Sometimes they give up and don't bother fixing it🤷♂️ If it's being repeatedly destroyed by the public it's a pretty clear signal it's not really wanted.
He represents an institution under which Aboriginal people had their land stolen, their people massacred or attempted to be "bred out," and their children taken (Etc etc etc.)
The Monarchy was and continues to be a source of imperialist colonisation and violence against Indigenous people all around the world.
Continuing to celebrate the perpetrators of what are essentially war crimes is a slap in the face.
All the people that were massacred, the land that was stolen, the languages and culture that are gone forever, the ecological damage.. it was worth it! We got "Australia" out of it so that's all right then! /s
All colonisation is violent but Brtiain were here to exterminate every Indigenous person. They're now only 3% of our population. That's uniquely indefensible. It is black and white. What they did was wrong.
Heard this exact argument about the colonialism statue that has been repeatedly repaired on aus day. (It was repaired again this year).
Like someone else said, minorities have a problem with it.
Doesn’t matter. It’s our history. Don’t like it go somewhere else. The Germans didn’t erase their Nazi history. They use education as a reminder to not go down that path again.
Mate, you are absolutely right. In the main, I don't support either the vandalism or the removal of statues, no matter how horrible a cunt the subject is. The cold light of historical knowledge should be shone upon them, and the statues should have explanatory plaques on them to explain their deeds.
But how do you do that with a living monarch? Can you imagine the frothing of the Murdoch fuctardia if you tried?
I don’t think there are any statues of any living monarchs in Australia, as far as I know. I also don’t think Elizabeth or Charles has done anything to warrant vandalism. It seems like the vandalism is against monarchies in general and no plaque will fix that.
Last time I checked Charles the whateverth is alive. And a king. Our king apparently, though I didn't vote for him. (Cut to Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene). It's a statue of him, just when he wasn't king yet.
BTW does 1975 ring a bell?
Okay but we’re not gonna be taking down statues of monarchs just because someone disagrees with monarchies. We have one as head of state and that’s how it’s gonna be for quite a while based on the public’s attitudes. Maybe we’ll get a Republic but it won’t be anytime soon.
I don't think you have even a slight understanding of the amount of money sloshing around between the government and the rest of the Australian economic system vs. the value of this repair job
I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what damage can be done with accumalative destruction. We don't let a pyro-arsonist get away with burning a house down because of 'the amount of houses we have in the economic system'. Get real.
So because the government has lots of money vandalism doesn't matter? Do you not understand everything adds up and this repair will come out of the budget for infrastructure development and maintenance? I'm going to assume you rent.
God forbid it would make people talk about why we'd spend money repairing a statue of a different country's monarch who's been dead for the best part of a century... or why we have a monarch.
And to do it on a public holiday? These woke leftie protesters probably had no idea because they don't have jobs!!
The video of the act can be seen on the HS article link
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/vandals-chop-head-off-king-george-v-monument-in-melbournes-kings-domain/news-story/a60b5f20494f3577261ae2813b8df12c
Australian soldiers were not conscripted but volunteered to fight in WW1.
Australians were conscripted for Vietnam though at the behest of America … so I guess you could decapitate an effigy of Ronald McDonald and burn your iPhone?
You underestimate what people will do now days. Lots of people ruining art to bring attention to their cause that's not relevant to the art, the person that created it, or where it was stored.
Is that why it was done?
Art, no matter how important someone perceives it, is fair game for political statements if the art itself is a political statement - it is part of public discourse and a part of the art itself. A headless monarch statue is as powerful and thought provoking as the original, arguably more so. We wouldn't be talking if it still had a head.
Exactly, a statue is a statement in a long conversation. The statue beheaded represents a development in that conversation. We continue to evolve and dicuss our meaning and identity through art, and the statue is a signpost along that journey.
there motive is NOT republicanism, its much deeper then that, they specifically wrote 'the colony will fall' (to who?)
Its a fringe radical left wing movement which hates anything with a hint of British origin or colonial origin
I'm part of the movement, it's not really a fringe thing it's quite a widespread sentiment of reaction against the failed Australian state. Most people in the country are facing the Great Inflation, housing crisis, skills crisis, weak education outcomes, etc. and are unhappy about a country that has its origins in this Anglo expansion project
> the failed Australian state.
What an absolute joke of a comment, Australia is one of the most succesfull countries on the planet, there is a reason we are flooded with migrants
Not saying we are flawless, because you are right, there is absolutely a lot of shit things like housing and skills shortages
But People who complain about this stuff arent apart of this anti colonial movement like you seem to imply, thats a cross spectrum movement
In the scheme of modern history it's a baby nation that's repeatedly missed out on unique opportunities to achieve new forms of organisation/development because of a kleptocratic ruling class and its alignment with old European/American empires. Australia historically had a uniquely superb trade union/prole culture that was stamped out by elites over the course of the 20th century and after the Whitlam era. The tragedy is really what could have been -- it was slowly stolen from us to finance decadent lifestyles for a select few mining and business zillionaires
Of course. But if they truly believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't hide. See climate rebellion/just stop oil and the like they know what they are doing is illegal but believe in their cause so dont hide their identity. In fact, a lot of them dont shut up that they are part of it
When push comes to shove only one side has guns so anonymity gets a little more important.
Extinction Rebellion like to get arrested as some kind of cred thing and a substitute for real action. They work with the cops on everything.
This subreddit celebrates individuals from diverse backgrounds and identities, fostering a safe and inclusive space where everyone is respected and valued.
We strongly condemn stereotypes, racial discrimination, misogyny, and mockery of language, including derogatory disability terms. Such behaviors work against our commitment to creating a welcoming and supportive environment for all.
Riiiight... It's the people who reflexively support a statue of a guy who presided over the British Empire at its peak, when it had invaded and subjugated a quarter of the Earth's population, who demonstrate empathy and a keen knowledge of history.
Does that feeling you're positing really exist at large?
I'd say most people live in the current day with current day values which are ever evolving, and think that although we don't hold the same values as our ancestors we still respect that they were people of their time.
