New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
391–400 of 615 posts
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make a political message it often helps to be obvious. This way the meaning of your message will not be misinterpreted either intentionally or un-intentionally.
His messages were always the same politically. He was always snubbing his nose at the crown, at the art world and other rich folks who would pay millions of pounds for his art. Back in the day when I discovered him, he came off as a rebel, as most graffiti writers do. 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…
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".
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs. Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born? 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 >…
[flagged]
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.
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#394Statue of a man in a suit walking off a precipice while blinding himself with the flag he is carrying. https://banksy.co.uk/index.html
I can't get over the flag itself… It's a black flag. Not a British flag, not a white flag,… A BLACK flag. Historically, the black flag is strongly associated with anarchism, anti-state politics, revolt, and rejection of national authority. Had he colored it in the union jack, then I would've said it was nationalism, and the person is blinded by nationalism. But. This is Banksy, black-and-white Banksy, so there may be…
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#395This statue might be the best thing he's ever done. I love it.
Is it? The flag is black, so could be a variety of things, not necessarily even a national flag. Just a flag in a march. (Anarchism uses a black flag.)
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#396Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#397I misparsed this headline as (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
The actual headline is more coherent but I'm not too fond of it either. 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.
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#398I think it's a reasonable statue. But does anyone else think it's a bit obvious, more so than his other work? Like there is no doubt on the meaning at all, it's all right there on the surface level.
Strong disagree. First, like many of the other comments mention, Banksy is known for being clever and witty, but not particularly subtle. 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 i…
From a British perspective there's no ambiguity, flag shagging is a right-wing activity.
Re: New statue in London, attributed to Banksy, of a suited man, blinded by a flag
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why nationalism? A flag can represent more than a nation. Can be blinded by any "flag" / ideology.
Exactly. Communists are blinded by the flag with the hammer and sickle. Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag. Examples abound, but wanna transgressor blanksy knows who butters his bread.
Interesting fact: the creator of the trans flag, Robert Hogge (later known as Monica Helms), used to steal his mother's underwear, then moved on to stealing random women's underwear for sexual reasons, and wrote fantasy fiction about a man marrying a child who doesn't age.