(11-22-2021 10:40 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 11:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 10:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is the scene racist, in your opinion?

I don’t really care to go down that road, frankly.

But that's the only road worth going down, because that's the genesis of the whole move. Either the statue is racist, and moving it is justified, or it isn't.

Sure - but that doesn't mean I need to spend any more of my time reading about it to have an informed opinion. I was surprised that Teddy was "being canceled" as the hyperlink made it sound, so I clicked on it. Turns out, I was incorrect on what the hyperlink was conveying, so I provided that information to others, in case they thought the woke mob had come for Teddy too.

One wonders what the mob might think of Delacroix's famous "Liberty Leading the People", which shows a figure of one particular sex heroically leading people of the other sex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Le...the_People
Surely it is demeaning to one or more of the sexes (especially since the first figure is half-naked), nor is it ethnically inclusive.

Move it to a back room, where nobody will see it.

(11-22-2021 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to the bolded -- bull**** lad.

Here are *your* words:

You *think* the image of a WHITE GUY riding and the others WALKING is *enough* to engender a negative attitude. The import of that is nothing *but* you imposing an opinion on the matter.

Contrary to your comment of 'I was only pointing out facts' the ONLY fact in the above is the description of the rider and the walkers. *Your* expression of *your* conclusion of if 'enough' the 'engender .... negative attitudes' is *wholly* an opinion --- yours in fact.

So I ask again, are the statues of Benito Juarez festooned all across Mexico similarly problematic?

Dude, OO wrote that.

But Lad instigated it.

If by instigated you mean I provided more information, which included pointing out that the statue was not being removed because it was of Roosevelt, then yes. I read you hyperlink, thought it meant a statue was being removed because it was of Roosevelt, and found out it wasn’t correct.

So many of these statues come down because of who is being memorialized and honored, and how those people are being judged. This doesn’t seem to fit that mold, and I thought that was relevant to add given how little info was provided by the hyperlink.

The "instigated" was a little joke based on the left's appraisal that Kyle Rittenhouse instigated people to try and kill him by carrying a gun, so all that happened was Kyle's fault and his alone. The thesis was that you instigated Tanq's mistake by disagreeing with me, so therefore...your fault. Went over your head. Sorry. Won't try humor again...soon.


A statue of TR was removed, and in your opinion not because of anything he did or thought (although there is plenty of evidence to show he had racist attitudes which were normal for his time). If not for his personal transgressions, the only other explanation is that it was removed because he was white.

It has nothing to do with what my opinion on the matter is, I've provided information on the rationale being provided by those making the decision.

Quote:A "problematic" statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City that has been criticized for symbolizing colonialism and racism has found a new home, more than a year after the city announced it will be removed...

The statue is considered "problematic" due to its composition, the library said. The piece depicts Roosevelt on horseback, while Native American and African figures walk alongside him.

If you want to get to the source of the decision, the NYC Public Design Commission made it back in June.

Quote:While the statue “was not erected with malice of intent,” New York City Parks Department chief of staff Sam Biederman said during Monday’s meeting, the subject matter and content “supports a thematic framework of colonization and racism.” (The vote and full discussion are viewable on YouTube.)

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nyc-co...ue-1982664

(11-22-2021 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Dude, OO wrote that.

But Lad instigated it.

If by instigated you mean I provided more information, which included pointing out that the statue was not being removed because it was of Roosevelt, then yes. I read you hyperlink, thought it meant a statue was being removed because it was of Roosevelt, and found out it wasn’t correct.

So many of these statues come down because of who is being memorialized and honored, and how those people are being judged. This doesn’t seem to fit that mold, and I thought that was relevant to add given how little info was provided by the hyperlink.

The "instigated" was a little joke based on the left's appraisal that Kyle Rittenhouse instigated people to try and kill him by carrying a gun, so all that happened was Kyle's fault and his alone. The thesis was that you instigated Tanq's mistake by disagreeing with me, so therefore...your fault. Went over your head. Sorry. Won't try humor again...soon.


