The subject of the installation was the homestead of Corra Harris (1869-1935), who was a prominent author and whose homestead the university accepted as a gift to preserve in 2009 -- over the objections of some faculty members....
In an interview, [Ruth] Stanford, associate professor of sculpture at Georgia State University, said she was shocked that the university ordered her work removed. She said that Harris's racism was just one feature of her installation, which also had maps, photos of the homestead, some of her books, and other writings....
५ मार्च, २०१४
Artwork demanding "a certain level of thought and consideration" is insufficiently "celebratory"...
... and so it is removed, at the last minute, from Kennesaw State University's art museum opening.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
From the article: "Yesterday, during a preview tour of the [museum], concerns were raised..."
concerns were raised
In other words, some bigwig on the preview tour had a meltdown.
Nice use of the passive voice there.
Own up, bigwig.
She seems pretty tame compared to Margaret Sanger.
"While Harris criticized lynching, she traced the practice to the dangers she said were posed by black men."
From insuring our own murders, then, to insuring our own (Michael Dunn) murders today:
For some reason, blacks can't seem to do anything right,...
"Stanford said that she felt an obligation to address that part of Harris's "complicated legacy," but that she didn't want the offensive words to hurt someone unprepared for them. Her solution was to include the letter, partly obscured, and to include information in the installation area and resource room for the exhibit so people could read the entire letter and learn about its impact."
Seems like she approached this carefully -- she could have pursued a much more provocative approach but chose to let the viewer choose to further explore. It almost seems like she exhibited discretion and taste: can that still exist in the art world?
I notice they don't want to give the property back, just the former owner.
Anything demanding "a certain level of thought and consideration," or indeed a certain level of maturity and intellectual honesty, is inappropriate for liberals.
Unpersoned.
Cora Harris did not "promote" racist ideas; she lived in them.
The fear of slave uprisings and violence was very real in the Deep South, and the children of Harris' generation grew up with it ingrained in them.
Attempting to erase history and pretend it never happened is pathetic besides often resulting in history just repeating itself in a slightly different suit of clothes.
For some reason, blacks can't seem to do anything right,...
You are entirely correct there.
Black men gleefully murder one another. By the thousands.
Your attempts to dump this on whites is just a fucking lie. But, then you are a black racist fucking liar.
""Out of this cesspool of vice rises that hideous monster, a possible menace to every home in the South. He has the savage nature and murderous instincts of the wild beast, plus the cunning and lust of a fiend."
Hagar, it sure looks here as if Cora Harris was promulgating racists ideas, (not sure if "promote" is the right word).
@Robert
You need to find something to do besides policing the world for outbreaks of racism.
Your moron obsession is a serious problem for all of us.
Shouting Thomas, in his response to Crack Emcee, continues to elevate the discussion, succinctly demolishing any notion that racism still exists in our society to any detectable extent.
Well, if'n ya gotta THINK about it, it ain't art. Ya think it's crap, and then consider what kind of crap it is.
CrackE writes inflammatory drivel, but mildly. For a change.
Shouting Thomas writes inflammatory facts, badly phrased. Not a change.
Cora Harris reflected the views of her society, and it is not ours. She is no longer here, and cannot change.
"Well, if'n ya gotta THINK about it, it ain't art."
Hahahaha. Very good, Sam L.
Unknown,
You wrote "Cora Harris reflected the views of her society, and it is not ours."
If this is true, can you please explain the difference between "Black men gleefully murder one another. By the thousands" and "He has the savage nature and murderous instincts of the wild beast"?
I don't see the evolution,...
The university is in a tough spot here. You have a pioneering woman on one hand and a hard core racist on the other. If only she had been a white man.
I'd object if the change in the exhibition was supposed to be permanent, but a judgment that this material isn't appropriate for the opening of the museum seems reasonable to me. This evidence of past racism would distract -- has in fact already distracted -- attention from the museum as a whole. I'd feel the same way if you were opening a museum about Woodrow Wilson and excluded from the initial exhibits material about his racism.
I can explain...
Black men gleefully murder one another. By the thousands.
Is the truth.
Shouting Thomas, in his response to Crack Emcee, continues to elevate the discussion, succinctly demolishing any notion that racism still exists in our society to any detectable extent.
You really are dense, Robert.
I didn't say shit about whether "racism still exists."
I said it doesn't make any fucking difference whether or not it exists, and that you and the other dopes who are obsessed with this shit are our true problem.
Get it? Morons like you are the problem.
Humans will remain sinners. Assholes like you might be shut up if we laugh at you enough.
If we're going to hold the 18th, 19th, & early 20th centuries hostage to 21st c. notions of racial & gender propriety, we might as well quit while we're ahead & just not read them at all, because none of them will measure up.
