Debating Matters

Germany: Monuments to Controversial Historical Figures Should Remain

Updated 2021

INTRODUCTION

In the UK in June 2020 as part of Black Lives Matter protests, a statue of Edward Colston [Ref: Wikipedia] was toppled by protestors and thrown into the harbour [Ref: BBC] and a few weeks later Oriel College, Oxford, voted to remove the hotly debated statue of Cecil Rhodes [Ref: Guardian]. In the United States, protestors and city officials have removed hundreds of statues of controversial figures, including those of confederate General Robert E. Lee [Ref: List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, Wikipedia]. In Germany, the debate focuses primarily on street names and military barracks named after colonialists. These actions are the latest chapter in a long-running debate about historical monuments, with campaigns such as ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ having argued for some time that such statues are more than just a symbol of past oppression – they represent the institutional racism which continues to exist today [Ref: BBC News]. “Protesters,” says one columnist, are “compelling entire nations to confront their present through a new understanding of their past” [Ref: Guardian]. Others believe that these monuments make reconciliation difficult or even impossible. Some, however, worry that there is a tendency to ‘cleanse’ history of unsavoury – even appalling – elements. In the words of historian Mary Beard, “statues offer different challenges to our view of history … and remind us of our own fragility in the judgement of the future” [Ref: TLS]. At its heart, the debate is about our relationship with history, and whether removing statues and monuments has a role to play in reappraising historic wrongs, or whether they encourage us to airbrush out difficult and contentious parts of our history, rather than engage with and understand them. Should monuments to controversial historical figures remain?

In the digital age, we should not expect our online activities to remain private

Author: Kaja Molinksa

INTRODUCTION

Has the expectation of privacy become outdated? Over half the world’s population uses social media [Ref: Datareportal] and there are now many official ‘track and trace’ apps to combat coronavirus infections [Ref: The Atlantic]. Many today declare they are worried about privacy, but continue to use services that hoover up their data, a contradiction termed the ‘privacy paradox’ [Ref: Guardian]. From the proliferation of connected devices (in 2020, 34 per cent of UK households had a smart speaker [Ref: Statista]), to taking advantage of the benefits of targeted advertising [Ref: Forbes], it seems that few consumers genuinely take their online privacy seriously. In fact, over 90 per cent of consumers agree to a website’s ‘terms and conditions’ without reading them [Ref: Business Insider]. One study suggested students would even choose free pizza over secure email addresses [Ref: Forbes].

However, from the Cambridge Analytica scandal [Ref: Guardian] to high-profile data breaches, such as in 2018 when over 300 million Marriot International guests had data including addresses and passport numbers exposed [Ref: TechAdvisor], we still profess to “loathe that our data is mined and scraped” [Ref: New York Times]. For many, privacy remains an indispensable right and safeguard against overbearing governments – such as in Belarus, where the privacy-focused app Telegram allows protestors to organise against the government [Ref: The Economist]. For others, such as governments attempting to track and locate infectious persons during the coronavirus pandemic, online privacy stands in the way of keeping us all safe [Ref: The Atlantic]. Where should the line be drawn?

Germany should pay reparations for its colonial past

This topic guide is a companion to ‘Britain should pay reparations for its colonial past’

INTRODUCTION

Following wartime reparations, most notably to Holocaust survivors, attention has turned towards reparations in relation to Germany’s colonial past. In particular, there has been discussion surrounding reparations over the genocide against the Herero and Nama people of Namibia [Ref: The Guardian].

While relations between the Herero and Nama people and the German government have encountered many issues, including the repatriation of stolen remains and recognition of the act of genocide, the most contentious ongoing dispute surrounds financial reparation. With failed attempts to bring the German government to court in 2001 and, most recently, in 2018 [Ref: teleSUR], the Herero and Nama people have been calling for personal reparations to their tribes, while the German government argue that their ongoing aid to Namibia is sufficient [Ref: The Guardian]. Namibia’s claims have been followed by similar demands from Tanzania, another former German colony. [Ref: DW].

These are just two examples of an increasing demand for reparations from Western nations to individuals and countries who have been affected by colonialism. Reparations relating to the transatlantic slave trade [Ref: UNESCO], for example, are thought to add up to as much as $14 trillion [Ref: Newsweek] and some argue that slavery facilitated the rise and wealth of colonial powers to such an extent that its effects are still felt today [Ref: New Statesman]. The implication of this is that slavery has filtered down through generations and had a discernible material impact on the present, benefitting the descendants of those who owned and traded slaves, and holding back the descendants of slaves [Ref: New Statesman].

