Is America a racist nation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

East Coast Hockey League suspends player indefinitely after alleged racist gesture toward Black opponent

Snowflakes

[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.

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

I’m bummed as I was in Oslo in my college years but it was when the thing had been stolen from the museum it was in so never got to see it

[tech37]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

[Farfromgeneva]

East Coast Hockey League suspends player indefinitely after alleged racist gesture toward Black opponent

Snowflakes

Two funny things:

1. My FIL was in the group that owned an ECHL team until like 1-2yrs ago (Gladiators)
2. I loved Subbans comments. Like totally totally love this part:

Subban, who is Black, responded to that tweet and said that Panetta had make monkey gestures at him: "More like @JPanetta12 was too much of a coward to fight me and as soon as I began to turn my back he started making monkey gestures at me so I punched him in the face multiple times and he turtled like the coward he is. There fixed it."

[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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

[Typical Lax Dad]

East Coast Hockey League suspends player indefinitely after alleged racist gesture toward Black opponent

Snowflakes

Two funny things:

1. My FIL was in the group that owned an ECHL team until like 1-2yrs ago (Gladiators)
2. I loved Subbans comments. Like totally totally love this part:

Subban, who is Black, responded to that tweet and said that Panetta had make monkey gestures at him: "More like @JPanetta12 was too much of a coward to fight me and as soon as I began to turn my back he started making monkey gestures at me so I punched him in the face multiple times and he turtled like the coward he is. There fixed it."

Had he and Subban be alone on a street, he would not do it.

[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.

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?

Maybe you just need to bother to read and comprehend before posting in trollish way?

[Kismet]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Frankly, what AMNH is currently doing would have been enough for me - a prominent exhibit explaining the context of the statue in its time and the rationale for its relocation

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-statue

"The Museum will remain the site of New York State’s official memorial to Theodore Roosevelt. The Roosevelt Family has a long association with the Museum, beginning with the President’s father and continuing with his great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, who serves as a Museum Trustee. And, in honor of Theodore Roosevelt’s role as a leading conservationist, the Museum’s Hall of Biodiversity will be named for him.

We recognize that more work is needed to better understand not only the Statue, but our own history. As we strive to advance our institution’s, our City’s, and our country’s passionate quest for racial justice, we believe that removing the Statue will be a symbol of progress and of our commitment to build and sustain an inclusive and equitable Museum community and broader society."

[Farfromgeneva]

East Coast Hockey League suspends player indefinitely after alleged racist gesture toward Black opponent

Snowflakes

Two funny things:

1. My FIL was in the group that owned an ECHL team until like 1-2yrs ago (Gladiators)
2. I loved Subbans comments. Like totally totally love this part:

Subban, who is Black, responded to that tweet and said that Panetta had make monkey gestures at him: "More like @JPanetta12 was too much of a coward to fight me and as soon as I began to turn my back he started making monkey gestures at me so I punched him in the face multiple times and he turtled like the coward he is. There fixed it."

Had he and Subban be alone on a street, he would not do it.

Agreed.

[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.

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.

Let's imagine for a moment that you are correct and the sculptor was indeed trying to reflect Roosevelt's true feelings, which, yes, were indeed paternalistic towards races considered by him to have inferior cultures relative to white men...if so, the 'art' would indeed reflect that perspective, which is also the justification of colonialism and white supremacy in America as well.

But if so, that's exactly why today's public would find such views to not deserve a place of prominence.

But it would be a darn good argument for not melting down the statue and instead preserving it in a museum setting that can give it ample context and explanation. The Presidential library is a darn good spot in that case...

As I keep saying, our history is complicated and we should 'judge' the players in that history giving full weight to their relative context. and there's a heck of a lot to admire about TR...this aspect should be understood but certainly not a condemnation of the man nor his role in history.

But those specific views don't deserve honoring.

[tech37]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

[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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

[Farfromgeneva]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

Everything is life is art! (Like performances on these boards or at Subway…)

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

[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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

Everything is life is art! (Like performances on these boards or at Subway…)

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

I lover art. My best friend’s father was an artist. He spurred my interest. I don’t collect. I buy what I like.

[Farfromgeneva]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

Everything is life is art! (Like performances on these boards or at Subway…)

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

I lover art. My best friend’s father was an artist. He spurred my interest. I don’t collect. I buy what I like.

Me too, Magritte, Peter Paul Rubens and Degas in particular.

Did you know Zach De La Rocha’s (lead singer of Rage Against the Machine) dad was a well known artist as part of this Latin migrant art collective in LA in the 1970s but walked away from it because it became known and he hated the commercialization of it.

But you might enjoy that link as it makes you an artist and your son the art!

[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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

Everything is life is art! (Like performances on these boards or at Subway…)

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

I lover art. My best friend’s father was an artist. He spurred my interest. I don’t collect. I buy what I like.

Me too, Magritte, Peter Paul Rubens and Degas in particular.

Did you know Zach De La Rocha’s (lead singer of Rage Against the Machine) dad was a well known artist as part of this Latin migrant art collective in LA in the 1970s but walked away from it because it became known and he hated the commercialization of it.

But you might enjoy that link as it makes you an artist and your son the art!

I didn’t know that. My buddy’s father would rather give it away than sell it.

[Farfromgeneva]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

You think Teddy Roosevelt went to the artist and said “put me on a horse with an African and an Indian standing below my stallion as I lead them”? You own any art?

Everything is life is art! (Like performances on these boards or at Subway…)

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

I lover art. My best friend’s father was an artist. He spurred my interest. I don’t collect. I buy what I like.

Me too, Magritte, Peter Paul Rubens and Degas in particular.

Did you know Zach De La Rocha’s (lead singer of Rage Against the Machine) dad was a well known artist as part of this Latin migrant art collective in LA in the 1970s but walked away from it because it became known and he hated the commercialization of it.

But you might enjoy that link as it makes you an artist and your son the art!

I didn’t know that. My buddy’s father would rather give it away than sell it.

He was part of a Chicano art collective called Los Four

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_la_Rocha

[PizzaSnake]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Towers

[Kismet]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

Yep. See my post above.
viewtopic.php?p=322106#p322106

The Museum explains it all quite succinctly and clearly including the history of the statue and why its being relocated. Also reviews the legacy of the Roosevelt Family with the museum as one of it first and largest benefactors including a memorial exhibit on Theodore Roosevelt that is very well done. It's difficult to argue with them

One of my favorite places to visit as a kid (along with the Hayden Planetarium right next door.). Never noticed the statue in all the times we were there.

[tech37]

......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.

If you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?

Now, that's a good question...

But obviously the specific choices of the composition would raise red flags today.

A statue of Teddy climbing a hill or traveling a ford, in nature, would certainly be appropriate for the Museum of Natural History. Roosevelt was indeed a great lover of nature, and, our most important conservator of such for future generations of any POTUS.

It's difficult to know if the completed sculpture was indeed the artist's vision or was the result of fulfilled wishes/ideals of the people who commissioned the work.

Someone like Kismet may know

Yep. See my post above.
viewtopic.php?p=322106#p322106

The Museum explains it all quite succinctly and clearly including the history of the statue and why its being relocated. Also reviews the legacy of the Roosevelt Family with the museum as one of it first and largest benefactors including a memorial exhibit on Theodore Roosevelt that is very well done. It's difficult to argue with them

One of my favorite places to visit as a kid (along with the Hayden Planetarium right next door.). Never noticed the statue in all the times we were there.

Geez, not sure how I missed that...thanks! Excellent video and commentary.