Of course, none of those who find the past so lacking ever ask themselves how they would be viewed by the standards of that past, because, ya know, we've got the moral truth & all.
Like Pogo, I am also reminded of the scrubbings done in the former Soviet Union.
Not everyone in the past was a paragon of virtue. Why is that hard to understand and accept.
But the people leading the boycott probably feel very good about themselves. That's important.
It's nice to see ST and Crack go off into a corner and play by themselves so the rest of us can try to have an intelligent conversation.
I think the Godfather makes a good point, but if you are going to feature Cora Harris you should be prepared to be honest about both her strengths and her faults. She was, as Young Hegelian points out, a child of her times. Someone from whom we might learn something about ourselves (heaven forbid!).
It's nice to see ST and Crack go off into a corner and play by themselves
Sometimes I think they're the same person.
YoungHegelian,
"If we're going to hold the 18th, 19th, & early 20th centuries hostage to 21st c. notions of racial & gender propriety, we might as well quit while we're ahead & just not read them at all, because none of them will measure up."
Are you saying there were no people who knew slavery was wrong back then?
Even the slaves?
I often think that ARM is another avatar of Crack.
...
As Crack slips back into his slavery stupidity.
Nobody cares, Crack.
Get a life.
What is it thatGeorge Orwell said?
'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'
If you wish to find examples of white racism in America, you don't have to burden yourself with endless research. Similarly if you wish to find examples of black criminality, such examples are easy enough to find. It's the lessons you draw from such examples that's the controversial part. Is white racism caused by black criminality or is black criminality a consequence of white racism? My guess is that both phenomenona feed off each other, but here's a hard truth: black people have great, historical reasons to distrust white people but have even greater economic reasons to keep that distrust and hostility hidden.
"You really are dense, Robert.
"I didn't say shit about whether 'racism still exists.'"
You miss my point, entirely.
(BTW, you did say on another thread that, essentially, racism no longer exists.)
"I said it doesn't make any fucking difference whether or not it exists...."
Spoken by someone for whom it has never been an issue.
YoungHegelian writes: "Of course, none of those who find the past so lacking ever ask themselves how they would be viewed by the standards of that past, because, ya know, we've got the moral truth & all."
It's worse than that. None of them ever considers how we are going to be judged by the standards of the future.
Will they all be vegetarians, looking back in horror at our filthy habit of eating poor defenseless animals? Or will they be libertarian omnivores, astonished that we (Americans) refuse to eat cicadas or grasshoppers, export old horses to be eaten in France when we could eat them ourselves, and send the bodies of abandoned dogs and cats to the landfill instead of to restaurants? You don't know, and neither do I, and there's a very high probability that one or both of us will be looked down on by future people for our unenlightened opinions.
Will they have banned smoking tobacco and marijuana as filthy habits? Or will both be morally unexceptionable? Again, you don't know, and neither do I. I'm pretty sure the current gross hostility to tobacco and tolerant acceptance of marijuana among many supposedly educated Americans won't last: too obviously a double standard.
Non-standard sexual practices? Especially if Muslims or Mormons become more influential, future people may be neoVictorians, looking back on us (if they look at all) with horror as the protoVictorians looked back on the likes of Lord Rochester. Then again, it's conceivable that NAMBLA and friends will win out, and future generations will be amazed at our prudishness about children and sex.
What do you find acceptable that future generations will recoil from in horror? Chances are there's something, and you don't know what it is.
Spoken by someone for whom it has never been an issue.
Oh, I got the full dumb indoctrination in college, just like you Robert.
I grew up and you didn't.
Who's talking about "indoctrination?"
Me.
You are an indoctrinated, mindless fool.
Incapable of individual thought.
The indoctrination is that you are a noble, brilliant guy if you BS all the time about systemic social issues, rather than concerning yourself with your own self interest.
You are about as dumb and hopeless a victim of this indoctrination as can be imagined.
I don't know why I even bother addressing you. Irritation, I guess. I certainly don't expect a sentient response.
Your preoccupation with racism is utter stupidity. I assume it fucks up your life in just the way you deserve.
@Crack,
Are you saying there were no people who knew slavery was wrong back then? Even the slaves?
Who knows what each & every American slave thought? I don't & you don't.
It's clear that in western Africa, no one thought that slavery per se was wrong because they kept at it until the colonial powers shut down
the slave trade at gun point.
There's a big difference between thinking that some acts of others (e.g. enslavement) are in general & for all mankind morally wrong & thinking that when those acts are carried out against me & mine it's a horrible calamity, but it's not morally generalizable.
To move this to an historical epoch that removes race from consideration, look at the Greco-Roman world. For a free-born Greco-Roman man, enslavement was the greatest calamity, but they never abstracted it as a general principle that slavery was wrong. Quite the opposite. Others had to be enslaved, or society would fall apart. Hell, even the slave revolts of the Roman world were not about ending slavery as such.
