Skip to main content

Featured post

Is true democracy exist around the world?

Controversial historical figures around the world have been toppled by anti-racism protesters

Over the last few weeks, statues of controversial historical figures around the world have been toppled by anti-racism protesters who see these controversial historical figures as the oppressors of the weaker community. As a part of the Black Lives Matter protests scene in the United States, and as well as around the world. Some statues of controversial figures have been toppled. And this includes the statue of Christopher Columbus, who brought oppressor colonialism to North America. And it also includes the statues of Confederate generals who treated the blacks as slaves and contributed to the operation and humiliation of the black community. A similar trend has been noticed in the United Kingdom as well, where statues of slave owners and controversial colonial figures who were involved in oppressing the week of the minority have been brought down by the protesters. In this context, the writer evaluates the deeply contested heritage surrounding statues, and he examines whether the destruction of the statues of controversial historical figures, is the only available approach in this column, the writer is making a case for preserving or removing statue, based on the shared judgment of his contribution to collective life. So to understand this argument. First, we need to look at what these statues represent. See statues just like any other art form represents an heritage symbol. And what constitutes heritage is always defined by society. And since the definition of heritage is a collective decision made by society. It will inevitably involve politics. So it is the politics of the day, which defines our heritage symbols. See if you look at any statue, or any art form in a particular era, it might be revered, but in some other era, it might be targeted that in some cases in the same given era, a particular section of the society might reveal the statue of the art form. But another sexual to society. Might target the art form of the statues. So basically, the argument is that defining heritage symbols is a subjective collective decision made by society, depending on the politics of the day. These heritage symbols, help us develop a collective self-understanding of our identity and hence they are a source of pride. Take, for example, a heritage waterbed, such as the Raj God. It is not just a tribute to the life and contribution of Mahatma Gandhi, but it is also a representation of India's long struggle against colonialism. So why few heritage symbols, help us in developing our collective identity. A few other symbols might be a reminder of the horrors of history, because one should not forget that heritage is always a reflection of history. And by evaluating historical events. It is hard to be value-neutral. And it is very essential to view and analyze historical events from an ethical prism. So that's the reason why we also have heritage symbols that expose the horrors of history, as they seek to tender, a public apology to the oppressed and victimized. Take, for example, the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, and the Vietnam Memorial in the United States. These symbols represent a public apology from the wrongdoers. To those who are victimized. But it is also possible that the same heritage symbol, which is worshipped by a few could be targeted by a few others. It's patches of damage, our worship around the world. There is also sexual to society that criticizes Mothma Gandhi for his feelings. And this section tends to target the heritage symbols that represent the Mahatma Gandhi. See if we evaluate the life of Bosco Gandhi, for example, Mohandas Gandhi did not become the Mahatma overnight. Initially, it was just another ordinary man who had many prejudices and biases that the society had taught being born into upper-caste community Mothma Gandhi was no stranger to having his caste-based prejudices. And since he was 14 educated. And since he had middle-class aspirations. He was also initially taken by the colonial narrative. So those who target the mouth but today, in retrospect, they seem to target these human failings of Mothma Gandhi, but as a fair observer. What should not fail to acknowledge that Mothma Gandhi himself? The sword has passed, and he has brought this out clearly in his autobiography while leading India's freedom struggle. Throughout his journey, he made it clear that he was ashamed of his past prejudices, and he made a concerted effort to reform himself, which finally transformed him to the social icon that he is does making him the Mahatma, and a source of inspiration for millions of people around the world, including future leaders such as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc. It is in this context, that the right to seize points of society is deciding whether to preserve, or remove a person statue, or remove any heritage symbol. The collective societal decision should be based on the overall contribution of the historical figure to collective life.See, there is no doubt, but slaveholders confident generals and colonial masters were oppressors of the data community and the black community. According to the writer, they strike their statues and do not serve any purpose. And in fact, it takes away its heritage symbol heritage symbols of controversial figures that may not inspire pride, but it is a reminder of the horrors committed by them in the past. The writer says that even if a decision has to be made to remove statues that such decisions should be based on public debate and collective consent to society.Because merely toppling the statue through an act of violence, does it serve any purpose, and it erodes the fight of the weaker sections against the oppressors. He cites the example of how a public discussion was held in Delhi in the 1960s to decide the removal of the statue of George the fifth, which was located near the India Gate. The statue of Georgia was a representation of the colonial oppression against India, but instead of merely toppling the statue, or destroy the statue, a collective decision was made to remove the statue from its place. And this was a gentle reminder that monarchs, and dictators, and colonial masters have no place in a border the public.  