Is Marquette "Culturally Insensitive?"

[warriorchick]

+1. This is why Marquette's Jacques Marquette statue was modeled to look like a rugged superhero.

I think he looks more like Captain Morgan.

[Billy Hoyle]

The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

Sometimes even that doesn't matter. In Portland, we had a statue of Lewis, York (Lewis and Clarks's slave), and a Native guide at the University of Portland. It was sculpted and designed to recognize and honor the contribution of York and the Native guide and the plaque stated as much - that was was created to show that three races, white, black, and Native, contributed to the success of the expedition. That statue was targeted for vandalism ("symbol of white supremacy and colonization." We see "stolen land" graffiti all over town)and University property was vandalized. So even positive intent isn't enough for the woke crowd. Flash forward to this past weekend, a bust of York appears out of nowhere in a park and people can't stop pleasuring themselves to it.

But then again, Ghandi statues were torn down in London, so nothing is good enough anymore.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Sometimes even that doesn't matter. In Portland, we had a statue of Lewis, York (Lewis and Clarks's slave), and a Native guide at the University of Portland. It was sculpted and designed to recognize and honor the contribution of York and the Native guide and the plaque stated as much - that was was created to show that three races, white, black, and Native, contributed to the success of the expedition. That statue was targeted for vandalism ("symbol of white supremacy and colonization." We see "stolen land" graffiti all over town)and University property was vandalized. So even positive intent isn't enough for the woke crowd. Flash forward to this past weekend, a bust of York appears out of nowhere in a park and people can't stop pleasuring themselves to it.

But then again, Ghandi statues were torn down in London, so nothing is good enough anymore.

Your example is a result of mob mentality v.s thoughtful discussions re: Chicago statues

[The Sultan]

Your example is a result of mob mentality v.s thoughtful discussions re: Chicago statues

Right.  And perhaps if people engaged in good faith conversations about items like Confederate statues and the renaming of bases, that that discussion can then extend to statues or displays with "good intent."

But it's easier to dismiss concerns and label them the "woke crowd" instead.

[skianth16]

BTW, this has been a great back and forth.  Thanks.

Agreed. This has been a good thread. Let's hope the discussion in Chicago is similar.

[GooooMarquette]

I think he looks more like Captain Morgan.

Maybe they could just put that on the plaque at the base of the statue so there'd be no more controversy.

[StillAWarrior]

Maybe they could just put that on the plaque at the base of the statue so there'd be no more controversy.

About that...

[GooooMarquette]

About that...

Oops....

[Heisenberg]

The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

I'm thinking about the Columbus statues that the city removed (without damage) last October to bring down the boil over the protests that were trying to tear them down.

This was the catalyst for the statue commission in the first place.

If the commission decided they were ok and should be returned, do you think that can actually happen?  Would the protestors from last October accept this decision?

What should the city do if they are deemed ok?  How far should the city go to protect them if they return them? If the City decides they could return but pose public health because a protestor could be injured tearing it down, so they will not, would that be acceptable?

As I've said throughout, I'm ok if elected officials decide to remove a statue, change the name of a park, or street. As it is done in the best interest of all citizens and by elected officials so voters can punish them if they do not like the decision.  I'm not ok with the decision being driving being crammed down by a woke mob. 

I fear the retribution of the woke mob is going to drive all the decisions and the city will buckle and remove every statue on the list.  How can they not?  They are all now marked.

[Spotcheck Billy]

R-E-L-A-X

Those Columbus statues aren't returning.

[Pakuni]

R-E-L-A-X

Those Columbus statues aren't returning.

I suspect not. And I think I'm OK with that. Columbus was a monster who's great achievement was accidentally stumbling upon a continent and claiming to have discovered it, some 500 years after other Europeans were here.

[GooooMarquette]

I suspect not. And I think I'm OK with that. Columbus was a monster who's great achievement was accidentally stumbling upon a continent and claiming to have discovered it, some 500 years after other Europeans were here.

Others here first? Who knew?

As an aside, I just discovered a mighty river that runs between Minnesota and Wisconsin and goes all the way to the Gulf of Mexico! Thinking of calling it the Goooo Past Mississippi River. 🤔

[naginiF]

I fear the retribution of the woke mob is going to drive all the decisions and the city will buckle and remove every statue on the list.  How can they not?  They are all now marked.

Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

[The Sultan]

Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

Don't expect nuanced thought from ole Heisey.

[naginiF]

Don't expect nuanced thought from ole Heisey.

I get it and agree(ish). But I know that there are people close to him in the real world that are part of the 'woke mob' and maybe a nudge from an anonymous fan board will get him to be more accepting of those people.

[MU82]

nm

[muwarrior69]

The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

[The Sultan]

What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Start a protest.

[muwarrior69]

Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

I guess singling out just one race of people is empathetic and not harmful but empowering so they can see themselves as they all really are. Yes, this is really going to bring us all together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9268585/NYC-principal-sent-parents-pamphlet-asking-rate-whiteness.html

[muwarrior69]

Start a protest.

... and so someday a majority of politicians in DC decide to remove the MLK memorial, and they may only be a majority for a short time, is going to bring us all together?

[The Sultan]

... and so someday a majority of politicians in DC decide to remove the MLK memorial, and they may only be a majority for a short time, is going to bring us all together?

I just didn't think your absurdist statement necessitated a well thought out response.

[Galway Eagle]

What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Why do you feel the need to call out MLK's womanizing and not the multitude of people you ardently defend?

Different standards for your own "Christian" folks?

[tower912]

Pointing out the splinter, ignoring the plank.

[naginiF]

I guess singling out just one race of people is empathetic and not harmful but empowering so they can see themselves as they all really are. Yes, this is really going to bring us all together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9268585/NYC-principal-sent-parents-pamphlet-asking-rate-whiteness.html

On the one hand you have people who realize/acknowledge that words and imagery have been used for decades and centuries by the majority to convey negative (even dehumanizing) messages about minority groups and realize it's not the right thing to perpetuate. This doesn't even touch on the fact that there are laws in place and being proposed today that further target these groups as well as elected officials publicly marginalizing them.

On the other hand we have a white guy that's threatened by the single (and stupid) act of a principal in NY.

To say that is a 'false equivalence' is putting it mildly

[Pakuni]

What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

I'm not sure womanizing and plagiarism on a doctoral thesis are quite on par with treason, slavery and genocide, but perhaps our moral codes differ.