On the yard of the Macon County, MO courthouse there is a granite monument to the war dead who came from Macon County. For WWI there is a line that separates the colored from the rest. I hope they never change the monument because it is a testament to our society's ability to recover from rank stupidity and improve our behavior.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5D2X_Macon_County_Courthouse_Macon_Missouri
I think it is wrong to expurgate our history. It hides the progress that we have made.
"Your preoccupation with racism is utter stupidity. I assume it fucks up your life in just the way you deserve."
Well, no. Like you, I'm white, and therefore, like you, very fortunate not to have been subject to racism. Unlike you, I'm aware of my good fortune.
William,
"My guess is that both phenomenona feed off each other, but here's a hard truth: black people have great, historical reasons to distrust white people but have even greater economic reasons to keep that distrust and hostility hidden."
These guys seem to be under the impression, after almost three hundred years of slavery, blacks popped out of the box fully-formed and ready for the world - which is bullshit of the highest order. They had no place to go, no money, and family members to try and track down who had been sold elsewhere. And they had to do it all in what was extremely hostile territory.
Now, you tell me, who was responsible for this "black crime" we've been accused of throughout history?
YoungHegelian said...
@Crack,
Are you saying there were no people who knew slavery was wrong back then? Even the slaves?
Who knows what each & every American slave thought? I don't & you don't.
Ahh, so now we're down to "each & every" are we? Is that really how white people argue? Totally chickenshit.
How about the GROUP? We've got lots of historical writings, etc.? What did the "slaves" (plural) as opposed to "each & every" individual?
Are you going to claim we don't know that either?
Moron.
Oh God, the mentally ill, incompetent bastard is wailing away here, too!
The stupidity is hilarious!
Arguing with this confused jackass is stupidity squared.
Crack, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not on the market for a Token Black Friend?
@Robert
You're a very confused, annoying and not particularly bright man.
As I said, I'm certain that this stupid shit is fucking up your life. I live around this shit in Woodstock, and the price idiots pay for your kind of sanctimonious pretensions is huge.
I'm sure it is for you, too, although I'm equally sure that whatever pathology leads to it, you are blithely unaware of it.
You're not worth knowing, so I'm not going to find out the nature of that pathology, but I have no doubt that it exists.
I ceased trying to rescue guys like you a long time ago. Just results in my life being sunk into the same shit you swim in.
Buganda--the present day Uganda--had a developed civilization and a formidable army. They were able to resist colonization until the late 19th century and the people there were not afflicted by slave raiders.......The first missionary writes about an incident he saw on his mission there. The King had several hundred wives. Now two things happen when the King has hundreds of wives: wife number 275, the one with an overbite, doesn't get much action. Given that all the most desirable women are the property of the King and his nobles, the young warriors don't get much action either......One of the King's warriors had an affair with one of the King's wives. They were discovered. The woman was treated relatively leniently. She was beaten and sent back to her parents. The warrior, however, had his arms and legs broken. Thus immobilized he was left by the shore to be devoured by crocodiles......None of the actors in this drama were influenced by westerners or western values. It was an African event reflecting African values......Only a racist would presume that Africans are too stupid to think up clever ways of making their lives miserable.
@Crack,
In the late 18th & 19th Century there developed in the broader European world the idea that slavery & other sorts of bondage (e.g. serfdom) were per se morally objectionable. That idea took time to spread, both among whites & blacks. It was not an idea that was shared by the rest of the world.
I'm sorry if the historical record doesn't help you along in your cause, but it is what it is.
You seem very angry, Shouting Tom. Perhaps something is bothering you, even if you're not aware of it.
Maybe you should meditate.
Two people post repeated angry posts here, and Robert Cook sees fit to criticize only the less angry of the two. Is he afraid of looking like Darrell Issa if he criticizes a black man, or does he think anger is legitimate for those on his side but not for their opponents?
An old joke seems pertinent here: A man is driving home from work on the Interstate when his wife calls his cell-phone in a panic: "The radio says a maniac is driving the wrong way on the Interstate, driving people off the road! Please be careful!" He replies "A maniac? Everyone else but me is driving the wrong way!"
Just to spell it out for the logic-impaired: if absolutely everyone else in a comment section thinks you're wrong, maybe it's not your race or theirs that makes them think so.
can you please explain the difference between "Black men gleefully murder one another. By the thousands" and "He has the savage nature and murderous instincts of the wild beast"?
One is an opinion, the other is a fact.
You seem very angry, Shouting Tom.
That has become such a standard "I'm completely out of ideas" response by leftists that it must be regarded as abject surrender. I accept your surrender.
I'm very happy. Having a great time. Spend a lot of time babysitting my lovely granddaughter. Playing in three bands, including one that is mostly black.