Over the last few weeks, statues of controversial historical figures around the world have been toppled by anti-racism protesters who see these controversial historical figures as the oppressors of the weaker community. As a part of the Black Lives Matter protests scene in the United States, and as well as around the world. Some statues of controversial figures have been toppled. And this includes the statue of Christopher Columbus, who brought oppressor colonialism to North America. And it also includes the statues of Confederate generals who treated the blacks as slaves and contributed to the operation and humiliation of the black community. A similar trend has been noticed in the United Kingdom as well, where statues of slave owners and controversial colonial figures who were involved in oppressing the week of the minority have been brought down by the protesters. In this context, the writer evaluates the deeply contested heritage surrounding statues, and he examines whether the destruction of the statues of controversial historical figures, is the only available approach in this column, the writer is making a case for preserving or removing the statue, based on the shared judgment of his contribution to collective life. So to understand this argument. First, we need to look at what these statues represent. See statues just like any other art form represents a heritage symbol. And what constitutes heritage is always defined by society. And since the definition of heritage is a collective decision made by society. It will inevitably involve politics. So it is the politics of the day, which defines our heritage symbols. See if you look at any statue, or any art form in a particular era, it might be revered, but in some other era, it might be targeted that in some cases in the same given era, a particular section of the society might reveal the statue of the art form. But another sexual to society. Might target the art form of the statues. So basically, the argument is that defining heritage symbols is a subjective collective decision made by society, depending on the politics of the day. These heritage symbols, help us develop a collective self-understanding of our identity and hence they are a source of pride. Take, for example, a heritage waterbed, such as the Raj God. It is not just a tribute to the life and contribution of Mahatma Gandhi, but it is also a representation of India's long struggle against colonialism. So why few heritage symbols, help us in developing our collective identity. A few other symbols might be a reminder of the horrors of history, because one should not forget that heritage is always a reflection of history. And by evaluating historical events. It is hard to be value-neutral. And it is very essential to view and analyze historical events from an ethical prism. So that's the reason why we also have heritage symbols that expose the horrors of history, as they seek to tender, a public apology to the oppressed and victimized. Take, for example, the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, and the Vietnam Memorial in the United States. These symbols represent a public apology from the wrongdoers. To those who are victimized. But it is also possible that the same heritage symbol, which is worshipped by a few could be targeted by a few others. It's patches of damage, our worship around the world. There is also sexual to society that criticizes Mothma Gandhi for his feelings. And this section tends to target the heritage symbols that represent the Mahatma Gandhi. See if we evaluate the life of Bosco Gandhi, for example, Mohandas Gandhi did not become the Mahatma overnight. Initially, it was just another ordinary man who had many prejudices and biases that the society had taught being born into upper-caste community Mothma Gandhi was no stranger to having his caste-based prejudices. And since he was 14 educated. And since he had middle-class aspirations. He was also initially taken by the colonial narrative. So those who target the mouth but today, in retrospect, they seem to target these human failings of Mothma Gandhi, but as a fair observer. What should not fail to acknowledge that Mothma Gandhi himself? The sword has passed, and he has brought this out clearly in his autobiography while leading India's freedom struggle. Throughout his journey, he made it clear that he was ashamed of his past prejudices, and he made a concerted effort to reform himself, which finally transformed him to the social icon that he is does making him the Mahatma, and a source of inspiration for millions of people around the world, including future leaders such as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc. It is in this context, that the right to seize points of society is deciding whether to preserve, or remove a person statue, or remove any heritage symbol. The collective societal decision should be based on the overall contribution of the historical figure to collective life.See, there is no doubt, but slaveholders confident generals and colonial masters were oppressors of the data community and the black community. According to the writer, they strike their statues and do not serve any purpose. And in fact, it takes away its heritage symbol heritage symbols of controversial figures that may not inspire pride, but it is a reminder of the horrors committed by them in the past. The writer says that even if a decision has to be made to remove statues that such decisions should be based on public debate and collective consent to society.Because merely toppling the statue through an act of violence, does it serve any purpose, and it erodes the fight of the weaker sections against the oppressors. He cites the example of how a public discussion was held in Delhi in the 1960s to decide the removal of the statue of George the fifth, which was located near the India Gate. The statue of Georgia was a representation of the colonial oppression against India, but instead of merely toppling the statue, or destroy the statue, a collective decision was made to remove the statue from its place. And this was a gentle reminder that monarchs, and dictators, and colonial masters have no place in a border the public.