A statue of TR was removed, and in your opinion not because of anything he did or thought (although there is plenty of evidence to show he had racist attitudes which were normal for his time). If not for his personal transgressions, the only other explanation is that it was removed because he was white.

It has nothing to do with what my opinion on the matter is, I've provided information on the rationale being provided by those making the decision.

Quote:A "problematic" statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City that has been criticized for symbolizing colonialism and racism has found a new home, more than a year after the city announced it will be removed...

The statue is considered "problematic" due to its composition, the library said. The piece depicts Roosevelt on horseback, while Native American and African figures walk alongside him.

If you want to get to the source of the decision, the NYC Public Design Commission made it back in June.

Quote:While the statue “was not erected with malice of intent,” New York City Parks Department chief of staff Sam Biederman said during Monday’s meeting, the subject matter and content “supports a thematic framework of colonization and racism.” (The vote and full discussion are viewable on YouTube.)

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nyc-co...ue-1982664

So if the white guy was on foot, it would OK? Even if he was in front?

(11-22-2021 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It has nothing to do with what my opinion on the matter is, I've provided information on the rationale being provided by those making the decision.

Quote:A "problematic" statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City that has been criticized for symbolizing colonialism and racism has found a new home, more than a year after the city announced it will be removed...

The statue is considered "problematic" due to its composition, the library said. The piece depicts Roosevelt on horseback, while Native American and African figures walk alongside him.

If you want to get to the source of the decision, the NYC Public Design Commission made it back in June.

Quote:While the statue “was not erected with malice of intent,” New York City Parks Department chief of staff Sam Biederman said during Monday’s meeting, the subject matter and content “supports a thematic framework of colonization and racism.” (The vote and full discussion are viewable on YouTube.)

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nyc-co...ue-1982664

As I said, I think this is a lot of politically correct speech (not by you) in an effort to justify something that otherwise would lack the support to make the change. It is part of the encouragement of 'victimhood' which is part of the means of gathering support for the left. From their early days (as the party of inclusion rather than the party of racism that they were) Democrats have courted the similarities of minorities in an effort to create a majority. If you feel you have been wronged, even if those in your situation make up only a fraction of the population and the opinions are specific to a small number of people... Democrats have sought the support of OTHER people who feel wronged... and the reality is that everyone feels wronged on some level.

TR is 'out front' because he was clearly recognized as a 'leader'. Leaders are almost ALWAYS depicted 'out front' in artistic references to them. As noted, the intent wasn't in any way to claim 'superiority'... but merely to recognize a leader of an activity. The three people depicted are all of different ethnicities.... and NONE of the depictions would be classified as being derogatory. They ALL lead... but TR was literally an elected official of the state who built and paid for the museum.

I mean, how can we celebrate the labors of slaves without recognizing them? I wonder who the 'models' for those casts were. Were they real people? Were they actual leaders? Or was it simply a statement about working together, but recognizing the state leader?

The left wants it both ways. When a statue of Grant is depicted, without any other persons around... its a sign of racism because he was a racist. When a statue of TR is depicted with people of two other races 'in support', its a sign of racism because although nobody was thinking that at the time (not erected with malice of intent) some people have CHOSEN to see it in a different, unintended light. But when black rap artists talk about 'n's' and 'ho's', they don't have any malice of intent, and anyone who chooses to see that in a different, unintended light is just 'wrong'.

Its at this point where a specific liberal will interject and say that THEY don't agree with all of those points and they're absolutely genuine in their beliefs and I agree with them... but they support a party that ignores their beliefs and engages in a MASSIVE amount of selective uproar in order to pacify their base of 'minority' opinions.

(11-22-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But Lad instigated it.

If by instigated you mean I provided more information, which included pointing out that the statue was not being removed because it was of Roosevelt, then yes. I read you hyperlink, thought it meant a statue was being removed because it was of Roosevelt, and found out it wasn’t correct.