Thanks for your concern.
And, I do meditate. Must do yoga every day or my feet go numb. Don't tell Crack!
And, yes, in another thread we've already been lectured about the real problem in the IRS hearings...
A white man dissed a black man! Quelle Horreur!
In the early days of our republic, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were slammed as royalists,when that term had some of the sting of fascist nowadays. Nonetheless, both men were principled abolitionists. In Europe, Napoleon was considered the egalitarian although it never occurred to him to free the slaves in Egypt or the French West Indies. Ditto with the serfs in Russia. The slaves of the French West Indies owe their emancipation to the efforts of Wellington at the Congress of Vienna.....Closer to our own time, it should be noted that Woodrow Wilson was an avowed white supremacist. He believed in self determination for all nations but drew the line at Ireland, India, and Africa. Please note that W. E. Dubois campaigned for Wlson's reelection. It's also worth noting that Harding intoduced several anti lynching bills to the Senate during Wilson's tenure......I pass over FDR's alliance with the solid, Jim Crow south and jump to the Watergate hearings. Sam Ervin was a committed segregationist. He didn't come from the Deep South. His beliefs in this regard were more severe than many of his constituents. None of this prevented Hilary Clinton from working with the man or prevented the press from presenting him as a folksy, country lawyer and the conscience of our nation......If your search is for hypocrisy and racism, I wouldn't start with the right.
"Two people post repeated angry posts here, and Robert Cook sees fit to criticize only the less angry of the two. Is he afraid of looking like Darrell Issa if he criticizes a black man, or does he think anger is legitimate for those on his side but not for their opponents?"
Well, in this case, I can understand Crack's anger, whereas ST's posts serve to illustrate well why Crack has a reason to be angry...on this topic. That aside, Shouting Tom addressed me directly, so I respond.
Doesn't Crack think that no white person could possibly know what it's like to be black? If so, how can you possibly understand his anger? And how can you justify it without looking like the kind of racist who holds blacks to lower standards because they (allegedly) don't know any better?
Well, I don't think any white person could actually know what it's like to be black...although perhaps whites who grow up with blacks have a pretty good idea. Anyone with awareness of even some of the past and present manifestations of racism should be able to imagine what it may be like sufficiently to not be mystified or become splenetic when it is discussed, and to be able to understand the anger in those who must live with it.
I don't understand Shouting Tom's anger, which is apparent in most everything he posts here...in every thread...despite his claims to be "...very happy. Having a great time." It sounds from his self-description that he should be happy and having a great time, but then...why the never-ending vitriol?
The "my opponent" is angry is just a lying tactic that leftists like you employ, Cook.
It's an odd argument, because morons like you celebrate the anger of blacks, gays and women.
There's good anger and bad anger.
You've now just descended into outright lying, which is to be expected from a man who is as confused as you are.
What you are saying, tacitly, is that a white man who proceeds from a basis of self interest is angry per se. I've heard this argument a million times.
I'm glad I don't know you. I've met far too many lying sack of shit leftist men in Woodstock. They are always psychological basket cases. And liars.
You are too. I don't want to know why. As I said, I ceased caring long ago. Everything about you is a lie.
I'm not going to kiss black ass. You're doing fine without my help. Your obsession with kissing black ass is disgusting and stupid, but... hey, you are the one eating the shit.
@Cook
Your sniveling apologist act is disgusting. Years ago, it surprised me that any man would play such a disgusting, appalling role.
I've seen plenty of it.
It's disgraceful and stupid. God knows why you do it.
As I said, there's always a pathology at play underneath this disgusting act. I no longer want to know why.
It's sick shit. I'm not here to fix the world. About all I do these days is tell sick shit men like you where to get off. Not that I expect it to do a damned bit of good.
I don't understand Shouting Tom's anger
I don't know about Shouting, but I'm angry because some racist asshole keeps calling me a racist.
@Cook
I don't think ST is angry he is just rude and abusive. I wouldn't waste time engaging him. That time has better uses.
khesan0802,
Interesting point, but...why be persistently rude and obnoxious--not to leave out abusive--if one is not angry?
I guess this is one of those enigmas of we hairless apes in spacesuits and rocket ships.
Interesting point, but...why be persistently rude and obnoxious--not to leave out abusive--if one is not angry?
You are constantly calling on other white men to kiss black ass. That's pretty rude and obnoxious.
You really have no idea what an asshole act that is you play?
That's pretty astonishing. Well, really it isn't. I met so many dumb asshole leftist men who play out that act.
I am really treating you in kind. You deserve it.
jim@11:28
I hope you see this. Your post was in tune with my own feelings and I'm sorry if it was lost in the back and forth. I saw it and appreciated it. Thank you.
Georgia has art?
Weird.
@Robert Cook
See what I mean?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा