Is Marquette "Culturally Insensitive?"

[Heisenberg]

What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

Because the Superbar has been taken over by an extreme political view that is each one try to out woke the other and shouting out dissenting views.  So, I'm mocking them as that is how I see it.

I'm about the only person left that speaks up.  The rest have been banned or given up because the mods share their political views.

Notice they say no politics here, it only certain politics are not allowed.  They let the woke go on for 15 pages celebrating the death of Limbaugh.  How fast would they have slammed down a thread celebrating the death of RGB, and ban those that expressed it?

They are the "enlightened" among us and they demand we give them the respect and accolades they think they deserve, because they morally superior.

[The Sultan]

Correct, you did use the word racist. 
Instead, you gave the definition of it.

OK, I guess you have decided to resort to trolling / lying because the Scoop collective handed your a$$ to you once again in a topic of your own making.

Hope you are having fun saving face.

[Heisenberg]

Because many of the views of the people who commissioned it were inherently flawed. If Alabama had a statue commemorating the Governor who tried to stop the university from integrating is it on us to say "well maybe this is why he did it and we should commemorate him for that" or should we say "yeah this guy was clearly in the wrong and those commemorating him for this are trying to honor an inherently wrong side of history that we should not"

By what standard?  Will that standard be the same in 20, 50, or 100 years?

They had a point of view, we have a different point of view, future generations will have yet another point of view.  To argue that today's standard is "objective" (as you implied above) and all others are "flawed" is a dangerous way to view history.

[Heisenberg]

OK, I guess you have decided to resort to trolling / lying because the Scoop collective handed your a$$ to you once again in a topic of your own making.

Hope you are having fun saving face.

Really, this is your best response to you using the definition of racist.

Face it, you used the definition of racism in smearing most of the country in the second half of the 19th century.  This is extremely dangerous as the only remedy to this is to erase history.

[Heisenberg]

I am far from being a Jacques Marquette scholar, but I have read what is considered to be the most detailed and thoroughly researched biography of him.  According to that book, Father Marquette was highly respected by the native peoples he encountered.  Yes, he did preach about Christianity, but he also avoided condemning their cultural traditions (such as polygamy) that were at odds with church doctrine.  He spent a great deal of his time trying to protect peaceful tribes from the warring ones (hence the irony of MU's Warrior nickname). 

Anyone who wants to lump Father Marquette in with the conquering explorers is an idiot.

I agree with this and the Mayor of Chicago has a commission that is asking if he was too racist and should all references of him (statues) in Chicago be erased.

Lincoln too.

If the answer is yes, this is only the beginning of the process.

[Galway Eagle]

By what standard?  Will that standard be the same in 20, 50, or 100 years?

They had a point of view, we have a different point of view, future generations will have yet another point of view.  To argue that today's standard is "objective" (as you implied above) and all others are "flawed" is a dangerous way to view history.

If I'm in the 60s saying separate but equal is ok, when it objectively was not equal. Then they were wrong for their own times. If I'm in the 1800s and willing to kill to say that slavery is ok, when even England outlawed it years and years prior along with half the country having outlawed it. Then your views are flawed for the times as well.

The bottom line is the argument you're making isn't the "it was par for the times" you think it is because there was already a large contingent of people saying "hey this isn't right".

Because the Superbar has been taken over by an extreme political view that is each one try to out woke the other and shouting out dissenting views.  So, I'm mocking them as that is how I see it.

I'm about the only person left that speaks up.  The rest have been banned or given up because the mods share their political views.

Notice they say no politics here, it only certain politics are not allowed.  They let the woke go on for 15 pages celebrating the death of Limbaugh.  How fast would they have slammed down a thread celebrating the death of RGB, and ban those that expressed it?

They are the "enlightened" among us and they demand we give them the respect and accolades they think they deserve, because they morally superior.

So you're saying if I go and tally posts on that Limbaugh thread it'll be extremely one sided toward the left? I disagree and don't have a project at work today so happy to undertake this task.

[The Sultan]

Really, this is your best response to you using the definition of racist.

Face it, you used the definition of racism in smearing most of the country in the second half of the 19th century.  This is extremely dangerous as the only remedy to this is to erase history.

Only if you change the definition of the word and shift goalposts for your strawman argument.

Other than that, you are doing a great job.

[Heisenberg]

Only if you change the definition of the word and shift goalposts for your strawman argument.

Other than that, you are doing a great job.

ok, explain to us what you meant by

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Specifically, explain why this is not calling the entire southern half of the country for a century that built these statues a bunch of racists.  What did you mean by it?

Then tell us what the remedy is for the action you described above?  Tearing down over 1,000 statues and nothing more?  Not re-writing history to fit this sensibility you hold at this moment.

You think I'm a five-year-old, so explain it to me.

[Heisenberg]

So you're saying if I go and tally posts on that Limbaugh thread it'll be extremely one sided toward the left? I disagree and don't have a project at work today so happy to undertake this task.

