youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:13 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:18 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:38 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:11 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:49 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:42 am
yup, took a long time for those who found the statue offensive to persuade and move the system to take action. But now moved.
The mistake is to think that this is a wholesale rejection of Teddy Roosevelt. The specific statue was what was problematic.
It would be interesting for that statue to be displayed in a museum context with full explanation of its genesis, Teddy's history, and why it was moved, including why it was found inappropriate to be in the public square otherwise.
Hope that's what happens.
EDIT: ahh yes, in the Teddy Roosevelt Presidential Library.
Hope they explain the full rationale of its move.
So help me understand why that full explanation could not have been exactly where it was? Where it could have been read, explained and fully understood. It was at the "American History Museum" in the heart of a metropolis where so many would have benefited. Crazy times we live....why we have to hide our history in a closet is beyond me.....to me its the exact reason why it is perpetuated. TR was a progressive in the true sense, the man in the arena, did more for nature than anyone....now, he will viewed as a racist "its why they removed it", just weird, to me.
You think there's a real possibility of an open air explanation of why the statue doesn't belong in a place of prominence in the public square? I don't. No plaque deals with passersby who never see the plaque, instead see the statue from a distance, with the statement never made when a statue like that is removed from a position of prominence. a plaque simply can't do the issue justice.
Why would you view the current statue as some hierarchy of race....that is just strange. Hell, we witness that each Saturday and Sunday when Whitey Coach leads his mixed race team on to a field to battle.
They even voted in 2017 to add the signage:
In 2017, a commission established by then-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio evaluated the statue and several other controversial monuments on city-owned land. Members were divided on their recommendations, with half advocating for more research, half in favor of relocating the statue and several recommending that the museum keep the statue in place but add signage with more information and context. The city went with the third option.
We have become a bunch of pu**ies.
I disagree. The statue places Roosevelt on a horse above the Native American and above the sub-Saharan African. The symbolism is unmistakable and was on purpose. No white men on the ground. It was intentional. 1939. The Museum itself recognizes that to be the case.
Again, zero issue with a statue of Roosevelt, but that specific symbolism is understandably unacceptable. "signage" in that location would be insufficient IMO. Better than no signage, certainly but this is the right answer...
Heaven forbid we show a white man, leading and embracing other races to join in the spirit of America, oh the tragedy one must feel knowing a white man cared for them.
I suppose you knew the sculptor better than himself.
As an early champion of civil rights and equality for black and Native Americans during the early 20th century, many feel the statue depicts Roosevelt as leading minority persons in the U.S. forward towards the promises made to all under the U.S. constitution....
James Earle Fraser, stated the intent with these words: "The two figures at [Roosevelt's] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt's friendliness to all races."
The African is not from America, that's in reference to Roosevelt's trip to Africa. Colonial Africa.
It's in reference to yes, the white man's dominance of these two continents, the Native American symbolizing America.
And if you really don't understand the history of white supremacy and its underlying assumptions, and why those assumptions are no longer tolerated, not sure what I can do to explain it.
But to be clear, Roosevelt's own views on race were more about culture, not genetic differences, a presumption of the superiority of white European/American culture relative to the natives of either America or Africa. It was a paternalistic view shared by many of those who, for their time, were considered 'progressive'...indeed Roosevelt had a number of good relationships with individuals of other races.