Climate Emergency: People should not have more than two children

INTRODUCTION

In July 2019, Prince Harry announced that he and the Duchess of Sussex will not be having more than two children for environmental reasons [Source: New York Times]. Many praised the decision, especially following the creation by Blythe Pepino and Alice Brown of BirthStrike, ‘a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”’ [Source: The Guardian]. Many argue that it is immoral to have children in this context, given the environmental impact of having children [Ref: Population Matters] – or even that it is wrong to bring children into a world where they will face the results of climate disasters [Source: The Guardian]. However, many argue that population control will not make much of a difference to world emissions [Ref: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] and that it is an authoritarian step, with colonial undertones, and with problematic implications for women’s freedom [Ref: Spiked].

Childhood vaccinations should be compulsory

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

Across Europe, 2016 saw the lowest number of measles cases on record. Two years later, the number of cases, and deaths, were at their highest level for at least 15 years [REF: BMJ]. Declining vaccination rates are widely thought to be to blame. In response, the UK’s health secretary, Matt Hancock, said in May 2019 that those who spread anti-vaccine messages have ‘blood on their hands’ and that he was now considering making vaccinations compulsory [REF: Guardian]. Similarly, New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, has declared a public health emergency and ordered mandatory vaccinations after the largest measles outbreak for over 20 years [REF: Telegraph].

Countries across the world are still dealing with the consequences of a controversial research paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield, published in medical journal The Lancet in 1998, which suggested a connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination and the development of autism in children [REF: FT]. Although Dr Wakefield’s research has been discredited, it is widely agreed that the doubts created about MMR [Ref: Independent] resulted in a decline in vaccinations in the UK – falling from a peak of 94 per cent for two year olds in 1995, to 78 per cent in 2003. Whilst vaccination rates in the UK have improved since then, the fears about MMR have reverberated around the world, creating a generation of so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’, and playing into trends towards, and concerns around, everything from populism [REF: Guardian] to fake news [Ref: The Big Issue].

Tourism benefits the world

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has traditionally been seen as a way of showing appreciation for different places, peoples and cultures, but mounting fears about the impact of mass tourism have led many to question whether tourists are actually ruining the places they love. A debate about the effects of tourism on tourist destinations has been going on for some time [Ref: Telegraph], leading to the rise of related ideas like ethical tourism [Ref: Tourism Concern] or eco-tourism [Ref: International Ecotourism Society].

Most recently, there has been a renewed focus on the impact that tourism has on major or historic cities. Scottish authors Ian Rankin [Ref: Times] and Val McDermid [Ref: Edinburgh News] have clashed on whether tourism is ‘killing’ Edinburgh. Barcelona is widely considered to have been ‘ruined’ by tourism [Ref: The Guardian], and Venice has considered taking radical steps including banning sitting down in key areas to alleviate the supposed problems of overtourism [Ref: Telegraph]. Moreover, the short-stay rental service Airbnb – used by many tourists – has been accused of driving up rents for locals, turning residential areas into unofficial hotels [Ref: BBC] and even robbing cities of their individuality [Ref: The Verge].

Humanity should fear advances in artificial intelligence

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

The increasing ability of machines in recent years to replicate or even supersede human abilities in complex tasks has been impressive. Already, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been used to allow machines to beat the best players in the world at both chess [Ref: Time] and the Chinese board game Go [Ref: Guardian]. IBM’s Watson has beaten the best human players on the long-running US quiz show, Jeopardy! [Ref: Techrepublic]. AI has long been built into consumer goods such as Google search, Alexa and Siri, and is being rolled out in the NHS [Ref: Gov.uk]. Things really took off in September 2022, however, with the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Its ability to produce convincingly human-sounding text in response to prompts written in everyday language was a sensation, reaching one million users within five days [Ref: Exploding Topics]. Since then, AI applications have hit the mainstream, available and easy-to-use for anyone with an internet connection; alongside text-generation products like ChatGPT, AI-powered tools for generating images, audio, video, code and more have proliferated.

But the implications for society are only just becoming apparent. In January 2024, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund claimed 40 per cent of jobs worldwide will be affected by AI. She warned that it will likely worsen global inequality, but could also enhance some humans’ performance and create new jobs [Ref: Guardian]. Jobs lost could range from call-centre staff being replaced by chatbots to highly-educated law and finance professionals; these industries are now projected to be among the most affected by AI [Ref: Guardian]. Facial recognition systems, combined with ubiquitous CCTV, could erode our privacy. AI-powered autonomous weapons, or bioweapons developed using AI technology, could herald new and deadlier forms of warfare. The world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, even claimed that ‘AI may replace humans altogether’ as a ‘new form of life’ that can rapidly learn and improve, making people obsolete [Ref: Independent]. However, AI is also projected to boost the UK’s GDP by up to 10 per cent by 2030 [Ref: PwC] and has the potential to revolutionise fields as diverse as medicine, education and sustainability. So, should we welcome AI’s potential, or are the risks too great?

