Agreed, an excellent discussion and video.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:03 amGeez, not sure how I missed that...thanks! Excellent video and commentary.Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:30 amYep. See my post above.tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:49 pmIt'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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pmNow, that's a good question...tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:35 pmIf you had been the sculptor, in that time, how would you have designed the work differently?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:14 pmThe African is not from America, that's in reference to Roosevelt's trip to Africa. Colonial Africa.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:13 pmHeaven 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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:18 amI 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.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:38 pmWhy 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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:11 pmYou 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.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:49 amSo 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.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:42 amyup, took a long time for those who found the statue offensive to persuade and move the system to take action. But now moved.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:27 am ......https://www.cnn.com/style/article/theod ... index.html
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
When you answer that, as a sculptor today, how would you conceive/design the work?
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.
Someone like Kismet may know
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.
Including the Museum's own complicity with the eugenics movement, as well as a well rounded discussion of Roosevelt's own white supremacist-tinged views on race coupled with his relative progressivism and of course contributions to conservation.
Far from a simple question: I liked the comment that "museums should not simplify history, rather they should complicate it".
At the same time, we make decisions constantly what we choose to hold up and honor in our public spaces. And this, too, is appropriate.
The bottomline for me was actually the commentary of various passersby who did not fully comprehend the symbolism, nor its fraught history. Indeed who wished to ignore that history and symbolism. They did not "learn" from that statue. Just as several posters on here were unaware of the symbolism and the history, the assumption was that we should 'leave things as they are' as the default. Didn't matter whether those folks were black or white or asian or whatever. Acceptance without question is an issue.
So, simply having a full contextualized display inside appears to me to be insufficient in the response to the statue as most of the public walks by oblivious, not seeing that display inside, while others, particularly those who are more aware of the history of white supremacy, colonialism, etc are far more bothered by it's remaining in a place of honor. The choice of placement is not just from the mid past century, but continues today...
I think the answer of moving the statue to inside the museum, coupled with the full contextualized display, might well have been the best answer. Own the earlier choices and let the statue draw attention to them.
I hope they keep the display, regardless of the choice to move it to the Presidential library. It's important history to explain...complicated.