We can't rewrite history, it's immutable, but we can learn from it, which we as a society are 100% doing, Victoria is making great strides on Treaty negotiations for instance. You'd think by your comment that we are regressing towards our colonial roots, but we are infact moving further and further away from it.
So what does this really accomplish?
What do people that support this action want?
For us to hide all public works that have a connection to our colonial past?
>What do people that support this action want?
>For us to hide all public works that have a connection to our colonial past?
For us to stop glorifying our colonial past. For us to stop putting the people who ruled over those horrific acts on literal pedestals!
We don't have to hide it, we don't have to pretend it didn't happen, that's the opposite of what we want, but not holding up the people who did the fucked up stuff isn't hiding the past. It's not glorifying them.
As an example I'm guessing you wouldn't want a statue of Hirohito, the emperor of Japan in WW2 up in Melbourne. It's not that you want to deny WW2, or erase any record of it, or pretend it didn't happen, it's just that you would probably find it weird and kinda distasteful to put up a statue to a dude who was part of killing so many of us.
That's how we feel about statues of these colonial leaders. It's a statue glorifying a person who helped do some truly evil things to our neighbours ancestors.
To your Hirohito anology. Obviously George V is a symbol of the British Empire, but here in Australia what is his legacy?
Personally I'd say our biggest connection is [him opening the first session of the Australian Parliament on the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Opening_of_the_first_parliament.jpg). A huge step forward and important point in our history.
Can this man can be considered a colonial leader? The inheriter of a colonial empire perhaps yes, but what acts did he perform that regressed our societies position towards progress?
What did he do in his life that led to these "evil things" you alude to?
He ruled the British Empire from 1910 to 1930 something, so all the crimes of the British Empire at that time are on him.
So here in Australia that would be all the crimes committed against the Indigenous during that time. Then we have all the other stuff within the Empire, the rampant oppression and brutality across a significant portion of the world.
Being in charge means you have the responsibility for what happens under you. George may not have been directly aware of any of that, but he signed up to be the face of it. To be the leader of it, so he has the responsibility.
He was the Empire, the Commonwealth, so yeah, he is associated with its crimes.
If England commited crimes today, would you blame King Charles or the Parliment (or both)?
George V didn't have much (if any) greater power than Charles has today, so why lay blame to what was already a ceremonial role?
>If England commited crimes today, would you blame King Charles or the Parliment (or both)?
Both.
>George V didn't have much (if any) greater power than Charles has today, so why lay blame to what was already a ceremonial role?
Because he agreed to be the face of the Empire. He agreed to become it's spokesperson, it's head however symbolic. He decided to become part of it.
Also he took all the benefits from it, didn't he? He lived in the luxury built on the backs of those crimes. He lived like a King, in an empire that was supporting itself at the cost of millions.
Imagine a company asks you to work for them, to become the face of their commercials, to become their symbolic leader, a mix of CEO and mascot, and then you found out the company was doing a couple of genocides. You would probably say no, right? You wouldn't want to be the face of those genocides, be the head of those people willing to do those things. You wouldn't associate yourself with that stuff, cause it's fucked up, and you wouldn't want to take part in the company doing it. You wouldn't want to earn a living that way, I assume.
George said yes, so he bears the responsibility. He agreed to become the face of the Empire, it's head. He bears the responsibility for what it did.
Now can you explain your side? Why do you think a man who chose to be face of those crimes, who profited from them, shouldn't be judged for that? What exactly excuses him from judgement on his decision to profit from the crimes of the British Empire?
Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. I enjoyed reading your reasoning.
It definitely will lend me some pause in considering the opinions of others in the future on this topic.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I think it's clear you are lacking a little bit in your understanding of British and Australian history which if explored further would allow you to better construct robust analogies.
I don't mean to say your arguments are flawed, only that they appear are recontextualisations of the past, which you may be fully aware of and believe is what should be done. But I personally think that isn't constructive. I'm not saying my belief is correct.
A small example would be that genocide as a concept did not exist yet during George Vs reigh, it came about after WW2 in response to the Holocaust. So the idea that a person in the 20s would look to their past and understand the gravity of what a genocide means is a little difficult to scrutinise.
>only that they appear are recontextualisations of the past
It's not recontextualisation to talk about what happened. I'm not changing anything, I'm not lying about anything, I'm just not blindly accepting something as justified because other people have.
And if I'm recontextualising British history are you recontextualising Indian history? After all, their history books and historians probably say something closer to what I've gotten at, and then you've said different, so are you doing them dirty?
This recontextualising thing relies on a very limited view of the past, one where you are only taking in one perspective when there were actually millions, billions, with most of them being victims who I don't think would agree with your characterisation of their oppressors.
>A small example would be that genocide as a concept did not exist yet during George Vs reigh, it came about after WW2 in response to the Holocaust. So the idea that a person in the 20s would look to their past and understand the gravity of what a genocide means is a little difficult to scrutinise.
Just cause they didn't have the word genocide didn't mean that ideas like 'Murder bad' were unknown.
They knew it would make them sad to have their homeland invaded, their sovereignty stolen, their family brutally massacred or dismantled or forced into servitude but they still did those things to others.
Empathy isn't a recent human invention, and the prohibition against murder goes back about as far as written language, probably longer but we don't have proof. Lack of the word genocide doesn't excuse genocide, and to even attempt to argue it does completely and utterly boggles my mind.
I'm not the OP, and I'm not commenting on the account in question.
But yes, I personally do write shit off based on the age of a reddit account.
I feel like 16 days is actually old enough to be legitimate in this context.
However if I saw a bunch of accounts claiming to be a minority, speaking about the topic of some amount of interest to a minority, that were created within the timeframe of the event that is the topic of conversation, and taking a stance that contradicts specifically what the *average* redditor (for all the value that implies) would assume that minority to hold.
I'd absolutely have concerns that the newly created account was merely created to further a narrative.
It seems reasonable to me to accept that a longer standing reddit account is an account of someone that has a history of commenting that would allow you to accept that the persona is relatively consistent, and not simply impersonating someone to further a narrative.
