Leftists to Destroy Depression-era Murals Funded by New Deal Democrats - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15069623
Potemkin wrote:Which is never going to happen, as you well know. You're not debating in good faith, PoD.


They did build a museum about the history of racism. There is one in Washington DC. Here is the video:



Also, there were prosperous all-Black towns in the USA. They got terrorized out of existence. The white townsfolk could not tolerate the idea of having Black towns with middle-class lives after saying that they were lazy, dumb shiftless nobodies. It made them crazy so they went and killed a bunch of black people and then burned down their homes, businesses and so on. There were never any real legal consequences for destroying their property or their family members. A lesson in how bad racism can get.



This one is about the Tulsa Oklahoma massacre against Black businesses and people, there are many many of these. I am surprised many Americans don't understand it. They never study the people they do terrible things to. Too much denial they are in Pants.

#15069624
Tainari88 wrote:They did build a museum about the history of racism. There is one in Washington DC. Here is the video:

I am aware of that Tainari. My point was that these murals cannot be moved to such a museum. PoD is advocating what happened to one of Diego Rivera's murals in the USA should also happen to this mural, and for similar reasons - because somebody is offended by the presence in the mural of certain famous persons being shown in a certain context. In Rivera's case, it was Lenin, and in this case it is George Washington.

Also there were prosperous all Black towns in the USA. They got terrorized out of existence. The white townsfolk could not tolerate the idea of having Black towns with middle class lives after saying that they were lazy, dumb shiftless nobodies. It made them crazy so they went and killed a bunch of black people and then burned down their homes, businesses and so on. There were never any real legal consequences for destroying their property or their family members. A lesson in how bad racism can get.


Reality was contradicting their racist prejudices, so they felt the need to destroy that reality. Cognitive dissonance can have deadly consequences. :hmm:
#15069625
Potemkin wrote:I am aware of that Tainari. My point was that these murals cannot be moved to such a museum. PoD is advocating what happened to one of Diego Rivera's murals in the USA should also happen to this mural, and for similar reasons - because somebody is offended by the presence in the mural of certain famous persons being shown in a certain context. In Rivera's case, it was Lenin, and in this case it is George Washington.


Reality was contradicting their racist prejudices, so they felt the need to destroy that reality. Cognitive dissonance can have deadly consequences. :hmm:


My belief has been don't censor art. It is just not intelligent or humane to censor art. Let people disagree but let the art stand. Art is a subtle form of communication in general. Censorship of some form of art is not subtle.

Good art is bound to offend some individuals at some point. No reason to get rid of it though.
#15069626
Potemkin wrote:I am aware of that Tainari. My point was that these murals cannot be moved to such a museum. PoD is advocating what happened to one of Diego Rivera's murals in the USA should also happen to this mural, and for similar reasons - because somebody is offended by the presence in the mural of certain famous persons being shown in a certain context. In Rivera's case, it was Lenin, and in this case it is George Washington.


Reality was contradicting their racist prejudices, so they felt the need to destroy that reality. Cognitive dissonance can have deadly consequences. :hmm:


I am not sure why you seem so interested in misrepresenting my argument, but whatever.

The two situations (Rivera and this mural) are not comparable. The only way that they truly compare is that both should be, or should have been, preserved and used to teach children.
#15069630
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure why you seem so interested in misrepresenting my argument, but whatever.

The two situations (Rivera and this mural) are not comparable. The only way that they truly compare is that both should be, or should have been, preserved and used to teach children.

You asserted that the mural is "not that big a deal" and that a "digital archive" of it in your putative museum would suffice. You were implying that it would be okay to destroy the mural because some people were offended by the fact that it depicted George Washington as a genocider of Native Americans and a slave owner, both of which he was. You seem to have just reflexively adopted the opposite position to BigSteve without actually thinking the issue through for yourself.
#15069642
Donna wrote:Even though it's Communist art it should probably be taken down due the way the contemporary far-right weaponizes irony and cruelty

I propose safekeeping in a people's warehouse or dry storage that is only accessed by researchers and students who are carefully vetted by psychoanalysts.

Image
#15069646
Potemkin wrote:You asserted that the mural is "not that big a deal" and that a "digital archive" of it in your putative museum would suffice.


Yes, and that is why the two are not comparable. The Rivera had far more political and artistic importance than this one.

And if we are going to preserve it in a museum, it would be prohibitively expensive to move the actual wall, which would make more sense in the context of a Rivera mural.

