[blackjack21]

Knowing no shame, the Democrat stronghold of San Francisco is going to destroy an historic mural by spending up to $600k to paint over it, because it depicts factual aspects of George Washington's life and US History in general.

San Francisco to paint over historic George Washington mural



This is a pretty dark chapter in American politics, as something akin to book burning is taking place on the political left. It shows a serious lack of regard for the humanities and history.

[BigSteve]

Knowing no shame, the Democrat stronghold of San Francisco is going to destroy an historic mural by spending up to $600k to paint over it, because it depicts factual aspects of George Washington's life and US History in general.

San Francisco to paint over historic George Washington mural

This is a pretty dark chapter in American politics, as something akin to book burning is taking place on the political left. It shows a serious lack of regard for the humanities and history.

Dipshits on the left have convinced themselves that they have some right to not be offended. Next thing you know they'll ban Huckleberry Finn so they can congratulate each other for getting rid of the word "n**ger".

It's interesting to note one leftist disagrees strongly with the decision, and his reasoning is strong:

“We on the left ought to welcome the honest portrayal,” Walker said, adding that destroying a piece of art “is the worst way we can deal with historic malfeasance, historic evils.”

Liberals are, by and large, idiots. Those who reside in the Bay Area raise that bar significantly, though.

The best thing that could happen to San Francisco would be another 1906 earthquake. Destroy the pig sty and start over...

[blackjack21]

The irony is that the murals were funded by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and largely painted by artists with left wing political views, who suddenly are out of vogue with today's left. Spending $600k to destroy a 1600 square foot mural is a colossal waste of money too. You would think they could use that money for something less offensive, like helping the homeless or something. It's amazing how demented these people can be.

[BigSteve]

You would think they could use that money for something less offensive, like helping the homeless or something.

Or they could use it to pay for school lunches for the low-income kidlets who need it.

No, let's destroy an historical piece of artwork.

Every day adds to the number of reason why liberals should be treated like non-thinking animals as opposed to productive members of society...

[Pants-of-dog]

You guys could make a museum of racism where these things could be taken and displayed. That way, no historical artifacts are lost.

And future generations could learn about your racist history.

I suggest leaving room for expansion.

[BigSteve]

You guys could make a museum of racism where these things could be taken and displayed. That way, no historical artifacts are lost.

Or, insolent leftists could stop filling their diapers and whining every time they see something which offends their delicate little psyches.

And that would cost nothing.

In this case, the painting can't be simply moved. It would cost far more than $600,000 to remove the wall, intact, have it reconstructed elsewhere and then replace the wall.

And future generations could learn about your racist history.

Snide comments aside, we're well aware of our racist history. Good, decent Americans, however, understand that eliminating every reference to it is stupid and ignorant. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" and all that.

I just wonder what idiot leftists are so fucking afraid of...

[Pants-of-dog]

...irrelevant ad hominems....

In this case, the painting can't be simply moved. It would cost far more than $600,000 to remove the wall, intact, have it reconstructed elsewhere and then replace the wall.

Make a digital archive that can be projected on a wall in the National Museum of Racism.

Snide comments aside, we're well aware of our racist history. Good, decent Americans, however, understand that eliminating every reference to it is stupid and ignorant. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" and all that.

...more irrelevant ad hominems...

And the National Museum of Racism (NMoR) would mean that you guys can keep and maintain every reference to your racist history.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Member of the SF board of education knows her grievance studies:

[blackjack21]

What an idiot. The painter was a communist and specifically wanted to call out some of the controversial aspects of Washington's life. I can't think of a better place to teach people about that than a school. I've never been a huge fan of that era of socialist art, but I think it is a shame to destroy it for something as mindless as political correctness.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

What an idiot. The painter was a communist and specifically wanted to call out some of the controversial aspects of Washington's life. I can't think of a better place to teach people about that than a school. I've never been a huge fan of that era of socialist art, but I think it is a shame to destroy it for something as mindless as political correctness.

Get with the programme. Intent does not matter.

[AFAIK]

It's a shame they cannot move the painting but why not just cover it up? No need to destroy it.

[BigSteve]

Make a digital archive that can be projected on a wall in the National Museum of Racism.

A "digital archive" isn't the painting, though. That's like saying a photograph of the Mona Lisa or Starry Night is as good as the actual painting.

It's not, and it's a stupid thing to suggest...

And the National Museum of Racism (NMoR) would mean that you guys can keep and maintain every reference to your racist history.