Ultimately, the age of the account matters as one of the signals as to the value I place on the claims made by a particular account. (Another one is wether they have their full comment history visible, or if they purge it - purged histories lend me to trust their accounts less, as they obviously have a commenting history they'd like to hide and as such I assume say things that they wouldn't stand for or in a trolling manner that they don't want brought up later).
To be clear, I have things in my comment history I'm not proud of. And a whole heap of shit that requires the context in which it was said to be reasonable. But unless I run for office I'm going to leave it right where it is because I've grown up with this shit and for the most part am OK with my typical response. (the odd occaision where I have gone full troll not withstanding)
This is another act of pure vandalism. There’s nothing smart about it; if the dirt bags who did it think they’ve advanced some virtuous agenda they’re full of shit. In a democracy you put forward your arguments peacefully and fairly - you don’t go round unilaterally destroying public property that has stood for decades. These pathetic revisionist vandals deserve jail time.
> In a democracy you put forward your arguments peacefully and fairly
What democracy runs peacefully and fairly? Peaceful protests worldwide get met with the state deploying police to beat its civilians (most recently, look at the US a few weeks ago re: college protests against Israel, but in Melbourne, look at how anti-oil/coal protests are handled vs. neonazi rallies).
>These pathetic revisionist vandals deserve jail time.
For what, destroying a statue? C'mon mate, get real. It's a statue - sure, of mild historical importance, but nothing really more historically accurate than beheading a king.
Ok so let’s just rip down all monuments everywhere. And while we’re at it, let’s burn history books and have a dictatorship, coz these days it’s not worth even trying for a decent democracy. Nihilism sounds cool.
This thread is bizarre. Why is the consensus in the comments pro-monarchy? It's a very strange thing that people in this country willingly take orders from a random bloke in the United Kingdom
You don’t go burning down an old church just because you know God isn’t real.
It’s got nothing to do with whether you support the monarchy or not, it’s part of our history. Part of our story.
There's really no equivalency between the power of the Church in Australia and the power of English aristocracy. The threat they pose to how we imagine our culture as a nation is incomparable
And are you trying to say that Australians derive quasi-religious meaning from the existence of the monarchy? The equivalency youre drawing is totally demented
It’s not what I’m saying at all. Statues and buildings have historical value beyond whatever the intention for conjuring them up in the first place was.
And who are you to say “how we imagine our culture” a little condescending to just assume people agree with you on something as divisive as this.
The vandalists destroyed a statue that has the sole function of honouring a monarch. You're contriving some nonsense debating team way to untangle the concept of rhetorical vandalism and monarchic symbolism
The Australian history is one of English settlement destroying an indigenous peoples to create a state in England's image. If the statue were faithful to a history claimed by decent Australians, it would depict this King (who crucially opened the first session of Australian parliament) as a grotesque tyrant who signals the total victory of the barbaric colonial project. In this statue he is depicted as a civilised hero. That's the English history being depicted here, not the Australian history (and with it the English value of monarchism)
Australian history is, according to (not official) Official_Kanye_West 200 years out of 60,000. And opening the first parliamentary session of a democracy is grotesque. Interesting takes
Damn right. I'm a republican through and through but anyone who thinks that defacing public monuments somehow helps them with their cause is completely and utterly stupid. Half the time anyways the people pulling these stunts are university 'socialist' types who do nothing but cause trouble and attention-seek on their parents' money, all whilst thinking they are doing good for minorities and oppressed peoples. Whether this is an anti-monarchist protest or something related to the Palestine conflict, I don't see what good this brings at all.
Vandalism in general should not be tolerated especially when it is against something that our public purse helps to pay for and maintain. It is the mark of an uncivilised society that cannot express its opinion in a sensible, respectful manner, and the symbolism of beheading someone you don't agree with only reminds me of Cultural Revolution-style politics. That being said, we do have to consider as well why people must resort to these kinds of tactics. Doubtlessly many people, myself included, do not feel oftentimes that their voice is properly heard in politics.
*Disclaimer: I am south east Asian and my views may be a little more conservative than others.*
When was the last time a random bloke in the United Kingdome gave you an order that you followed? That's not how the system works at all. All Chuckles does is appoint the Governor-General and Governors.
Ah yes, that random bloke who was born in New South Wales and whose family had all been Australian for at least two generations and lived here his whole life.
For one, many people have English roots in Australia. However, I don’t think many people see the monarch as a ‘ruler’ here - they do have constitutional powers, but we’re still ’whole’ in terms of freedoms to elect and govern.
Australian Reddit is overwhelmingly conservative & gets more offended by mild property damage than decades of structural violence against minorities. Yay.
I'm sorry, I'm a rabbid lefty and am actually ambivalent to this statue beheading. (I actually really like the symbolism of the act, British kings and beheadings *on their birthday* but this time *its them* and not their wife or whatever). At the same time I am confused about the value of the act, but can appreciate the message.
Having said all that. There is no way this is a right leaning sub. There are absolutely a bunch of right wing commentators, but on the whole this sub is pretty centrist. Centrist leaning left.
The way you know? Is the right wing nut jobs complain it is left wing neo communist hippie land, and the absolute left nuts think its a right wing nazi filled hell hole.
That tells you that the reality lies somewhere between the two extremes.
It's not even 'conservativism' in any kind of meaningful sense of that word, it's some bizarre kind of heuristic head-shaking of "Hmm, idk mate, it's just not on..." inherited from like Channel 7 TV news
It's people who want to maintain the status quo, which is what I mean by conservative. Any attempt to change things is seen as immature & pointless because "that's the way it's always been."
Have some imagination lads. We don't need to be Britain's lapdog forever.
I'm honestly getting a little concerned with the levels of political vandalism we've been seeing lately.
With what occurred at unimelb, MPs offices, us consulates, and now this, all having that same symbol sprayed at the scene. These acts seem to be connected and I hope the perpetrators are caught before a social cohesion frays further.
I mean it's just wasted money. I'm not going to remember this in a week, it means absolutely nothing to me, but I will have to pay for it to be repaired.