Populism is a threat to democracy

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

Populism is the political buzzword of the day – with commentators, political theorists and politicians all debating its meaning and the merits of its apparent rise in recent years. From the election of Donald Trump in America [Ref: Guardian], and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France [Ref: Guardian], to left wing anti-austerity parties Syriza in Greece [Ref: New Statesman], and Podemos in Spain [Ref: BBC News], it seems that populist politics has carved a niche for itself in the political landscape. However, some fear that the rise of right wing populism in particular, is dangerous for democracy and liberal values, going so far as to suggest that it has echoes of the emergence of fascism in the 1930’s and 1940’s [Ref: Guardian].

But is it as clear cut as that – should we view populism with optimism or fear? For advocates, populism whether left or right wing, is democracy and popular sovereignty in action, and embodies the will of the people, potentially acting as a catalyst for profound and lasting political change, by disrupting consensus and re-invigorating debate. It signifies the re-engagement of the populace with politics and political ideas, and ultimately represents the, “public desire for democracy” [Ref: Spiked].

However, critics see populism in less favourable terms, with many suggesting that populist movements are empty vessels for which to carry all the vitriol that the public may have on a range of issues. One commentator concludes that populism is essentially “the belief that there are easy solutions to hard problems – [the] belief that one can escape reality.” [Ref: Atlantic] So amid the competing arguments, is populism something we should welcome as capturing the undiluted will of the people, the very essence of democracy? Or should we be wary of it as a divisive and dangerous phenomenon, attempting to distil complex societal problems into simplistic slogans with little practical application? Is populism good for politics?

We should build on the Green Belt

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

For several years, there has been an ongoing debate about the merits of the green belt [Ref: Wikipedia] in the UK, with supporters and critics clashing over its relevance and necessity in the 21st century. The issue has come to a head more recently however, with the government publishing its new housing White Paper in February [Ref: Gov.UK], with estimates suggesting that there have only been an average of 160,000 homes built per year in the UK since the 1970’s – compared to the more than 275,000 required to keep up with population growth and under supply [Ref: Gov.UK]. This has led to talk of a housing crisis, with the number of houses available, and the affordability of homes in the UK hitting the headlines [Ref: Telegraph], leading many to argue that the solution is to build on the green belt [Ref: spiked].

For supporters, building on the green belt would allow for new towns to be built [Ref: Guardian], and encourage more radical thinking on how our existing cities are constituted, permitting them to expand and become better places to live. Moreover, they argue that building on the green belt is the most sensible way to alleviate the housing crisis, because: “For too long governments have viewed the green belt as sacrosanct, but with such limited housing supply, action on the green belt is vital.” [Ref: Huffington Post]

Critics though, claim that the green belt is an important planning mechanism that prevents urban sprawl [Ref: Encyclopaedia Britannica], and preserves the countryside, with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell warning that: “The green belt was bequeathed to us by past generations, and we should take extraordinary care before allowing it to disappear under bricks and mortar. Once built on, it can never be restored.” [Ref: Daily Mail] They are adamant that building on the green belt is not the answer, with other suggestions mooted, such as building on previously used brown field land [Ref: Collins Dictionary], and increasing the housing density in towns and cities [Ref: Evening Standard]. Considering the competing arguments, should we build on the green belt, or would this irreversibly damage the countryside and do little to solve the housebuilding shortfall?

Social media sites should filter out fake news

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

In November, Donald Trump stunned the world when he defeated Democratic rival Hilary Clinton to win the 45th presidency of the USA. In the aftermath of the result, attempting to explain what seemed like such an upset, BuzzFeed News released a report claiming that fake or hoax news stories with headlines such as “The pope loves Trump” outperformed legitimate stories in the final months of campaigning [Ref: BuzzFeed]. Thus, some commentators have claimed that untrue stories had persuaded undecided voters to vote for Trump [Ref: Independent], and highlight a broader problem facing Western Democracy after the Brexit vote, that we have entered an era of “Post-truth” politics [Ref: New Statesman].

Many see the proliferation of social media sites in the past ten years as a key component of the problem; because of instant ‘likes’ and ‘shares’, once a story is discovered to be fake or untrue, the damage is often already done. As a result, these critics argue that social media sites need to make a more concerted effort to police content and filter out stories that are untrue for the democratic good [Ref: Guardian].

However, others claim that the panic over fake news is just a ploy to shut down free speech, with one commentator arguing that applying pressure to companies like Facebook to take down certain types of news, is the first step on the slippery slope toward regulating online debate [Ref: Telegraph]. In some quarters, the fake news panic is seen as more evidence of the mainstream media failing to do its job of objectively searching for truth, and claim that the electorate are smart enough to decide for themselves what to believe, without news being filtered out online [Ref: spiked]. Does fake news online pose any serious threat to the nature of our discourse, or should we trust people to figure out what is and isn’t true? Should social media sites filter out fake news stories?