VICE: Let's Get Rid of Mount Rushmore (original title: Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore)

You can't fix the mistake by blowing it up. But I'm okay with cutting off the noses.
 
Seems like he is motivated by a jealous impulse to take down other people and their achievements, like most socialists.

That's why such people should never have a place in determining mankind's future.
 
Opportunistic click bait, nothing really to see here. All of these outlets seem dedicated to pouring gas on the fire and furthering the tension and division.
 
I skipped to the end. What did I miss?
He doesn't believe any president should be on Mt Rushmore because they've all done bad. He specifically said he likes Obama as a person but doesn't like the drone strikes and shit.

He doesn't like the idea of the state doing such things because it leads to white washing of history/ is propaganda.
 
Fuckin hell this is actually turning into some sort of marxism.

And this garbage is gaining traction.

The world is changing fast.
 
replace the statues with four massive car horns going BOOOOIIIING at random intervals.
 
Basically that monuments glorify individuals and simultaneously diminish their whole persona. And that through this process, we lose a sense of who they really were - both the good and the bad.

Of course. Any depiction or symbol does not encapsulate every aspect of what is being depicted.

All historical figures I would assume, are larger than life.
 
One is just some hippy leftist culture shit, the other one does reporting on political events.

Like FOX and FOX News

Doesnt matter. @Vice tweeted out the "lets blow up mount Rushmore" headline. No need to split hairs over it, they knew what they were printing.
 
It's a solid piece but I suspect that will get lost in discussions about the incendiary portion referencing Mt. Rushmore.

Of course you're the only one in the thread who actually read the article.


I don't think there is any historical figure that you couldn't rationalize being destroyed in the same manner, depending on whatever perspective you use.

That's literally exactly what the author said: that every great American leader has committed atrocious acts and that lionizing them removes their legacy from scrutiny, thereby doing an inconvenience to American political consciousness.
 
That's literally exactly what the author said: that every great American leader has committed atrocious acts and that lionizing them removes their legacy from scrutiny, thereby doing an inconvenience to American political consciousness.

Are they actually above scrutiny because they have a statue? Doesn't seem like it. People are free to criticize them and that seems to be all the rage these days anyways.
 
They could do a practice run on this anti-American segregationist's monument.


article-2034319-0DBC95F800000578-704_634x412.jpg
I saw that and Mt. Rushmore up close. Met the last living guy who carved Mt. Rushmore. I'd hate to see all his hardwork go away. Very polite guy.
 
I dont care. I dont like things named after people. It is arrogant. Like naming an airport after JFK or Reagan. or anyone who makes a donation puts his name on it. Orson Welles had a good movie on this.

Orson Welles: Our works in stone, in paint, in print, are spared, some of them, for a few decades or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war, or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash - the triumphs, the frauds, the treasures and the fakes. A fact of life: we're going to die. "Be of good heart," cry the dead artists out of the living past. "Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing." Maybe a man's name doesn't matter all that much.
 
Back
Top