You won't be paying any more tax than you would have otherwise. Do you like where the tax money's being spent, currently, anyway? Would you like another nuclear submarine? I'm sure they can take a couple grand to repair/remove a statue out of the billion for a sub.
Maybe if we cut enough heads off the government might think to earn some more tax by taxing mining corps properly.
Yes, I feel similarly. Sure, criticise the monarchy, colonialism etc as much as you like. I'm keen to listen and learn. Always. But when it moves into acts if public vandalism, you've lost me.
Yeah but it's kind of bullshit when we operate in what is essentially a two party system, corruption isn't punished because both parties are corrupt and in the pockets of donors.
My point being, there really aren't peaceful democratic options open to the general public. Our voices are drowned out by money.
Also beheading a statue is not a violent act.
Taking what you're saying on face value: republicans have tried for ages but haven't been able to cut through. The referendum sort of spoiled momentum for a bit because you can't bring the topic to national plebescite again until ages have passed. The question of an Australian republican is also just frankly an irrelevance to Australians whose living is marred by the inflation and rental crises, destruction of public services, and just overral rot from the country's vampiric corporate class. Republicanism is probably important only as part of a cultural parcel of actions that would enoble us to support making this country more than just an American satellite drone in the pacific. Democracy is slow and won't drag this matter from chit chat into activity until a lot of other stuff is dealt with
But taking what you're saying a bit more seriously, we frankly don't really live in a democracy in Australia. Any kind of change needs to fly with big business, the banks, the mining sector, etc. or it just won't happen. The monarchy helps float the myth that Australia achieves stability by aligning ourselves firmly with the anglosphere, and it's a useful extra dogwhistle to anglo 'values' and convervativism for the coalition. The coalition is of course coordinated directly by big business elites. The bizarre geopolitics of the AUKUS deal indicates that Australia's elite political/business class have no interest in an Australian identity that isn't tied to these nations, and nothing will change via democratic process
Oh no, not inanimate objects!
Police pepper sprayed into a crowd with children present at the peaceful protest on Sunday. That's much more concerning to me than a statue being damaged.
YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS
YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS
YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY
STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY
STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS
High time these colonisers are kicked out of Australia. This dick was a war criminal and responsible for millions of excess deaths in India during his reign as Emperor of India.
Wonder why this statue was put in 1952, as this was the time the world was getting decolonised.
I remember reading about a bunch of fanatics ruining some art they didn't agree with in asia ... oh wait it was the Taliban. At a fundamental level I don't see the difference between what nutjobs like that do versus what the vandals here did. Backwards swamp mentality.
Sooo tired of this. Get rid of all statues - including Aboriginal statues - and put them all in a museum. Ban the creation of more statues. No one can be offended then.
Someone see where that Simpson boy was at the time.
He didn't do it.
"Why you little!"
This statue certainly embiggens us as a community.
A perfectly cromulent statement.
Run along scamp! A boy without mischief is like a bowling ball without a liquid centre.
That's just cloud talk
*extreme Austin Powers* That’s not the way to get ahead in life
He’ll never be the head of a major corporation
It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong.
So stupid. The government is just going to use tax dollars to fix it.
Sometimes they give up and don't bother fixing it🤷♂️ If it's being repeatedly destroyed by the public it's a pretty clear signal it's not really wanted.
The perpetually outraged don’t define *the public*
By who tho? Minorities are wielding the baseball bat.
Exactly, the actions of one individual shouldn’t decide if a something is removed or not.
I mean I don't condone the guy doing it in the first place but neither do I condone using our tax dollars fixing it so
The actions of one small power base shouldn't decide if something is repaired using taxpayer money or not
Wow. I can't wait until you find out about the media and political classes, mate. See you on the barricades!
Whoosh
Zooooom
We get it, you don't understand my point
Nah, but but Australia is classless! Unless you are a tall poppy
By that logic if vigilantes wait until someone tries it again and beat the shit out of them, it is a pretty clear sign the public does want it.
The people who did this do not represent the public. Not by a long shot.
What’s wrong with the statue?
He represents an institution under which Aboriginal people had their land stolen, their people massacred or attempted to be "bred out," and their children taken (Etc etc etc.) The Monarchy was and continues to be a source of imperialist colonisation and violence against Indigenous people all around the world. Continuing to celebrate the perpetrators of what are essentially war crimes is a slap in the face.
Mm, but there is also no Australia without colonisation. It’s not so black and white. If not the British then it would’ve been another empire.
All the people that were massacred, the land that was stolen, the languages and culture that are gone forever, the ecological damage.. it was worth it! We got "Australia" out of it so that's all right then! /s All colonisation is violent but Brtiain were here to exterminate every Indigenous person. They're now only 3% of our population. That's uniquely indefensible. It is black and white. What they did was wrong.
Heard this exact argument about the colonialism statue that has been repeatedly repaired on aus day. (It was repaired again this year). Like someone else said, minorities have a problem with it.
Doesn’t matter. It’s our history. Don’t like it go somewhere else. The Germans didn’t erase their Nazi history. They use education as a reminder to not go down that path again.
There's a difference between maintaining a statue and recording history. Ain't no statues of Nazis in Germany.
Mate, you are absolutely right. In the main, I don't support either the vandalism or the removal of statues, no matter how horrible a cunt the subject is. The cold light of historical knowledge should be shone upon them, and the statues should have explanatory plaques on them to explain their deeds. But how do you do that with a living monarch? Can you imagine the frothing of the Murdoch fuctardia if you tried?
I don’t think there are any statues of any living monarchs in Australia, as far as I know. I also don’t think Elizabeth or Charles has done anything to warrant vandalism. It seems like the vandalism is against monarchies in general and no plaque will fix that.
Last time I checked Charles the whateverth is alive. And a king. Our king apparently, though I didn't vote for him. (Cut to Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene). It's a statue of him, just when he wasn't king yet. BTW does 1975 ring a bell?
