants? Or is that a standard to only be applied moving forward?
That's also like the caste system in India: only children of brahmins can be brahmins, children of shudras can only be shudras. One is superior to another by inheritance, not merit.
That's ugly and abhorrent.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
>you did not earn them
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors. Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. We earned them.
>These two statements appear to be contradictory
Only if you believe such things to be due to purely random chance. I can feel 'fortunate' that my parents got me the bike I really wanted for Christmas, but there's no randomness in my parents working overtime and budgeting responsibly that made it possible.
>And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?
I am a part of the same collective, the long and continued story of my people. I am proud of those who came before me.
>You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. You are part of something much bigger than yourself. Be suspicious of anyone trying to sever your connection to your people and your history.
>Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?
That makes sense, yes. To your example, I would say that Native Americans have very little claim to the modern USA as practically everything was built by Europeans. They failed to defend their lands and were successfully conquered. In the same way, it would be absurd in my view for the majority non-White population of London (almost all of whom are very recent colonisers) to gaze around at the infrastructure and architecture and think "We made this."
>Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
Sure, but not nearly as ashamed as our enemies would like us to be. Isn't it funny how we are supposed to recoil in shame and horror with the constant reminders of the worst parts of our people's history, yet we are condemned for also proudly owning our best?
You are forbidden from being proud of things you never did but that people who looked like you did in the past, or you’re a bad person. Doubly so on both if you’re of European ancestry. Get with the program.
Correct. But there is randomness, or luck, or whatever you want to call it, that you were born to parents who worked overtime and budgeted responsibly so that you could have nice things. You could just have easily been born to parents who were lazy and irresponsible, and couldn't give you nice things.
> I am a part of the same collective, the long and continued story of my people.
Sure, but you did not contribute to the achievements of your ancestors. You will (and/or have) presumably achieve things on your own, built on top of your ancestors' achievements, and pass that legacy to your children. But that's something different. Be (non-arrogantly) proud of your own achievements, because you had a hand in them.
> You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. You are part of something much bigger than yourself.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. But being a part of something doesn't mean that you've personally done something. I didn't do the things my ancestors did to get me to where I am today. I'm grateful, as I would probably not be happy doing many of the things they had to do. And I hope any children I may have will be grateful to me for the same reasons (but that also would depend on me actually being a good parent to them; I don't just get it for free).
Re: that penultimate paragraph... oof, I'm struggling with what to say here. While yes, the vast majority of the modern USA was built by the colonizers and not the natives who came before, we need to temper our enthusiasm for our achievements with an acknowledgement of the barbaric actions of our ancestors who came to the New World and deceived, sickened, and slaughtered those who already lived there.
> Isn't it funny how we are supposed to recoil in shame and horror with the constant reminders of the worst parts of our people's history, yet we are condemned for also proudly owning our best?
I don't think that condemnation is as strong as you think it is, and your aversion to it is worrying. As I said, our best is tempered with acknowledgement of our worst. Be proud, if you must, of what you, personally, have accomplished. Look on the accomplishments of others (both contemporary and long-dead) with awe and respect, as appropriate. Acknowledge that many of those accomplishments involved slave labor, murder, and other atrocities. Vow to work toward your own future accomplishments in only moral and ethical ways.
You correctly state that we are part of something much bigger than ourselves. Some of that "something" is good, and some of that "something" is bad. And everything in between. We have to live with all parts, and learn from both the good and the bad.
I disagree with this view and I think it's harmful. Look at it from the perspective of the parents. There is no luck or randomness involved in their responsibility and discipline to build a happy and stable home, and of course there's no randomness or luck involved in them doing the action that created me. It is impossible that I could have been born to a broke drug addict in Bolivia. I could only ever have been born to my parents.