So many of these statues come down because of who is being memorialized and honored, and how those people are being judged. This doesn’t seem to fit that mold, and I thought that was relevant to add given how little info was provided by the hyperlink.

The "instigated" was a little joke based on the left's appraisal that Kyle Rittenhouse instigated people to try and kill him by carrying a gun, so all that happened was Kyle's fault and his alone. The thesis was that you instigated Tanq's mistake by disagreeing with me, so therefore...your fault. Went over your head. Sorry. Won't try humor again...soon.


A statue of TR was removed, and in your opinion not because of anything he did or thought (although there is plenty of evidence to show he had racist attitudes which were normal for his time). If not for his personal transgressions, the only other explanation is that it was removed because he was white.

It has nothing to do with what my opinion on the matter is, I've provided information on the rationale being provided by those making the decision.

Quote:A "problematic" statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City that has been criticized for symbolizing colonialism and racism has found a new home, more than a year after the city announced it will be removed...

The statue is considered "problematic" due to its composition, the library said. The piece depicts Roosevelt on horseback, while Native American and African figures walk alongside him.

If you want to get to the source of the decision, the NYC Public Design Commission made it back in June.

Quote:While the statue “was not erected with malice of intent,” New York City Parks Department chief of staff Sam Biederman said during Monday’s meeting, the subject matter and content “supports a thematic framework of colonization and racism.” (The vote and full discussion are viewable on YouTube.)

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nyc-co...ue-1982664

So if the white guy was on foot, it would OK? Even if he was in front?

Don't know, don't really care to engage in that. It's not something I want to have an opinion on at the moment.

Maybe we need more statues of slaves and others leading white guys like Lincoln and Roosevelt to enlightenment about their racist attitudes and actions.

I cannot remember one word about victimization from my grandmother or anybody else in the Hispanic side of my family growing up. Of course, that may been because the community was mostly Hispanic, and everybody mingled without regard to ethnicity. As an adult, I did have note that one of my cousins was somewhat militant - an active member of LULAC.

Jefferson

"The New York City Council Chamber voted to remove a historic statue of former President Thomas Jefferson, citing his history as a slave owner."

Apparently the only noteworthy thing this no-good bastard did was own slaves.

Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

(11-29-2021 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

Quote:When I wrote to you on Monday morning, June 22, I noted that the Princeton University Board of Trustees was discussing how the University could oppose racism and would soon convene a special meeting on that topic. The meeting took place yesterday, June 26. On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. As you will see from the board’s statement, the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.

As most of you know, the board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.

The board reconsidered these conclusions this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America. Board Chair Weezie Sams ’79 and I spoke individually to members of the board, and it then met on June 26...

Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today.

(11-29-2021 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

Quote:When I wrote to you on Monday morning, June 22, I noted that the Princeton University Board of Trustees was discussing how the University could oppose racism and would soon convene a special meeting on that topic. The meeting took place yesterday, June 26. On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. As you will see from the board’s statement, the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.

As most of you know, the board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.

The board reconsidered these conclusions this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America. Board Chair Weezie Sams ’79 and I spoke individually to members of the board, and it then met on June 26...

Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today.

No, I have long known of Wilson's racism, and am not surprised the CC guys finally wised up on him. It seems any white male historical figure more than 40 years in our past is at risk.

(11-29-2021 10:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

Quote:When I wrote to you on Monday morning, June 22, I noted that the Princeton University Board of Trustees was discussing how the University could oppose racism and would soon convene a special meeting on that topic. The meeting took place yesterday, June 26. On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. As you will see from the board’s statement, the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.

As most of you know, the board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.

The board reconsidered these conclusions this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America. Board Chair Weezie Sams ’79 and I spoke individually to members of the board, and it then met on June 26...

Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today.

No, I have long known of Wilson's racism, and am not surprised the CC guys finally wised up on him. It seems any white male historical figure more than 40 years in our past is at risk.

The date of the Princeton announcement was 1.5 years ago.