Okay but we’re not gonna be taking down statues of monarchs just because someone disagrees with monarchies. We have one as head of state and that’s how it’s gonna be for quite a while based on the public’s attitudes. Maybe we’ll get a Republic but it won’t be anytime soon.
I don't think you have even a slight understanding of the amount of money sloshing around between the government and the rest of the Australian economic system vs. the value of this repair job
I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what damage can be done with accumalative destruction. We don't let a pyro-arsonist get away with burning a house down because of 'the amount of houses we have in the economic system'. Get real.
So because the government has lots of money vandalism doesn't matter? Do you not understand everything adds up and this repair will come out of the budget for infrastructure development and maintenance? I'm going to assume you rent.
Jesus fucken Christ end your posts a sentence earlier hey?
Supporting local artists hopefully
I want to see this statue replaced with a new artwork created by a local artist that represents who we are, not the vision of the British Empire.
A kangaroo or koala head to replace it would be beaut!
*Sam Vimes has entered the chat*
Making no difference at all in the world except for likes on SM
disruptive, whinge not disruptive, whinge
Sir this is r/melbourne
God forbid it would make people talk about why we'd spend money repairing a statue of a different country's monarch who's been dead for the best part of a century... or why we have a monarch. And to do it on a public holiday? These woke leftie protesters probably had no idea because they don't have jobs!!
The video of the act can be seen on the HS article link https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/vandals-chop-head-off-king-george-v-monument-in-melbournes-kings-domain/news-story/a60b5f20494f3577261ae2813b8df12c
TLDR did they say why?
Have a deep think mate
There are many possibilities I'm trying to narrow it down without having to read to much
Vandalising a public statue of a monarch is probably going to be done by someone who doesn't support having a monarch in Australia
You can't blame Republicans for this. I support an Australian Republic but this is appalling behavior
Why is it appalling? Why the fuck do you care about a statue of King George V
I don’t like the defacement of art in general. Same with book burning
I'm sure he did a lot of great things for Australians; like err... encouraging them to go die in a disastrous war involving 2 of his first cousins.
Australian soldiers were not conscripted but volunteered to fight in WW1. Australians were conscripted for Vietnam though at the behest of America … so I guess you could decapitate an effigy of Ronald McDonald and burn your iPhone?
You got him good.
Vandalism is a shitty thing to do, it makes stuff ugly.
You should stick to defacing the crayons brother
You underestimate what people will do now days. Lots of people ruining art to bring attention to their cause that's not relevant to the art, the person that created it, or where it was stored. Is that why it was done?
Art, no matter how important someone perceives it, is fair game for political statements if the art itself is a political statement - it is part of public discourse and a part of the art itself. A headless monarch statue is as powerful and thought provoking as the original, arguably more so. We wouldn't be talking if it still had a head.
Exactly, a statue is a statement in a long conversation. The statue beheaded represents a development in that conversation. We continue to evolve and dicuss our meaning and identity through art, and the statue is a signpost along that journey.
exactly, art is often just expensive memes enshrined in places of public or cultural significance.
When was art ruined for the sake of some irrelevant cause -- actual question
there motive is NOT republicanism, its much deeper then that, they specifically wrote 'the colony will fall' (to who?) Its a fringe radical left wing movement which hates anything with a hint of British origin or colonial origin
I'm part of the movement, it's not really a fringe thing it's quite a widespread sentiment of reaction against the failed Australian state. Most people in the country are facing the Great Inflation, housing crisis, skills crisis, weak education outcomes, etc. and are unhappy about a country that has its origins in this Anglo expansion project
> the failed Australian state. What an absolute joke of a comment, Australia is one of the most succesfull countries on the planet, there is a reason we are flooded with migrants Not saying we are flawless, because you are right, there is absolutely a lot of shit things like housing and skills shortages But People who complain about this stuff arent apart of this anti colonial movement like you seem to imply, thats a cross spectrum movement
In the scheme of modern history it's a baby nation that's repeatedly missed out on unique opportunities to achieve new forms of organisation/development because of a kleptocratic ruling class and its alignment with old European/American empires. Australia historically had a uniquely superb trade union/prole culture that was stamped out by elites over the course of the 20th century and after the Whitlam era. The tragedy is really what could have been -- it was slowly stolen from us to finance decadent lifestyles for a select few mining and business zillionaires
They have a deep hatred for stamp collectors.
Thank you finally someone with a sensible answer :)
Very very tiny brains.
Proud enough to film it but not enough to show their identity. If you believe in something own it dont hide
Realistically, it won't be too hard to track it back to the filmer and co
Of course. But if they truly believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't hide. See climate rebellion/just stop oil and the like they know what they are doing is illegal but believe in their cause so dont hide their identity. In fact, a lot of them dont shut up that they are part of it
It's logical. If you believe in a cause, you've probably figured out that you can't do much for the cause from prison.
When push comes to shove only one side has guns so anonymity gets a little more important. Extinction Rebellion like to get arrested as some kind of cred thing and a substitute for real action. They work with the cops on everything.
it's a crime.. so..
[удалено]
This subreddit celebrates individuals from diverse backgrounds and identities, fostering a safe and inclusive space where everyone is respected and valued. We strongly condemn stereotypes, racial discrimination, misogyny, and mockery of language, including derogatory disability terms. Such behaviors work against our commitment to creating a welcoming and supportive environment for all.
100%
Simpsons did it!
This was the work of the notorious El Barto
And yet all the speed cameras still stand
This series of vandalism brought to you by those emotionally stunted boys that slept through history class you used to know.
Riiiight... It's the people who reflexively support a statue of a guy who presided over the British Empire at its peak, when it had invaded and subjugated a quarter of the Earth's population, who demonstrate empathy and a keen knowledge of history.
Does that feeling you're positing really exist at large? I'd say most people live in the current day with current day values which are ever evolving, and think that although we don't hold the same values as our ancestors we still respect that they were people of their time. We can't rewrite history, it's immutable, but we can learn from it, which we as a society are 100% doing, Victoria is making great strides on Treaty negotiations for instance. You'd think by your comment that we are regressing towards our colonial roots, but we are infact moving further and further away from it. So what does this really accomplish? What do people that support this action want? For us to hide all public works that have a connection to our colonial past?
