LOL - that's great!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Printable View
LOL - that's great!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
And this is as it should be, public art changing itself out to be relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
Johnny Cash is an...interesting choice. But the choice of his state, so be it.
I'm all for an Amelia Earhart statue!
That thief! No I dont think so!Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
haha.
My friend relates this story: Ameria Earhart stayed with his family (maybe grandfather? ) in a town in Illinois before her flight. She was their guest. When she left, a towel was missing.
A story for generations is worth the price of a towel.
Maybe we should come up with another way to honor "heroes" of either sex. Statues seem like something from another era. Plant a tree?
I can picture AOC pointing to an elm and exclaiming “This is what patriarchy and white supremacist culture looks like! Plus we need to rake all those racist leaves!”Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
Well, if Hawaii is represented by that instead of a candlenut tree she will have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
So are you offended by the prospect of Fr. Damien being replaced by someone else, because of who Fr. Damien was, and all the good he did for the lepers? Are you offended by the prospect of more states replacing statues with statues of women?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I get that you are mocking what she is saying, but what about this situation makes you mock her? What is unacceptable to you here?
I think you can be amused and/or concerned by the whole racist, white patriarchy, cancel histrionics thing without being bothered by statues of women, but I'm not sure these days you can do so without having your motivations questioned.
Alan had it right. Not so much offended as amused that someone would point to a memorial of an exemplary human being as an expression of racism and sexism. That someone would be so ideologically addled that they believe honoring the past is a zero sum game that requires tearing down one to elevate another. That someone would be so profoundly silly as to declare “this is what something looks like “when it clearly looks nothing of the sort, and expects thinking people to accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
Although to be fair in this specific case, the Washington D.C. bureaucrats HAVE made the Hall of Statuary a zero sum game. Only 2 commemerative statues allowed by each state.
Yes, the list of new statues coming in is fascinating to me-- so I checked out the statute that the Johnny Cash statue is replacing, from Wikipedia:
"Clarke was elected Attorney General of Arkansas and served from 1892 to 1894. He served as Governor of Arkansas from 1895 to 1897.[2] Clarke was devoted to "upholding white supremacy as the keystone of the Democratic Party. 'The people of the South,' he said in his closing speech of the election, 'looked to the Democratic party to preserve the white standards of civilization.' Clarke easily defeated his opponents."[3]"
So yeah, I'd take Johnny Cash any day over Gov. Clarke. And I'm not even from Arkansas. . .
On the other hand, the Belgian Fr. Damien has always been an inspiration to me.
And yet the Democratic Party is more popular than ever, still attempting to cancel, or perhaps just diminish, everyone but themselves. I'm a fan of irony but I still have trouble wrapping my head around that one. Favorable PR I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
Me, too. These statues seem to be something of pr for the states themselves. Times change, and how we want to present ourselves changes, I guess. But the statues are not some monolithic cultural statement by the federal government, that's for sure. So why not complain to Arkansas about the Clarke statue?