(11-29-2021 10:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

Quote:When I wrote to you on Monday morning, June 22, I noted that the Princeton University Board of Trustees was discussing how the University could oppose racism and would soon convene a special meeting on that topic. The meeting took place yesterday, June 26. On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. As you will see from the board’s statement, the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.

As most of you know, the board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.

The board reconsidered these conclusions this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America. Board Chair Weezie Sams ’79 and I spoke individually to members of the board, and it then met on June 26...

Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today.

No, I have long known of Wilson's racism, and am not surprised the CC guys finally wised up on him. It seems any white male historical figure more than 40 years in our past is at risk.

The date of the Princeton announcement was 1.5 years ago.

So what? The date of my knowledge of his racism was 25 years ago.

(11-29-2021 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Woodrow Wilson next

Just read the headline, but that seems to cover it.

You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

Quote:When I wrote to you on Monday morning, June 22, I noted that the Princeton University Board of Trustees was discussing how the University could oppose racism and would soon convene a special meeting on that topic. The meeting took place yesterday, June 26. On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. As you will see from the board’s statement, the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.

As most of you know, the board previously considered whether to remove Wilson’s name after a group of student activists occupied my office in November 2015. The Wilson Legacy Review Committee conducted a thorough, deliberative process. In April 2016, it recommended a number of reforms to make this University more inclusive and more honest about its history. The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the School and the College.

The board reconsidered these conclusions this month as the tragic killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks drew renewed attention to the long and damaging history of racism in America. Board Chair Weezie Sams ’79 and I spoke individually to members of the board, and it then met on June 26...

Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today.

No, I have long known of Wilson's racism, and am not surprised the CC guys finally wised up on him. It seems any white male historical figure more than 40 years in our past is at risk.

The date of the Princeton announcement was 1.5 years ago.

So what? The date of my knowledge of his racism was 25 years ago.

Your hyperlink says "Woodrow Wilson next."

I pointed out that he's not next - he's already been on the chopping block.

(11-30-2021 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 11:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 10:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2021 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You been under a rock?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/2...lic-policy

No, I have long known of Wilson's racism, and am not surprised the CC guys finally wised up on him. It seems any white male historical figure more than 40 years in our past is at risk.

The date of the Princeton announcement was 1.5 years ago.

So what? The date of my knowledge of his racism was 25 years ago.

Your hyperlink says "Woodrow Wilson next."

I pointed out that he's not next - he's already been on the chopping block.

Ah, one of us misinterpreted what the other meant.

The Jefferson Council

I can see this happening at Rice.

I think I know who is the racist here

This one brought a tear of joy to me eyes.

Right-wing activists are openly 'weaponizing' Twitter's new private media policy

Turns out the new Twitter CEO instituted a new 'use of photos policy'

Quote:Unveiled on Tuesday, Twitter's new policy prohibits the sharing of images of private individuals without those people's consent. The rule was created, Twitter initially said, in a bid to prevent its platform from being abused to harass and intimidate people, particularly women, activists and minorities.

Turns out that those posting photos of January 6 at the Capitol are now being banned and/or suspended. And the left leaning people posting them are livid. Bummer.

(12-06-2021 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This one brought a tear of joy to me eyes.

Right-wing activists are openly 'weaponizing' Twitter's new private media policy

Turns out the new Twitter CEO instituted a new 'use of photos policy'

Quote:Unveiled on Tuesday, Twitter's new policy prohibits the sharing of images of private individuals without those people's consent. The rule was created, Twitter initially said, in a bid to prevent its platform from being abused to harass and intimidate people, particularly women, activists and minorities.

Turns out that those posting photos of January 6 at the Capitol are now being banned and/or suspended. And the left leaning people posting them are livid. Bummer.

Lol. I heard about this new policy on Twitter on a podcast and Twitter was getting roasted for their half-baked idea because of how full of holes it was. And look at what we have here. Like the article says, they should just scrap it.

Social media these days is a bag of crazy.

Here's a feel-good story for you 93. AND it is from the Washington Post!!!!!

I wonder if this statue is safe - after all it is of a white male with no known black friends.