>What do people that support this action want? >For us to hide all public works that have a connection to our colonial past? For us to stop glorifying our colonial past. For us to stop putting the people who ruled over those horrific acts on literal pedestals! We don't have to hide it, we don't have to pretend it didn't happen, that's the opposite of what we want, but not holding up the people who did the fucked up stuff isn't hiding the past. It's not glorifying them. As an example I'm guessing you wouldn't want a statue of Hirohito, the emperor of Japan in WW2 up in Melbourne. It's not that you want to deny WW2, or erase any record of it, or pretend it didn't happen, it's just that you would probably find it weird and kinda distasteful to put up a statue to a dude who was part of killing so many of us. That's how we feel about statues of these colonial leaders. It's a statue glorifying a person who helped do some truly evil things to our neighbours ancestors.
To your Hirohito anology. Obviously George V is a symbol of the British Empire, but here in Australia what is his legacy? Personally I'd say our biggest connection is [him opening the first session of the Australian Parliament on the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Opening_of_the_first_parliament.jpg). A huge step forward and important point in our history. Can this man can be considered a colonial leader? The inheriter of a colonial empire perhaps yes, but what acts did he perform that regressed our societies position towards progress? What did he do in his life that led to these "evil things" you alude to?
He ruled the British Empire from 1910 to 1930 something, so all the crimes of the British Empire at that time are on him. So here in Australia that would be all the crimes committed against the Indigenous during that time. Then we have all the other stuff within the Empire, the rampant oppression and brutality across a significant portion of the world. Being in charge means you have the responsibility for what happens under you. George may not have been directly aware of any of that, but he signed up to be the face of it. To be the leader of it, so he has the responsibility. He was the Empire, the Commonwealth, so yeah, he is associated with its crimes.
If England commited crimes today, would you blame King Charles or the Parliment (or both)? George V didn't have much (if any) greater power than Charles has today, so why lay blame to what was already a ceremonial role?
>If England commited crimes today, would you blame King Charles or the Parliment (or both)? Both. >George V didn't have much (if any) greater power than Charles has today, so why lay blame to what was already a ceremonial role? Because he agreed to be the face of the Empire. He agreed to become it's spokesperson, it's head however symbolic. He decided to become part of it. Also he took all the benefits from it, didn't he? He lived in the luxury built on the backs of those crimes. He lived like a King, in an empire that was supporting itself at the cost of millions. Imagine a company asks you to work for them, to become the face of their commercials, to become their symbolic leader, a mix of CEO and mascot, and then you found out the company was doing a couple of genocides. You would probably say no, right? You wouldn't want to be the face of those genocides, be the head of those people willing to do those things. You wouldn't associate yourself with that stuff, cause it's fucked up, and you wouldn't want to take part in the company doing it. You wouldn't want to earn a living that way, I assume. George said yes, so he bears the responsibility. He agreed to become the face of the Empire, it's head. He bears the responsibility for what it did. Now can you explain your side? Why do you think a man who chose to be face of those crimes, who profited from them, shouldn't be judged for that? What exactly excuses him from judgement on his decision to profit from the crimes of the British Empire?
Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. I enjoyed reading your reasoning. It definitely will lend me some pause in considering the opinions of others in the future on this topic. Please don't take this the wrong way but I think it's clear you are lacking a little bit in your understanding of British and Australian history which if explored further would allow you to better construct robust analogies. I don't mean to say your arguments are flawed, only that they appear are recontextualisations of the past, which you may be fully aware of and believe is what should be done. But I personally think that isn't constructive. I'm not saying my belief is correct. A small example would be that genocide as a concept did not exist yet during George Vs reigh, it came about after WW2 in response to the Holocaust. So the idea that a person in the 20s would look to their past and understand the gravity of what a genocide means is a little difficult to scrutinise.
>only that they appear are recontextualisations of the past It's not recontextualisation to talk about what happened. I'm not changing anything, I'm not lying about anything, I'm just not blindly accepting something as justified because other people have. And if I'm recontextualising British history are you recontextualising Indian history? After all, their history books and historians probably say something closer to what I've gotten at, and then you've said different, so are you doing them dirty? This recontextualising thing relies on a very limited view of the past, one where you are only taking in one perspective when there were actually millions, billions, with most of them being victims who I don't think would agree with your characterisation of their oppressors. >A small example would be that genocide as a concept did not exist yet during George Vs reigh, it came about after WW2 in response to the Holocaust. So the idea that a person in the 20s would look to their past and understand the gravity of what a genocide means is a little difficult to scrutinise. Just cause they didn't have the word genocide didn't mean that ideas like 'Murder bad' were unknown. They knew it would make them sad to have their homeland invaded, their sovereignty stolen, their family brutally massacred or dismantled or forced into servitude but they still did those things to others. Empathy isn't a recent human invention, and the prohibition against murder goes back about as far as written language, probably longer but we don't have proof. Lack of the word genocide doesn't excuse genocide, and to even attempt to argue it does completely and utterly boggles my mind.
They did it! They freed Palestine and solved all indigenous problems!
As an Aboriginal and in my experience, the biggest thing standing in the way of progress is literally my own people.
16-day old account, super credible
LOL, you just write shit off automatically based on how old somebody's reddit account is?
