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.
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.
Agreed, an excellent discussion and video.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, an excellent discussion and video.
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.
What's really amazing is that there is no Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library at this point in time. I always thought Sagamore Hill National Historic Site served that purpose.
Medora ND? I realize the Theodore Roosevelt National Park is located there but its in the middle of the Badlands in a location with only 100 permanent residents. Not very many people are going to learn about it there. Apparently, NYC is proposing a semi-permanent loan of the statue retaining its ownership.
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.
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.
Agreed, an excellent discussion and video.
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.
What's really amazing is that there is no Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library at this point in time. I always thought Sagamore Hill National Historic Site served that purpose.
Medora ND? I realize the Theodore Roosevelt National Park is located there but its in the middle of the Badlands in a location with only 100 permanent residents. Not very many people are going to learn about it there. Apparently, NYC is proposing a semi-permanent loan of the statue retaining its ownership.
I wonder whether if it becomes a destination drawing tourists?
I agree, sounds unlikely...could have been in New York. Sagamore Hill itself, or close by.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
by PizzaSnake
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:56 am
by MDlaxfan76
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
same sculptor for both - Gutzon Borglum, son of Danish immigrants with connections to Mormonism, KKK and the Freemasons. Accomplished sculptor but generally not a nice person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
Actually, upon reflection, just let nature take its course. Just change the way history is taught. I wish I had retained my textbooks from K-12, so I could cite specifics, but I have dim recollections (likely incomplete and inaccurate) of the presentation of these monuments.
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
They had hard enough trouble taking the confederate flag down at Stone Mtn so that may “take a minute”…shame because stone Mtn village is a lot of fun and for years we’ve had year passes to it as it’s 10-15mi from my house on a straight shot out rte 78-a very good value for young families if convenient which it is from Candler Park out (Ponce De Leon Ave becomes rte 78 shortly after it passes Druid Hills GC a few blocks from me-free some Parkway dead ends around the corner from me where another arterial was being built but the crazy hippies in my hood shut that project down so now we just have the Carter center and “freedom park”).
Stone Mtn Village is a whole area around Stone Mtn for those unfamiliar.
Ironically there’s very few “wasps” who live in Stone Mountain the town or nearby. It missed the white flight in Atlanta of the 1970s-1980s which went more 10-12 o’clock from the city center into n Fulton and cobb co rather than Gwinnett or Dekalb.
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
same sculptor for both - Gutzon Borglum, son of Danish immigrants with connections to Mormonism, KKK and the Freemasons. Accomplished sculptor but generally not a nice person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum
One of my top 10 - 15 movies of all-time.....leave it.....
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
same sculptor for both - Gutzon Borglum, son of Danish immigrants with connections to Mormonism, KKK and the Freemasons. Accomplished sculptor but generally not a nice person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum
One of my top 10 - 15 movies of all-time.....leave it.....
we had fun during the dark days of last winter's pandemic streaming binges going through some of Hitchcock's catalogue...my son had never seen it and my mom couldn't remember it, indeed a terrific one!
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
same sculptor for both - Gutzon Borglum, son of Danish immigrants with connections to Mormonism, KKK and the Freemasons. Accomplished sculptor but generally not a nice person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum
One of my top 10 - 15 movies of all-time.....leave it.....
Second favorite Hitchcock movie for me. Was #1 until I saw lifeboat in college.
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:32 am
I think effacing Mt.Rushmore is a good idea. It’s existence in lands sacred to the native American population is such a blatant FU to them it is almost incomprehensible.
What purpose does it satisfy? How is the site in any way relevant to American history except as an example of wanton despoliation and broken agreements? Now, in that last regard it is unmatched.
hmmm, boy I'd sure want to know a heck of a lot more before agreeing with destruction of an existing monument to US Presidents of that scale. But I'd certainly want all such history to be part of the exhibit. Have never been there, so don't know how it's all presented today...
Stone Mountain Georgia is way, way easier to say shouldn't exist anymore.
Monument to 3 traitors, a monument to white supremacy and slavery?
same sculptor for both - Gutzon Borglum, son of Danish immigrants with connections to Mormonism, KKK and the Freemasons. Accomplished sculptor but generally not a nice person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum
One of my top 10 - 15 movies of all-time.....leave it.....
... same here.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
by jhu72
... if I am not mistaken, Stone Mountain has had its memorial to the confederacy significantly de-emphasized as it stays in business as an amusement park. Of course the stone carving is still there.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:55 pm
by MDlaxfan76
jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
... if I am not mistaken, Stone Mountain has had its memorial to the confederacy significantly de-emphasized as it stays in business as an amusement park. Of course the stone carving is still there.
Boy, one would sure hope so...and yet, that's a massive "stone carving"...
Zero issue with an amusement park, obviously.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:01 pm
by Farfromgeneva
jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
... if I am not mistaken, Stone Mountain has had its memorial to the confederacy significantly de-emphasized as it stays in business as an amusement park. Of course the stone carving is still there.
It’s still part of the nightly laser light show pretty prominently. They also discuss and present it on every gondola/skycab ride up the mountain. Have taken that thing up many many times in the last 24mo. Started going about 5-7yrs ago once my kids could move around and vertical so maybe it’s been de-emphasized prior to that period but they tell the story to every tourist when I still go.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
... if I am not mistaken, Stone Mountain has had its memorial to the confederacy significantly de-emphasized as it stays in business as an amusement park. Of course the stone carving is still there.
Boy, one would sure hope so...and yet, that's a massive "stone carving"...
jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
... if I am not mistaken, Stone Mountain has had its memorial to the confederacy significantly de-emphasized as it stays in business as an amusement park. Of course the stone carving is still there.
It’s still part of the nightly laser light show pretty prominently. They also discuss and present it on every gondola/skycab ride up the mountain. Have taken that thing up many many times in the last 24mo. Started going about 5-7yrs ago once my kids could move around and vertical so maybe it’s been de-emphasized prior to that period but they tell the story to every tourist when I still go.
Its been within the past 10 years is my understanding. The tribute to the confederacy has been limited to the stone carving. Ancillary exhibits were supposedly removed. This is all second hand information to me. I haven't been there in recent times. You would know better.
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:43 pm
by Farfromgeneva
I’m sure it’s improved but it’s not hidden or disappeared by any stretch. For better or worse it’s going to take more time but at least we’re moving in the right direction unlike some other pockets of the country. I highlighted before but if you like good variety of different food you can’t beat a nearby area around Atlanta/Chamblee/Norcross in this on Buford Highway so the tide is certainly turning on old behavior in the Atlanta MSA.
Geez, not sure how I missed that...thanks! Excellent video and commentary.
we had fun during the dark days of last winter's pandemic streaming binges going through some of Hitchcock's catalogue...my son had never seen it and my mom couldn't remember it, indeed a terrific one!