Summary
Australian senators censured Senator Lidia Thorpe for her outburst against King Charles III during his visit, calling him a colonizer and demanding land and reparations. Thorpe defended her actions, stating she would repeat them if Charles returned.
She’s right, but outbursts like this are the equivalent of activists throwing paint at the Mona Lisa. It makes that side look petulant and doesn’t effect change. If she really wants land and reparations, did she really think this grandstanding was the way to accomplish that goal?
I think she’s as fully aware as black and indigenous Americans are that she’ll never actually get what she’s owed, so she might as well tell the king that’s been forced on her people to fuck off.
If it made Charles momentarily uncomfortable then that’s enough justification for me.
I think the whole point of acts like you describe show how you (people) care more about a painting than the continual ravaging of life on this planet by those who seek wealth and power.
What does the Mona Lisa matter when more and more of the worlds population is scrapping to survive under constant threat of environmental and economic collapse and war brought on by the people who host and visit such works of art.
The problem is that it doesn’t help their cause in the least. If anything, it damages it. To onlookers, it makes supporters of the cause look crazy and makes them easier to dismiss by opposition.
Climate change is a very serious problem that requires billions of people working together to solve. Culturally significant objects being vandalised is a much less serious problem but it also only requires a few individuals to not do what they have done to become a non-issue.
By all means, protest polluters, badger policymakers, and argue in forums. But if you start being annoying to people equally as powerless to effect meaningful change you’re only going to make people less likely to listen to you.
Whew thank you. You’re the only person in this thread that has actually made good points about your opinion, instead of trying to be snarky or clever with one-liners. I’m in almost total agreement with you, although I still won’t condemn those types of protests. I think they are probably more harmful than useful, but I understand the place it comes from is one of frustration with the absolute ridiculousness of our world and the powers that run it. I sympathize with those types of protesters, and what I assume is their frustration with the ineffectiveness of bottom-up solutions (to me, preferred) in the face of mass contributors to the problem – heads of government, corporations, etc.
Once again thanks for the actual good-faith and thoughtful response.
Yeah no problem. It’s always nice to be able to discuss something with others and be respectful even if you don’t fully agree.
I understand where the protesters are coming from and the idea that doing anything sounds better than just allowing the world to deteriorate. But I genuinely believe the less dramatic strategies do work better, even if it’s hard to feel the effects. Not too long ago, the idea that the climate change was happening and that humans were to blame was largely ignored. Now, most people acknowledge that it’s the case, and it’s a matter of making it a priority. But that’s still meaningful progress.
Anyways, thanks for the conversation and being open to push back. It’s great to see in spaces that seem more divisive than ever.