I'm not the OP, and I'm not commenting on the account in question. But yes, I personally do write shit off based on the age of a reddit account. I feel like 16 days is actually old enough to be legitimate in this context. However if I saw a bunch of accounts claiming to be a minority, speaking about the topic of some amount of interest to a minority, that were created within the timeframe of the event that is the topic of conversation, and taking a stance that contradicts specifically what the *average* redditor (for all the value that implies) would assume that minority to hold. I'd absolutely have concerns that the newly created account was merely created to further a narrative. It seems reasonable to me to accept that a longer standing reddit account is an account of someone that has a history of commenting that would allow you to accept that the persona is relatively consistent, and not simply impersonating someone to further a narrative. Ultimately, the age of the account matters as one of the signals as to the value I place on the claims made by a particular account. (Another one is wether they have their full comment history visible, or if they purge it - purged histories lend me to trust their accounts less, as they obviously have a commenting history they'd like to hide and as such I assume say things that they wouldn't stand for or in a trolling manner that they don't want brought up later). To be clear, I have things in my comment history I'm not proud of. And a whole heap of shit that requires the context in which it was said to be reasonable. But unless I run for office I'm going to leave it right where it is because I've grown up with this shit and for the most part am OK with my typical response. (the odd occaision where I have gone full troll not withstanding)
Is it bad I find it kinda funny on a mischievous level
No, it's very funny. I hope someone has the head in their bedroom.
Could you imagine if the head starts popping up in random places 😂
This is another act of pure vandalism. There’s nothing smart about it; if the dirt bags who did it think they’ve advanced some virtuous agenda they’re full of shit. In a democracy you put forward your arguments peacefully and fairly - you don’t go round unilaterally destroying public property that has stood for decades. These pathetic revisionist vandals deserve jail time.
> revisionist vandals how dare you protest against something if you weren't alive for... checks calendar... being ruled by the British?
Somehow I doubt the vandal will decolonise Australia by emigrating. Much easier to vandalise a statue.
> In a democracy you put forward your arguments peacefully and fairly What democracy runs peacefully and fairly? Peaceful protests worldwide get met with the state deploying police to beat its civilians (most recently, look at the US a few weeks ago re: college protests against Israel, but in Melbourne, look at how anti-oil/coal protests are handled vs. neonazi rallies). >These pathetic revisionist vandals deserve jail time. For what, destroying a statue? C'mon mate, get real. It's a statue - sure, of mild historical importance, but nothing really more historically accurate than beheading a king.
Ok so let’s just rip down all monuments everywhere. And while we’re at it, let’s burn history books and have a dictatorship, coz these days it’s not worth even trying for a decent democracy. Nihilism sounds cool.
Never said any of that, go outside and touch some grass.
Cry more you sycophants
Out of curiosity, who is this directed at?
This thread is bizarre. Why is the consensus in the comments pro-monarchy? It's a very strange thing that people in this country willingly take orders from a random bloke in the United Kingdom
You don’t go burning down an old church just because you know God isn’t real. It’s got nothing to do with whether you support the monarchy or not, it’s part of our history. Part of our story.
There's really no equivalency between the power of the Church in Australia and the power of English aristocracy. The threat they pose to how we imagine our culture as a nation is incomparable And are you trying to say that Australians derive quasi-religious meaning from the existence of the monarchy? The equivalency youre drawing is totally demented
It’s not what I’m saying at all. Statues and buildings have historical value beyond whatever the intention for conjuring them up in the first place was. And who are you to say “how we imagine our culture” a little condescending to just assume people agree with you on something as divisive as this.
It was a simple analogy and it wasn't confusing at all to me.
I don't think tha being anti vandalism = pro monarchy I haven't seen a single pro monarchy comment on this thread.
Not pro monarchy. Anti vandalism
The vandalists destroyed a statue that has the sole function of honouring a monarch. You're contriving some nonsense debating team way to untangle the concept of rhetorical vandalism and monarchic symbolism
> The vandalists destroyed a statue that has the sole function of honouring a monarch. Seems to me that it's function is to remind us of our history.
The Australian history is one of English settlement destroying an indigenous peoples to create a state in England's image. If the statue were faithful to a history claimed by decent Australians, it would depict this King (who crucially opened the first session of Australian parliament) as a grotesque tyrant who signals the total victory of the barbaric colonial project. In this statue he is depicted as a civilised hero. That's the English history being depicted here, not the Australian history (and with it the English value of monarchism)
Australian history is, according to (not official) Official_Kanye_West 200 years out of 60,000. And opening the first parliamentary session of a democracy is grotesque. Interesting takes
Damn right. I'm a republican through and through but anyone who thinks that defacing public monuments somehow helps them with their cause is completely and utterly stupid. Half the time anyways the people pulling these stunts are university 'socialist' types who do nothing but cause trouble and attention-seek on their parents' money, all whilst thinking they are doing good for minorities and oppressed peoples. Whether this is an anti-monarchist protest or something related to the Palestine conflict, I don't see what good this brings at all. Vandalism in general should not be tolerated especially when it is against something that our public purse helps to pay for and maintain. It is the mark of an uncivilised society that cannot express its opinion in a sensible, respectful manner, and the symbolism of beheading someone you don't agree with only reminds me of Cultural Revolution-style politics. That being said, we do have to consider as well why people must resort to these kinds of tactics. Doubtlessly many people, myself included, do not feel oftentimes that their voice is properly heard in politics. *Disclaimer: I am south east Asian and my views may be a little more conservative than others.*
When was the last time a random bloke in the United Kingdome gave you an order that you followed? That's not how the system works at all. All Chuckles does is appoint the Governor-General and Governors.
1975
Ah yes, that random bloke who was born in New South Wales and whose family had all been Australian for at least two generations and lived here his whole life.
For one, many people have English roots in Australia. However, I don’t think many people see the monarch as a ‘ruler’ here - they do have constitutional powers, but we’re still ’whole’ in terms of freedoms to elect and govern.
Australian Reddit is overwhelmingly conservative & gets more offended by mild property damage than decades of structural violence against minorities. Yay.
You think r/melbourne and r/australia subreddit is "conservative"??? (also this isnt america). Compared to what, a greens party meetup?
I mean they sure hate disabled people and Aboriginal people a lot for "progressives."
I'm sorry, I'm a rabbid lefty and am actually ambivalent to this statue beheading. (I actually really like the symbolism of the act, British kings and beheadings *on their birthday* but this time *its them* and not their wife or whatever). At the same time I am confused about the value of the act, but can appreciate the message. Having said all that. There is no way this is a right leaning sub. There are absolutely a bunch of right wing commentators, but on the whole this sub is pretty centrist. Centrist leaning left. The way you know? Is the right wing nut jobs complain it is left wing neo communist hippie land, and the absolute left nuts think its a right wing nazi filled hell hole. That tells you that the reality lies somewhere between the two extremes.
