Theodore Roosevelt is more blameworthy for helping start the whole ‘American Empire’ thing than for shooting big game.
Interestingly, Columbus Day was always intended to be first and foremost an Italian-American pride day, not a specific celebration of Columbus (see wiki, or Link) - I’m not sure that’s widely publicized outside Italian-American communities.
I’m afraid you did, and you continue to do so. The categorization of things into “art” vs “not art” is a statement of artistic merit.
No - I wasn’t citing David for being of artistic merit, necessarily - it is also of historic merit - who did it, uniqueness, place in development of art, etc. None of which accrue to this sculpture.
Which is why I said ultimately it gets to stay. But you were initially arguing it gets to stay just because it is “art”. And that’s all I’ve been arguing against.
To be fair, I did mention artistic merit in the next sentence. But I didn’t mean that to be the sum of the comparison with David, and I wasn’t setting myself up as a sole judge - no-one (that I know of) is arguing for preserving this piece on its artistic merits, it’s not just me.
I’ve read that, much like the Confederate Flag, that one who displays such garb is a racist asshole without exception. Who are we to disagree with the politically correct who would like to purge from existence any thing that is incongruent with their exact point of view?
Of course, some of us feel the same way about Mao hats and Che Guevera T-shirts. Both were murderous thugs who helped support a political system that killed more people in the last century than any other in history, but the same young radicals who are trying to erase the history of Rhodes and others still wear them. The hammer and sickle is just as obnoxious as the swastika, and both are worse than the confederate flag, but the left still attends marches where the hammer and sickle is flown.
So if we’re going to start erasing symbols from the past, let’s not forget those, hmm? Or are we only erasing the bad things associated with the ‘other’ side? Maybe we’re only a few un-persons away from true enlightenment.
On another topic, if you really hate Rhodes, then you don’t get to pick-and-choose which parts of his legacy you’re going to keep. Advocate for ending the Rhodes scholarship, too. It’s easy to eliminate a statue. It’s a lot harder to advocate for eliminating something that might actually benefit you and people like you. But if you’re going to become a moralizing scold, at least have the consistency of thought to do so even when it’s painful to you and not just to others.
Mao hats and Che shirts are worn by individuals. They don’t represent me or you. If I see some idiot wearing one of those I just roll my eyes and move on. Maybe I’ll argue the point if we’re in conversation, but probably not. Same as if I saw a skinhead wearing a swastika shirt, though I’d be more wary of the skinhead. If I went to a school which had a mural of Mao–as decoration and a token of respect, not as part of a museum exhibit on communist China–I’d be annoyed and would probably sign a petition to take it down, as that mural would represent me.
I haven’t been to a lefty demonstration in a long time. Are there really large groups of people waving hammer and sickle banners? You’d think the demo organizers would ask them to cut it out. That’s terrible optics.
They could just rename the Rhodes Scholarship, but I don’t know the legalities around that. At least the scholarship does some people some good. Not sure what good the statue is doing. It just kind of sits there, doesn’t it.
My kid’s social studies class had a giant poster of Che Guevera on the wall, and his teacher spoke of him very approvingly. My university had Che posters and Mao posters as well. Communist iconography is still very popular among certain elements of the left.
The idiotic thing about this retroactive whitewashing of history is that it takes the people out of the context of their time and judges them by the standards of certain groups today. A lot of historical people can look very bad that way - even ones who benefited humanity as a whole. But the real danger is that because the filter is not applied equally, and is often wielded by people with a particular axe to grind or a particular point of view, it runs the risk of distorting history.
Was Rhodes a horrible man compared to his contemporaries? I don’t know much about him. Is there more reason to hate him than any other British colonialist of the time? Or do we plan to just pretend that colonialism never happened?