Over the last few weeks, statues of controversial historical figures around the world have been toppled by anti-racism protesters who see these controversial historical figures as the oppressors of the weaker community. As a part of the Black Lives Matter protests scene in the United States, and as well as around the world. Some statues of controversial figures have been toppled. And this includes the statue of Christopher Columbus, who brought oppressor colonialism to North America. And it also includes the statues of Confederate generals who treated the blacks as slaves and contributed to the operation and humiliation of the black community. A similar trend has been noticed in the United Kingdom as well, where statues of slave owners and controversial colonial figures who were involved in oppressing the week of the minority have been brought down by the protesters.
 whether the destruction of the statues of controversial historical figures is the only available approach, preserving or removing the statue, based on the shared judgment of his contribution to collective life. So to understand this argument. First, we need to look at what these statues represent. Statues just like any other art form represent a heritage symbol. And what constitutes heritage is always defined by society. And since the definition of heritage is a collective decision made by society. It will inevitably involve politics. So it is the politics of the day, which defines our heritage symbols.
 If you look at any statue, or any art form in a particular era, it might be revered, but in some other era, it might be targeted that in some cases in the same given era, a particular section of the society might reveal the statue of the art form. But another section of society might target the art form of the statues. So basically, the argument is that defining heritage symbols is a subjective collective decision made by society, depending on the politics of the day. These heritage symbols, help us develop a collective self-understanding of our identity and hence they are a source of pride. Take, for example, a heritage monument such as Raj Ghat. It is not just a tribute to the life and contribution of Mahatma Gandhi, but it is also a representation of India's long struggle against colonialism. So why few heritage symbols, help us in developing our collective identity. A few other symbols might be a reminder of the horrors of history, because one should not forget that heritage is always a reflection of history. And by evaluating historical events. It is hard to be value-neutral. And it is very essential to view and analyze historical events from an ethical prism. So that's the reason why we also have heritage symbols that expose the horrors of history, as they seek to tender, a public apology to the oppressed and victimized. Take, for example, the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, and the Vietnam Memorial in the United States. These symbols represent a public apology from the wrongdoers. To those who are victimized. But it is also possible that the same heritage symbol, which is worshipped by a few could be targeted by a few others. The Statue of Gandhi worships around the world. There are also sections of society that criticizes Mothma Gandhi for his feelings. And this section tends to target the heritage symbols that represent the Mahatma Gandhi. If we evaluate the life of  Gandhi, for example, Mohandas Gandhi did not become the Mahatma overnight. Initially, he was just another ordinary man who had many prejudices and biases that the society had taught being born into upper-caste community Mothma Gandhi was no stranger to having his caste-based prejudices. And since he was foreign-educated. And since he had middle-class aspirations. He was also initially taken by the colonial narrative. So those who target Gandhi today, in retrospect, they seem to target these human failings of Mothma Gandhi, but as a fair observer. What should not fail to acknowledge that Mothma Gandhi himself? He has brought this out clearly in his autobiography while leading India's freedom struggle. Throughout his journey, he made it clear that he was ashamed of his past prejudices, and he made a concerted effort to reform himself, which finally transformed him to the social icon that he is does making him the Mahatma, and a source of inspiration for millions of people around the world, including future leaders such as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc. 
Society is deciding whether to preserve, or remove a person's statue, or remove any heritage symbol. The collective societal decision should be based on the overall contribution of the historical figure to collective life. There is no doubt, but slaveholder's Confederate Generals and colonial masters were oppressors of the native community and the black community. They strike their statues and do not serve any purpose. And in fact, it takes away its heritage symbol. Heritage symbols of controversial figures that may not inspire pride, but it is a reminder of the horrors committed by them in the past. Even if a decision has to be made to remove statues that such decisions should be based on public debate
and collective consent to society. Because merely toppling the statue through an act of violence, does it serve any purpose, and it erodes the fight of the weaker sections against the oppressors. He cites the example of how a public discussion was held in Delhi in the 1960s to decide the removal of the statue of George V, which was located near the India Gate. The statue of George V  was a representation of the colonial oppression against India, but instead of merely toppling the statue, or destroy the statue, a collective decision was made to remove the statue from its place. And this was a gentle reminder that monarchs, and dictators, and colonial masters have no place in a border the public.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How lockdown having a disproportionate impact on women