No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

the bias is painfully obvious.

[Galway Eagle]

No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

the bias is painfully obvious.

How is that the comparison you make. They aren't on the same level one is a talk show radio host college dropout. One was the second female Supreme Court Justice that had degrees from Cornell, Columbia and Harvard.

Maybe make a Bush Sr or McCain comparison... or Sandra day O'Connor

Never mind I can't have a reasonable discourse like you claim to want if this is what you believe is logic that you're bringing to the table.

[Heisenberg]

If I'm in the 60s saying separate but equal is ok, when it objectively was not equal. Then they were wrong for their own times. If I'm in the 1800s and willing to kill to say that slavery is ok, when even England outlawed it years and years prior along with half the country having outlawed it. Then your views are flawed for the times as well.

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

The cancel culture is out of control here.  THis thread is about erasing the South of the last 100 years.  We just finished a thread with some calling for a LaCrosse player getting erased/canceled (expelled from school) for using inappropriate language. We have others celebrating Limbaugh's death, as they view it as a form of him being canceled.

I find this view an extremely dangerous point of view, and it is rampant everywhere. 

I have no problem with the views changing and presentation of these new views.  I have a problem with these new views being accompanied by the erasure of history.

Now the usual suspects will say that is not what they want (Pakuni stood on his head to say this already) but that is only because I called them out.  Otherwise, they would be out of control with their demands for erasure of everything about the South during reconstruction.

[Heisenberg]

How is that the comparison you make. They aren't on the same level one is a talk show radio host college dropout. One was the second female Supreme Court Justice that had degrees from Cornell, Columbia and Harvard.

Maybe make a Bush Sr or McCain comparison... or Sandra day O'Connor

Never mind I can't have a reasonable discourse like you claim to want if this is what you believe is logic that you're bringing to the table.

OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

[Galway Eagle]

OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

In political discourse? Yes one who has higher education absolutely matters. It's where you learn logical thought (or so I thought. I'm beginning to think Marquette didn't), and important things that should give context to governmental decisions like macro economics, statistics, law (in RBG's case). At the end of the day your comparison is akin to me saying a person on social media with a bunch of followers who dies deserves the respect that Reagan does.

also you went to college why did you go?

I notice that like others who made that comparison you've failed to actually address whether it's valid, because in your heart you know as well as me that's a massive false equivalency between the two.

[Hards Alumni]

OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

This is the meltdown of a grown man whose world has been yanked out from beneath him.  And its happening here in real time.  It makes me sad.

[Galway Eagle]

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

The cancel culture is out of control here.  THis thread is about erasing the South of the last 100 years.  We just finished a thread with some calling for a LaCrosse player getting erased/canceled (expelled from school) for using inappropriate language. We have others celebrating Limbaugh's death, as they view it as a form of him being canceled.

I find this view an extremely dangerous point of view, and it is rampant everywhere. 

I have no problem with the views changing and presentation of these new views.  I have a problem with these new views being accompanied by the erasure of history.

Now the usual suspects will say that is not what they want (Pakuni stood on his head to say this already) but that is only because I called them out.  Otherwise, they would be out of control with their demands for erasure of everything about the South during reconstruction.

We aren't erasing them from history. We still learn about the civil war. We don't honor them though.

My thought was this thread was about whether Marquette's culturally insensitive, and was turned into a south thing be use of false equivalencies.

I'm pretty sure you're assuming the lacrosse player got expelled when there's no proof. I would say using conjecture like that to make a point that is false, is a more dangerous thing to do than hold those who make poor decisions accountable.

Again, there's no erasure of history. There's a desire to not put individuals on a pedestal who were objectively wrong at the time. There was no march for equal rights at the time of Lincoln so it's unfair to hold him accountable for not going far enough. There was a war on slavery, so it's fair to hold Lee and other confederates accountable.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

Not at all. I for one would have welcomed the right wingers posting all the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hateful comments that RGB made on a constant basis. What are you waiting for?

[Pakuni]

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

Removing, changing or adding to a public monument is not "erasing history," you drama queen.

Robert E. Lee hasn't vanished from American history because a statue was removed in Virginia. Lenin hasn't disappeared from the history books because his statues were toppled in former Eastern Bloc countries. Iraqis still know about Saddam Hussein.

[The Sultan]

ok, explain to us what you meant by

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Specifically, explain why this is not calling the entire southern half of the country for a century that built these statues a bunch of racists.  What did you mean by it?

Then tell us what the remedy is for the action you described above?  Tearing down over 1,000 statues and nothing more?  Not re-writing history to fit this sensibility you hold at this moment.

You think I'm a five-year-old, so explain it to me.

It is going to be hard to explain this to you without the aid of a picture book, but here goes....