Wouldn’t it be better to leave the statue up, but use it as a way to educate people? And isn’t it better as a student of Oxford to understand that there are nuances, and that sometimes people who do terrible things in some areas may actually have done good things in others? Wouldn’t it be better to teach people to understand historical context and how growing up in a different era can lead to ways of thought even among good people that we would find horrible today? After all, the ‘progressives’ of the first half of the 20th century favored lobotomies, eugenics, Malthusian inspired forced sterilization, and other things that even modern progressives find abhorrent. Were they worse people? Or did we just learn better? Maybe we should scrub Margaret Sanger from history, if one evil belief means even images of the person can no longer be tolerated.
On the other hand, it’s a lot easier to stamp your feet and demand that somebody remove everything you find offensive from your sight, because justice. Temper tantrums are always easier than hard reflection and nuance.
Do you think Cecil Rhodes falls in to this category?
We all spend years of our lives in history classes. Every city has at least some kind of museum. All the historical information you could ever want is available at libraries or on the Internet. It’s been a long time since we relied on random statues to remember history. There is no actual threat to the historical record here.
Indeed, the real threat to the historical record is colonial apologists and revisionists. They are the ones who are trying to whitewash history with the “Oh, sure it was bad but it was normal at the time” stuff. I promise you, it wasn’t normal or accepted to the Africans involved.
I totally missed this fact when I commented earlier. Still, FDR’s portrait is on the dime, so there’s that.
Had a rethink about this and realised that Novelty Bobble’s argument also works as an argument for preserving every Thomas Kinkade painting ever.
Also had a rethink about the “wanted art” argument, and realised that is also flawed - why it’s wanted should and does matter. If it’s wanted because “Rhodes was my grandfather”, that’s one thing, if it’s because “I don’t want the college I went to to change, ever”, that’s another. And “I admire Rhodes’ ideals and methods” is a third thing entirely. And I suspect that the reason, for some, is “Those darkies want it gone, so I don’t” - that (paraphrased, of course) was pretty much the reason I heard people voicing here, when the UCT one was being taken down, at any rate.
I thought the real whitewash was the way history was taught when I was a child. The unalloyed exaltation of Columbus and other colonizers, the westward expansion, and the glossing over of the fact that Founders like Washington and Jefferson owned numerous slaves to name a few examples. But doesn’t that deception break down as soon as it’s pointed out? It seems impossible for anyone today not to be aware, for example, that nearly the entire native population of North America was nearly wiped out. Or that Washington, in addition to being the first President was a wealthy Virginia planter who, like virtually all wealthy Virginia planters of the 18th century, was a slave owner.
I think the question really becomes one of, now what? Actual compensation would be impossible, not least because it would be impossible even to begin to calculate the varying degrees of liability that would be involved. Correcting the record is worthwhile in and of itself, but retributionist revisionism is no better than the original whitewash was.
Holy crap. That is really annoying. I’m not a parent so I have no idea whether the best thing to do in that situation would be to complain or let it ride, but that is some serious bullshit right there.
Would you feel the same way about a poster of Nelson Mandela? Or George Washington?
Thanks, but I’m not gonna get sucked into this.
I read that as a “no”, then…
History and the present is the result of conquerors displacing less successful groups. As unpleasant as that sounds what’s the alternative?
I fail to see how. It is certainly a statement of categorisation and one which can occasionally be a little fuzzy. Not in this case of course. Both the statue and the building it stands on are examples of art and architecture. I’m pretty sure no-one would disagree.
That I admit something is a work of art does not mean I’m making a judgement on the merit of that art. I can think of numerous works that are definitely art but that I think are pretty shit. Were they accidently hit by the proverbial no.9 bus I’d shed no tear and the world wouldn’t be diminished greatly. However, to set out to purposefully destroy it would be obnoxious.
yep, I refer you to my previous message. I think they are dreadful but to purposefully destroy them or deface them would be
wrong.
Another reason is, this is a listed historical building with the associated historical baggage and artifacts both good and bad. We want to keep it whole as it tells a story. It shows where we’ve come from.
I’m with those who say it should be kept and plaques included and updated to reflect the history as we now perceive it. That is what should happen with all historical architecture and artwork anyhow.
I bet the thing that you wouldn’t do would be to argue that the display of those posters should be preserved into perpetuity.