A disaster or catastrophic ends to have a disproportionate impact on women. According to the writer, this is because of the traditional gender-based role of women in society. For example, during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, it was observed that the disaster had a disproportionate impact on women, mainly because of their gender-defined roles. Since women are generally seen as the traditional caregiver in the family, they lacked the required life-saving skills, and as a result, a relatively higher number of deaths count was registered amongst women during the tsunami. Then after the disaster, women who were rendered homeless were accommodated in relief camps. And it was observed that at these relief camps, women had to face abuse and molestation, and they even had to face hygiene and sanitation issues at these relief camps. similar challenges have been faced by women in the United States as well, which is frequently hit by tornadoes. similar challenges were noted during the 2018 19 f…

Are humans responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic

Humans responsible for the pandemic According to the UNDP. The spread of a zoonotic disease such as COVID-19 can be directly attributed to the overexploitation of biodiversity and ecosystems by human beings. The UNDP has said that several zoonotic diseases have affected human beings because of increased contact of humans with animals. Especially wild animals. So these diseases with a jump from animals to human beings are referred to as zoonotic diseases or zoonosis. And it is a direct outcome of the overexploitation of biodiversity and ecosystems through human activities. The UNDP report even says that it is not just COVID-19 but even tuberculosis, rabies, malaria, toxoplasmosis h1 none SARS, burst, Ebola Zika, etc. They are all examples of zoonosis that have jumped from animals to human beings. And in each case, the source can be attributed to the destruction of the environment and biodiversity through human activities
It is found that the coronavirus outbreak certainly comes from t…

Researchers found new symptoms of COVID19

Many COVID-19 cases have emerged from Europe and the United States, where many patients have reported a complete inability to smell or even to taste. So, this has given rise to questions, whether the SARS coronavirus is affecting our neurons that are responsible for smell and taste, or is it affecting other cells, which are involved in this olfactory function. A recent study conducted in India has shown that it is not the neurons that are being affected by the virus, but instead, it is a set of cells present in the upper regions of our nasal cavity that are being affected by the double Coronavirus. These cells include the sub Technicolor cells and the horizontal basal cells. But importantly, these cells are not directly involved in helping us smell. It means that these cells are not directly involved in the olfactory function. But these cells help us nourish and support the other cells, which are actually involved in the olfactory function. So this means that the novel Coronavirus is…