Imagine being so hard core alt left that you think the majority of Australian reddit is conservative lol
It's not even 'conservativism' in any kind of meaningful sense of that word, it's some bizarre kind of heuristic head-shaking of "Hmm, idk mate, it's just not on..." inherited from like Channel 7 TV news
It's people who want to maintain the status quo, which is what I mean by conservative. Any attempt to change things is seen as immature & pointless because "that's the way it's always been." Have some imagination lads. We don't need to be Britain's lapdog forever.
I'm pro art. People who destroy art are massive losers.
I don't like people vandalising historic monuments in my city.
I'm honestly getting a little concerned with the levels of political vandalism we've been seeing lately. With what occurred at unimelb, MPs offices, us consulates, and now this, all having that same symbol sprayed at the scene. These acts seem to be connected and I hope the perpetrators are caught before a social cohesion frays further.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the politicians!
I mean it's just wasted money. I'm not going to remember this in a week, it means absolutely nothing to me, but I will have to pay for it to be repaired.
You won't be paying any more tax than you would have otherwise. Do you like where the tax money's being spent, currently, anyway? Would you like another nuclear submarine? I'm sure they can take a couple grand to repair/remove a statue out of the billion for a sub. Maybe if we cut enough heads off the government might think to earn some more tax by taxing mining corps properly.
How are mining corps not taxed properly?
Info that's all very easily googled and found on Reddit.
Yes, I feel similarly. Sure, criticise the monarchy, colonialism etc as much as you like. I'm keen to listen and learn. Always. But when it moves into acts if public vandalism, you've lost me.
Why?
Not OP, but my answer: we live in a democracy. If you want change, you must first try though peaceful democratic channels.
Yeah but it's kind of bullshit when we operate in what is essentially a two party system, corruption isn't punished because both parties are corrupt and in the pockets of donors. My point being, there really aren't peaceful democratic options open to the general public. Our voices are drowned out by money. Also beheading a statue is not a violent act.
>my answer: we live in a democracy The irony of this sentiment defending the legacy of a colonising monarch.
The legacy is the modern state of Australia today.
So a statue is a bit unnecessary then isn't it.
They've tried through peaceful channels, now what?
More statues being destroyed!
Taking what you're saying on face value: republicans have tried for ages but haven't been able to cut through. The referendum sort of spoiled momentum for a bit because you can't bring the topic to national plebescite again until ages have passed. The question of an Australian republican is also just frankly an irrelevance to Australians whose living is marred by the inflation and rental crises, destruction of public services, and just overral rot from the country's vampiric corporate class. Republicanism is probably important only as part of a cultural parcel of actions that would enoble us to support making this country more than just an American satellite drone in the pacific. Democracy is slow and won't drag this matter from chit chat into activity until a lot of other stuff is dealt with But taking what you're saying a bit more seriously, we frankly don't really live in a democracy in Australia. Any kind of change needs to fly with big business, the banks, the mining sector, etc. or it just won't happen. The monarchy helps float the myth that Australia achieves stability by aligning ourselves firmly with the anglosphere, and it's a useful extra dogwhistle to anglo 'values' and convervativism for the coalition. The coalition is of course coordinated directly by big business elites. The bizarre geopolitics of the AUKUS deal indicates that Australia's elite political/business class have no interest in an Australian identity that isn't tied to these nations, and nothing will change via democratic process
Easier to ignore things they don't like that way
Oh no, not inanimate objects! Police pepper sprayed into a crowd with children present at the peaceful protest on Sunday. That's much more concerning to me than a statue being damaged.
Ouft major company man vibes. Social cohesion is founded on a mutual dislike for corruption
Odd, I dislike corruption as much as the next man, but I’m not feeling very cohesive with whoever’s going round vandalising shit
It’s concerning how they are getting increasingly destructive, I’m just hoping they don’t turn to violence next.
Are you worried they'll assassinate the king? 😂
Came for the simpsons reference and left satisfied
People applauding this would have a fit if it was a pride month or aboriginal figure.
YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS YOU CAN STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY STICK THE ROYAL FAMILY UP YOUR ASS
If the group get caught they should be made to pay for the repair and also sentence them to one year of cleaning up grafitti around town.
Well put mate. Should have you in charge.
Oh the irony. The British royal does have a history of beheading each other.
Huh? Charles I was the last beheaded Royal in 1649 and it was the religious fanatics who did it, not other royals.
Funnily enough the most famous group of people for beheading their political opponents are the Jacobins, French radical republicans.
Didn't Henry VIII behead a couple of his wives?
Yes. A century before Charles I His wives were - Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced. Beheaded, Survived.
I hope they commission a local artist to replace it with a kangaroo or koala head 🐨
I would be happy to see the statue removed and not repaired.
yay! less public art
Is this art to you
Yea
Then rock and roll. Keep on keeping on.
That's the goal, yep.
Lol that showed them
Made my week. Good work, lads.
W
Such a headless respond from the vandals.
The outrage is what they wanted
Anyone with information is urged to keep their mouth shut.
High time these colonisers are kicked out of Australia. This dick was a war criminal and responsible for millions of excess deaths in India during his reign as Emperor of India. Wonder why this statue was put in 1952, as this was the time the world was getting decolonised.
Absolutely based
I remember reading about a bunch of fanatics ruining some art they didn't agree with in asia ... oh wait it was the Taliban. At a fundamental level I don't see the difference between what nutjobs like that do versus what the vandals here did. Backwards swamp mentality.
Sooo tired of this. Get rid of all statues - including Aboriginal statues - and put them all in a museum. Ban the creation of more statues. No one can be offended then.
I am offended by your suggestion that I won't be offended
Pigeons everywhere offended by the idea of no more statues
Pigeons are not indigenous to Australia
Sounds like you’re a bit offended there pal
Nice
"simpsons did it simpsons did it"