Unfortunately, if the idiot left gets its way, there will be nothing to display in such a museum, as the idiot left is apparently so ignorant and stupid they believe they can make racism go away by painting a wall or removing a statue...

[Pants-of-dog]

A "digital archive" isn't the painting, though.

You are right. It is not.

But that is irrelevant. The painting in question is not that big a deal.

...more insulting language...

This is why you guys need a NMoR, to house all these works of art that no one even heard about until people decided they did not want to see racism on a daily basis.

Personally, I think it is awesome to portray Washington and others as the genocidal people they were.

[BigSteve]

You are right. It is not.

But that is irrelevant. The painting in question is not that big a deal.

Actually, it's a very big deal...

This is why you guys need a NMoR, to house all these works of art that no one even heard about until people decided they did not want to see racism on a daily basis.

People don't have a right to not be offended.

Yes, the very idea of slavery is offensive. The fact that such a period could exist in our history is disturbing. But it did exist, and pretending that it didn't by hiding things away because someone "decided they did not want to see racism" is stupid.

I live in St. Augustine, Florida. There's a Confederate monument in our "town square", known as the Plaza de la Constitucion. Not long ago, there was pressure to remove it. It was erected in the 1870's and honored the 44 local soldiers who served the Confederacy and died in the war.

Instead of removing it, the City Managers elected to contextualize the monument. There's been a plaque erected on the site which puts the monument into its proper context, which is to state that, when erected, the prevailing feeling was that service to the Confederacy was an honorable thing. It also states that, now, we know that the Confederacy stood for many things which, let's face it, were absolutely reprehensible.

The decision was made, in no small part, because of the understanding that it makes no sense to attempt to assign the morals and values we have today to people who lived 150 years ago.

The point is that, by erecting that plaque, people can see an evolution from what once existed to what exists now. Removing the statue wouldn't have done that...

Personally, I think it is awesome to portray Washington and others as the genocidal people they were.

Well, congratulations. Because, by removing the painting or painting over it, you ensure that such a portrayal won't happen.

And that's the short-sightedness of liberals...

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, it's a very big deal...

Not really, no.

The painting in question is not remarkable or famous. There are no important political considerations, nor is the painting important from a cultural or artistic perspective.

A digital archive would be more than fine.

People don't have a right to not be offended.

And people do not have a right to force others to be offended.

Yes, the very idea of slavery is offensive. The fact that such a period could exist in our history is disturbing. But it did exist, and pretending that it didn't by hiding things away because someone "decided they did not want to see racism" is stupid.

Since no one is claiming that, I am just going to ignore this.

I live in St. Augustine, Florida. There's a Confederate monument in our "town square", known as the Plaza de la Constitucion. Not long ago, there was pressure to remove it. It was erected in the 1870's and honored the 44 local soldiers who served the Confederacy and died in the war.

Instead of removing it, the City Managers elected to contextualize the monument. There's been a plaque erected on the site which puts the monument into its proper context, which is to state that, when erected, the prevailing feeling was that service to the Confederacy was an honorable thing. It also states that, now, we know that the Confederacy stood for many things which, let's face it, were absolutely reprehensible.

The decision was made, in no small part, because of the understanding that it makes no sense to attempt to assign the morals and values we have today to people who lived 150 years ago.

The point is that, by erecting that plaque, people can see an evolution from what once existed to what exists now. Removing the statue wouldn't have done that...

So, you agree with the reasons for the National Museum of Racism.

Well, congratulations. Because, by removing the painting or painting over it, you ensure that such a portrayal won't happen.

...more useless insults...

Yes, the crimes of Washington and others will be portrayed, just in a museum designed for that, and not in front of school kids who do not have the necessary tools to intelligently critique it.

[BigSteve]

Not really, no.

The painting in question is not remarkable or famous. There are no important political considerations, nor is the painting important from a cultural or artistic perspective.

A digital archive would be more than fine.

No, it would not...

And people do not have a right to force others to be offended.

That's the silliest bunch of nonsensical bullshit I've ever read.

I can't force someone to be offended. I don't even know how I would go about that.

Being offended is a choice. You can either decide that you hate something and want to do away with it, or you can take the intelligent route and and learn about it and teach others about it so that they can decide how they feel about it...

Since no one is claiming that, I am just going to ignore this.

Actually, many who stood in support of removing the Confederate monument in St. Augustine felt exactly that way. Many felt that if young black kids didn't see the monuments, the kids wouldn't have to learn about it. The effective result is that it goes away, ad that's stupid...