Erecting statues of Confederate heroes isn't about history.  It is actually about rewriting history.  It's about giving honor to those who don't deserve honor.  Furthermore, the motivation for erecting those statues was about turning back the clock and rewriting history.  That certainly doesn't mean that those who don't want the statues torn down are racist.  That's ridiculous.

As Pakuni said, removing those statues meant to honor is not rewriting history.  It's correcting it.  Museums, textbooks, etc. will still exist.  And those vehicles will properly put those figures in their proper historical context.

I mean, do the Germans put up statues of Hitler so they won't forget World War II?

As for the 1,000 that exist now?  Take them down.  It may take decades, but one at a time is better than leaving them up.

[MUBurrow]

I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

The point of the statue is to honor Fr. Marquette, not to memorialize the artist's perspective of Native Americans.  We shouldn't feel compelled to leave that untouched because it reflects the artist's point of view.  That's conflating the historical value of Fr. Marquette with the historical value of the artist's perspective. We have better context now of the role Native American guides played in Fr. Marquette's story, and we are societally better positioned to appreciate that context.
So if that means changing the statue, I don't see that as a problem.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I agree with this and the Mayor of Chicago has a commission that is asking if he was too racist and should all references of him (statues) in Chicago be erased.

Can you point to where the Mayor of Chicago has asked if Father Marquette was too racist? I don't think the discussion has anything to do with Father Marquette or his legacy, I think it's about how native peoples are depicted in the statue with Father Marquette.

Of course if this is true, our alma mater would not be in danger of having to change its name.

[skianth16]

No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

The point of the statue is to honor Fr. Marquette, not to memorialize the artist's perspective of Native Americans.  We shouldn't feel compelled to leave that untouched because it reflects the artist's point of view.  That's conflating the historical value of Fr. Marquette with the historical value of the artist's perspective. We have better context now of the role Native American guides played in Fr. Marquette's story, and we are societally better positioned to appreciate that context.

Edit - I've been thinking about this more, and I also think it's fair to ask why it's OK that we (myself included here) so quickly jump to a negative conclusion based on several assumptions. Do we know anything about the guide Marquette worked with? Maybe he was shorter than Marquette and Joliet. Or the person who was used as the model for the statue was shorter, and the artist simply captured reality? Do we know anything about the artist and his background? Is there any specific reason to think he would have a bias that comes through in his statue? Is it possible that our new lens actually makes us read things into history that weren't actually there? I've got to think that happens plenty.
So if that means changing the statue, I don't see that as a problem.

Honoring Father Marquette doesn't take anything away from the many people who worked alongside him throughout his life. And I think that's something that needs to be brought up more in conversations like this - specifically honoring one person does not belittle or diminish others who have been left out. It's fair to say that we need more statues and monuments to honor more cultures that have contributed to our history over the years, for sure. But I don't see that as an excuse to remove many of the existing statues.

So maybe the right idea here is that instead of considering tearing down statues, we should be talking about adding more statues to honor more people representing a broader and more diverse population. Wouldn't that achieve a lot more than knocking down statues that don't fit our current understanding of events/people? (this applies to the Lincolns and Marquettes of the world, not the Confederate stuff) 

I think it's also worth saying that if we're looking at how tall a person is in a bronze statue that maybe we're not in as bad of shape as we think. Could the Native American guide have been taller to be more equal? Yeah, and there's probably some bias showing here. But he could have been left out altogether too.

[skianth16]

No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

I think you hit a lot of nails on the head in this comment, so I'll respond to this piece specifically as well, although I have a slightly different conclusion. You're right that we continue to learn more as time progresses. More voices are added to the conversation, and perspectives grow.

Here's where I diverge from you. Those conversations that continue on do so in part because we chose to dedicate a statue or a space to an honorable person or event. Without drawing attention to a person, it's possible they get lost in the noise along the way. And then we don't get to learn all the new pieces that fill in the gaps of the whole story.

If we focus too much on what we don't know for fear that someday in the future our views may be considered ignorant, we can overlook a lot of things worth celebrating in the here and now. And just because a person or a scene may not represent 100% of what we want them to, I don't think that means we can't lift up the positive pieces. Lincoln is a great example of this. We know more about him now, and his history is more complicated and uglier than most knew years ago. But does that mean we can't honor his accomplishments? I would say no. Dialogue about his flaws is perfectly fair, even encouraged, but I don't see that erasing the good things he did.

[GooooMarquette]

What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

[🏀]

OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

[skianth16]

After about 5 minutes of gooling, it appears the sculptor of the potentially problematic Marquette statue was probably very well intentioned in his depiction of the Native American guide. His biographic website says he was inspired by Native American culture and spent time with various tribes, even creating a sculpture of a Navajo chief in New Mexico. The Smithsonian says he wanted to help rehabilitate the image of Native Americans through his work.

If the imagery depicted in the Marquette statue is seen as offensive, I would hope that an understanding of the sculptor would change some minds.

https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244