You were implying that it would be okay to destroy the mural because some people were offended by the fact that it depicted George Washington as a genocider of Native Americans and a slave owner, both of which he was. You seem to have just reflexively adopted the opposite position to BigSteve without actually thinking the issue through for yourself.


You inferred that despite the fact that I explicitly said things that contradicted such a position.

But as long as we agree that this work should be presented because of its educational value, with respect to the racist history of the USA, it is all good.
#15069649
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and that is why the two are not comparable. The Rivera had far more political and artistic importance than this one.

And if we are going to preserve it in a museum, it would be prohibitively expensive to move the actual wall, which would make more sense in the context of a Rivera mural.

Thank you, Mr Art Critic.

But as long as we agree that this work should be presented because of its educational value, with respect to the racist history of the USA, it is all good.

Indeed. And where better to present it than in its present location? :eh:
#15069655
Potemkin wrote:Thank you, Mr Art Critic.


You are welcome.

Indeed. And where better to present it than in its present location? :eh:


Ideally, in a museum where people are trained and paid to explain the racist history portrayed and how it has lead to our current situation.

While I understand why keeping it in the school makes sense too, there is currently no program or system set up to use this as an educational tool. It is currently merely a piece of displayed racism that people walk by. It is probably having the effect of normalising racism rather than educating about it.

Of course, the school teachers could fill that role. However, I do not see it as ideal because public school teachers are already overworked and underpaid, and we should not be adding to their burdens. And I did not think @blackjack21 or @BigSteve were going to lead the movement to support increased funding for public schools to teach about racism.

So, pros and cons.
#15069657
Potemkin wrote:
Which is never going to happen, as you well know. You're not debating in good faith, PoD.



We have a zillion museums and we build new ones all the time. We're not like wherever you are.

It would make sense to have a WPA museum in DC, but there are thousands of paintings, and we could gift a few to every museum that wants them.

I'd also like to see a traveling exhibit tour the rural parts of the country.

We do that sort of thing all the time.

We have one crapload of flaky conversations here.
Last edited by late on 24 Feb 2020 21:06, edited 2 times in total.
#15069685
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ideally, in a museum where people are trained and paid to explain the racist history portrayed and how it has lead to our current situation.

By our current situation, do you mean more people in the world than ever before, living longer lives than ever before, at a higher standard of living than ever before, more peacefully than ever before, with greater protections for women and children than ever before?
#15069687
@Pants-of-dog The only way that they truly compare is that both should be, or should have been, preserved and used to teach children.


@Pants-of-dog Ideally, in a museum where people are trained and paid to explain the racist history portrayed and how it has lead to our current situation.


OK. I am calling bullshit. People trained to say exactly what? That George Washington does not deserve to be in the history books except under the heading "vile racist"? It is important to know that he kept slaves. It does not have to be in bold print in every reference to him.

Here is what we should do POD. We should teach children about our history. We should teach them about the institution of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. Then.

Having done that you put this and other pictures like it on display, with the appropriate date and information about the artist, and you let these educated people extract from it what they will. As a piece of art living in its own history.

I do not need to "balance" my view of Michelangelo by putting a plaque on each of his paintings reminding me that he may have been gay. All things Cuban under Castro are not bad or good. A picture of a slave owner is not inherently racist. I do not need to be reminded every time I see the name Catherine the Great that she may have fucked a horse.

Give people a good liberal education and let them go. Stop rubbing everyone's nose is shit all day long. Sometimes the fight against racism can solidify racist beliefs. Balance. Balance. Balance.
#15069696
Drlee wrote:OK. I am calling bullshit. People trained to say exactly what? That George Washington does not deserve to be in the history books except under the heading "vile racist"? It is important to know that he kept slaves. It does not have to be in bold print in every reference to him.

Here is what we should do POD. We should teach children about our history. We should teach them about the institution of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. Then.

Having done that you put this and other pictures like it on display, with the appropriate date and information about the artist, and you let these educated people extract from it what they will. As a piece of art living in its own history.

I do not need to "balance" my view of Michelangelo by putting a plaque on each of his paintings reminding me that he may have been gay. All things Cuban under Castro are not bad or good. A picture of a slave owner is not inherently racist. I do not need to be reminded every time I see the name Catherine the Great that she may have fucked a horse.

Give people a good liberal education and let them go. Stop rubbing everyone's nose is shit all day long. Sometimes the fight against racism can solidify racist beliefs. Balance. Balance. Balance.


Really? That is what you got from my post? :|

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]