So, you agree with the reasons for the National Museum of Racism.

Not necessarily.

While I wouldn't have a problem with it, and aside from the overwhelming costs involved, I don't know that it's needed. If someone gets offended by an existing statue or a monument, that's their choice. There's no sensible reason to remove it. That's essentially what the City of St. Augustine did. Thankfully, logic and reason triumphed over emotion and the monuments stand...

Yes, the crimes of Washington and others will be portrayed, just in a museum designed for that, and not in front of school kids who do not have the necessary tools to intelligently critique it.

It's in a high school.

When I was in high school I learned about the Holocaust (arguably more tragic than slavery). We learned about the assassination of Martin Luther King. We learned about Chinese internment camps during WWII.

It silly to suggest that high school kids can't "intelligently critique" it. In fact, if the school board wasn't so fucking pig-headed about it, they would recognize the ridiculously profound educational opportunity that sits right before them.

But they're stupid, so they don't...

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it would not...

Since you have no logic, evidence, or anything else to support your position, I am going to dismiss it as unsupported.

That's the silliest bunch of nonsensical bullshit I've ever read.

I can't force someone to be offended. I don't even know how I would go about that.

Being offended is a choice. You can either decide that you hate something and want to do away with it, or you can take the intelligent route and and learn about it and teach others about it so that they can decide how they feel about it...

Just be racist. That is the easiest way for US conservatives to offend others.

Actually, many who stood in support of removing the Confederate monument in St. Augustine felt exactly that way. Many felt that if young black kids didn't see the monuments, the kids wouldn't have to learn about it. The effective result is that it goes away, ad that's stupid...

So, you agree with the reasons for the National Museum of Racism.

Not necessarily.

While I wouldn't have a problem with it, and aside from the overwhelming costs involved, I don't know that it's needed. If someone gets offended by an existing statue or a monument, that's their choice. There's no sensible reason to remove it.

Actually, there are sensible reasons, like not teaching kids to be racist.

And this is why you guys need the museum: to preserve all your racist stuff, and use it to teach kids how to not be racist.

It's in a high school.

Many US teenagers do not have the critical reasoning skills for this either.

It silly to suggest that high school kids can't "intelligently critique" it. ...and then more irrelevant insults....

Considering how few US adults can intelligently critique racism, I stand by my position.

[BigSteve]

Since you have no logic, evidence, or anything else to support your position, I am going to dismiss it as unsupported.

Fair enough. You were dismissed some time ago...

Just be racist. That is the easiest way for US conservatives to offend others.

An ignorant comment...

So, you agree with the reasons for the National Museum of Racism.

No, not necessarily...

Actually, there are sensible reasons, like not teaching kids to be racist.

That can be taught without a museum..

And this is why you guys need the museum: to preserve all your racist stuff, and use it to teach kids how to not be racist.

It's the preservation of the history of it which is important.

And, again, you don't need a museum to teach someone not to be a racist. Actually, kids aren't taught not to be racists. Left to their own devices, little kids will interact freely with other little kids without regard to race.

It's the adults in their lives which are responsible for teaching kids to be racist...

Many US teenagers do not have the critical reasoning skills for this either.

So what? They can get tutored after hours...

Considering how few US adults can intelligently critique racism, I stand by my position.

Your position is stupid.

And, before you go trying to solve the problem of racism in our country, you should probably take care the racism problem in yours...

[Pants-of-dog]

Fair enough. You were dismissed some time ago...

An ignorant comment...

No, not necessarily...

That can be taught without a museum..

I think that you guys could use the help in terms of teaching kids to not be racist.

It's the preservation of the history of it which is important.

And, again, you don't need a museum to teach someone not to be a racist. Actually, kids aren't taught not to be racists. Left to their own devices, little kids will interact freely with other little kids without regard to race.

It's the adults in their lives which are responsible for teaching kids to be racist...

And the museum would help show how you guys teach your kids to be racist.

So what? They can get tutored after hours...

Your position is stupid.

You have not shown that it is stupid, so I will simply ignore this.

And, before you go trying to solve the problem of racism in our country, you should probably take care the racism problem in yours...

Irrelevant.

[BigSteve]

I think that you guys could use the help in terms of teaching kids to not be racist.

And the museum would help show how you guys teach your kids to be racist.

You have not shown that it is stupid, so I will simply ignore this.

Irrelevant.

Your positions and opinions are, at best, grossly ignorant. And, coming from someone whose own country has a wealth of its own racism issues, your positions and opinions are also, rightly, ignored...