Is America a racist nation?

[PizzaSnake]

Classic

Try this one. Comply? Sit down? What the heck does this “peace officer” think he’s doing? Talking to a dog? Fortunately there were witnesses and the other officers weren’t brain dead. I don’t “know” if this officer is racist (though I suspect he is), but he sure is stupid. I think that is the fundamental problem with policing in this country: it is a very difficult, dangerous job and some of the people employed in it have no capacity to perform it. If they didn’t routinely overstep their authority and, on frequent occasion injure and kill citizens, it would almost be amusing.

Read this for follow up — “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

https://www.cpr.org/2019/05/17/boulder- ... -up-trash/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Classic

Try this one. Comply? Sit down? What the heck does this “peace officer” think he’s doing? Talking to a dog? Fortunately there were witnesses and the other officers weren’t brain dead. I don’t “know” if this officer is racist (though I suspect he is), but he sure is stupid. I think that is the fundamental problem with policing in this country: it is a very difficult, dangerous job and some of the people employed in it have no capacity to perform it. If they didn’t routinely overstep their authority and, on frequent occasion injure and kill citizens, it would almost be amusing.

Read this for follow up — “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

https://www.cpr.org/2019/05/17/boulder- ... -up-trash/

I saw that a couple of years ago. It happens all the time. Years ago cop unsnapped his gun and put his hand on it after a guy I worked with was visiting a hospital and didn't see a no parking sign..he was with his son.... he said, "I didn't see a sign"....cop said "you trying to be smart?.... unsnapped his weapon and put his hand on it..... this happens routinely. Not all the time but it isn't uncommon.

[PizzaSnake]

Nothing like sharing the wealth.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... cdc-study/

“ Overall, only a small number of patients each month—4 percent or less, on average—received monoclonal antibodies. But there were clear disparities as to who got them: On average, Black and Asian patients were treated with monoclonals 22 percent and 48 percent less often, respectively, than white patients. Other races, including Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, were treated 47 percent less often than white patients. Hispanic patients were treated with monoclonals 58 percent less often than those who were non-Hispanic. In fact, during nearly every month the researchers measured, white patients were more likely than the other groups to be given the potentially life-saving treatment. This chart sums it up:



Percentage of Covid patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment by race and ethnicity. CDC

[youthathletics]

...one data point always tells the entire store.

Why where white people 9% less than black remdesivir?

But hey...let's also turn covid in to a race issue. The authors also cite limitations to the study, including that it was common for race and ethnicity data to be left off of records for people who tested positive, and that patient records were largely gathered from centers within the health care system, meaning they may not reflect trends among patients treated outside of those settings, such as government-run infusion sites.

[Typical Lax Dad]

...one data point always tells the entire store.

Why where white people 9% less than black remdesivir?

But hey...let's also turn covid in to a race issue. The authors also cite limitations to the study, including that it was common for race and ethnicity data to be left off of records for people who tested positive, and that patient records were largely gathered from centers within the health care system, meaning they may not reflect trends among patients treated outside of those settings, such as government-run infusion sites.

There is a long unfortunate history of racial disparity in healthcare in this country. Not sure why this would be different. The limitation on data may have made the data appear to be bettered than it actually is….. why not?

[MDlaxfan76]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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. 1925. 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...

[youthathletics]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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. 1925. 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."

[Typical Lax Dad]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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. 1925. 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."

I went to college with one of his descendants. She was hot.

[Farfromgeneva]

Classic

The guy who is profiled is hilarious. I might give the supervisor a pass. Little bit of blue wall attitude but the other two clearly have egos that make them unsuitable to be officers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Classic

The guy who is profiled is hilarious. I might give the supervisor a pass. Little bit of blue wall attitude but the other two clearly have egos that make them unsuitable to be officers.

I loved it. Two nobodies that would probably be in a gym doing curls and taking steroids on off days. A lot of guys like that in law enforcement. Not most but enough to be a problem.

[Farfromgeneva]

Classic

The guy who is profiled is hilarious. I might give the supervisor a pass. Little bit of blue wall attitude but the other two clearly have egos that make them unsuitable to be officers.

I loved it. Two nobodies that would probably be in a gym doing curls and taking steroids on off days. A lot of guys like that in law enforcement. Not most but enough to be a problem.

Like this guy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=crplowfifJE

[Typical Lax Dad]

Classic

The guy who is profiled is hilarious. I might give the supervisor a pass. Little bit of blue wall attitude but the other two clearly have egos that make them unsuitable to be officers.

I loved it. Two nobodies that would probably be in a gym doing curls and taking steroids on off days. A lot of guys like that in law enforcement. Not most but enough to be a problem.

Like this guy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=crplowfifJE

Absolutely

[MDlaxfan76]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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.

That’s admittedly a subjective caveat, no?

[youthathletics]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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.

only according to you, the almighty. The sculptor represented the vision and inherent feelings of the true Roosevelt, thus the piece of arts representation. But keep up the woke smoke signals, you fit in nicely.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don’t know the specific answer here but typically the meaning on “inherent value” in art is not controlled by the creator once it’s completed and in the public domain. An artists intent ceases to matter.

[RedFromMI]

I don’t know the specific answer here but typically the meaning on “inherent value” in art is not controlled by the creator once it’s completed and in the public domain. An artists intent ceases to matter.

A good very recent example is the movie "Don't Look Up" which the producers/writers intended as a satire/commentary about climate change, but many watching it saw it as referential to the handling of the pandemic. Even when an artist says what their output means, everyone gets a chance to interpret it themselves.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don’t know the specific answer here but typically the meaning on “inherent value” in art is not controlled by the creator once it’s completed and in the public domain. An artists intent ceases to matter.

A good very recent example is the movie "Don't Look Up" which the producers/writers intended as a satire/commentary about climate change, but many watching it saw it as referential to the handling of the pandemic. Even when an artist says what their output means, everyone gets a chance to interpret it themselves.

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/sto ... scream/amp

[cradleandshoot]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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.

only according to you, the almighty. The sculptor represented the vision and inherent feelings of the true Roosevelt, thus the piece of arts representation. But keep up the woke smoke signals, you fit in nicely.

Maybe we need to be extra cautious and jackhammer Teddy off of Mt Rushmore to assuage the PC police on this forum. Maybe the Washington monument is just a phallic symbol for how old George f***Ed the slaves as well?

[Typical Lax Dad]

......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html

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.

only according to you, the almighty. The sculptor represented the vision and inherent feelings of the true Roosevelt, thus the piece of arts representation. But keep up the woke smoke signals, you fit in nicely.

You think Roosevelt told the artist what he wanted the sculpture to look like? You think that’s how it works? Like ordering chicken? You own any artwork?