>but you did not contribute to the achievements of your ancestors
Why should this exclude me from being proud of my people and our history? Why shouldn't I be proud of who I am, as part of that great story, and where we are and where we are headed? Every part of my modern life is a result of wars won, famines survived, breakthroughs achieved, phenomena discovered, nature harnessed, etc etc. Consider, too, that I am literally an achievement of my ancestors; my DNA carries all of this history and progression within me.
Why shouldn't I be proud of who we are? It seems that only people who hate us want me to abandon my identity for deracinated nihilism, which only motivates me further towards the opposite extreme.
Go tell a Native American to completely abandon their ethnic identity, sever connection with their ancestry, and forego any sense of pride in the history and culture of their people on your basis that they had no direct role in its creation. Remind them of the shame and horror of their crimes against my people: the scalping, pedophilia, gang-rape, torture, cannibalism, etc.
Of course, you would not dare. This is a propaganda that you reserve only for my family. We unapologetically reject it. You should too.
>> Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?
> My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
>> you did not earn them
> My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
> Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors.
> Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. *We* earned them.
Of course personal contribution is a factor of pride, and arguably the most justified one.
But it's far from the only one. - fan clubs - a child marvelling on how strong/cool their parents are - US citizens on 4th of July (I'm not American btw)
All of these contributed ~nothing in the phenomenon; their pride comes from the wonders worked by the group they belong to. One does not need to _earn_ pride.
Think it the other way : if you don't think legitimate for the receivers of wonders to feel pride, think of it from the side of the providers of wonders. Parents who toiled for their children, great statespeople who worked hard to improve their country: they intentionally directed their efforts towards someone (descendants, citizens). I think pride is sort of gratitude of receivers for the fruits of a common group's efforts. And it's completely justified IMO to feel un-earned pride.
I think it is right to be grateful to your ancestors for their achievements in ultimately giving you the life that you have.
But proud? Hubris lies down that path.
Re: luck, yes, it is absolutely luck that you were born to the parents you were born to, located in the place you were born in. I think you have the sense of the luck direction flipped from what GP meant. If you look at it from the perspective of your ancestors, then sure, your birth wasn't luck: it was a choice (or an accident, I suppose).
But from the perspective of you, it's luck: you didn't get to choose the circumstances surrounding your birth. You got lucky in that sense; you could have instead had bad luck and been born on the streets in a third-world country to a drug-addicted single parent with no money and no prospects.
No I couldn't, it's totally impossible for the embryo formed by my mother and father to have teleported into the womb of a junkie on the other side of the world. I was always and only going to be born to my parents.
I do agree that it feels like we're arguing different things, as I know you know this. And I am very suspicious of people who argue the "luck" angle here as it is usually an attempt to erase my entire history and assert that some random "unlucky" starving Ethiopian has just as much right to be in my shoes instead. When zoomed out, this can clearly be weaponised as a justification for mass migration.
Will Banksy's legacy be more or less the same?
Did you miss the whole Brexit thing?
Here's perhaps a concrete example to help piece this together. I live in Ohio. Our state government is right-leaning, and controlled by the Republican Party. The Republican Party has an anti-abortion platform.
A couple of years ago, citizens got together, created, and then passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution providing abortion access as a legal right.
The right is still in control of the government, and that is true regardless of who paid to support the referendum, or how it was voted.
Not sure who you think "they" are but "This is England" is superb. It deals with a lot of issues, way beyond just nationalism and the like.
Perhaps you would like to fix your gimlet gaze on "A Clockwork Orange" and deliver a further withering critique.
A simple explanation regarding the increase of the number of nationalists within England is the population has increased. QED.
It's not so much a secret as it is simply not public.
I think his name not being blasted everywhere has more to do with it being thoroughly uninteresting than any gentlemen's agreement.
>less than two months after a journalism investigation into Banksy’s true identity was published
gives a false impression. The daily mail published his name and photo in 2008 https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-3478606/Scientists-sa...
his remaining semi anonymous does make it harder for the authorities to send him fines for graffiting stuff though.