Opinion Theodore Roosevelt Statue is Coming Down

[Jar of Flies]

They should take down that Rocky statue in Philly.

Yeah, the guy literally beat the crap out of multiple people of color and he’s celebrated? It’s a real outrage.

 

[BIKES!]

Yeah, the guy literally beat the crap out of multiple people of color and he’s celebrated? It’s a real outrage.

He lost in Rocky 1 and Mr T inflicted significantly more damage during their fight. He also beat an even lighter skin Russian!

 

[koquerelle]

it is pretty bad

 

[TheJewBear]

Oof, that has some serious white savior vibes. Unless there's some story behind the artistic decisions made, I can see why it wasn't wanted. The article linked doesn't explain any history behind it, the statue itself or what it's depicting.

Agreed. Article titles don't explain the nuance involved here.

I'm not a liberal. Teddy is my favorite president by far but this statue is in poor taste. A statue of just TR would be on thing, but with the native American and black guy flanking him...It just looks weird, like something from Bioshock: Infinite.

 

[Confucamus]

Why?

You don't really get to ask why, if you supported statues being torn down last year.

 

[DoctorNick]

Gay people are trash?

Not agreeing with his disgusting post in any way, but most people are trash imo. Just look at our society in general

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

That statue is in horrible taste and should have been torn down when the rest were. Would like to see it replaced with a more inclusive statue. George Floyd got one, so they could do one for someone like Tamir Rice or Trayvon Martin. Or one representing the lgbtqia+ community would be nice. How about one honoring our first black female VP? Lot's on good options

Imagine thinking George Floyd deserves a statue over Roosevelt... Smdh


How about one of your giant clit ring?

 

[44nutman]

A Prime Taft wit dat look in his eyes doe...

Taft is an under appreciated figure in US History.
Dude was President and Supreme Court Chief Justice.
As Presidents go, he was not bad nor was he great, which is kind of a reflection on him. He was kind of boring but in a good way. He was a conservative who was consistent. You always knew what Taft was going to do, because that was who he was; consistent. He was an over achiever, and got really fat as President, but the story he got stuck in the bathtub was a false story. Taft would always be a stocky dude, so in shape Taft with Dat Look in his eye, was 5'11" like 225lb, which was his prime weight. He got over 340 as President, which created health problems. So when he was appointed on the Supreme Court he would walk to the court every day, which was 3 miles. Lost the weight, and lived until his 70's.
So being an over achiever, which means he would press Teddy, and with skill and superior size, Taft would beat Teddy in the cage.

 

[oldshadow]

The original sculptor himself said it was meant to communicate unity, not dominance. Roosevelt is simply the one on the horse, because its meant to be honoring his leadership. They are his guides; he isn't dominating or enslaving them

This.
The native American and African are both armed and standing beside him. Teddy was a big time hunter and they are guides. The African is just that not an African American.

You can't explain to the woke crowd, they even tear down anti slave statues.

 

[cooks1]

These statue conversations always interest me. I must confess complete ambivalence to pretty much all works of art. I don't think the legal destruction or relocation of any work of art, of anyone or anything, anywhere, would enrage me to the point of action. If they decided to level the Sistine Chapel, I would not lose a wink of sleep.

On the flip side of that, the legal destruction of any work of art, no matter how depraved the image, symbol or meaning, would not give me any sense of satisfaction or justice. Perhaps I might feel differently about that if I saw living monuments to my abuse and degradation everywhere I turned. Being a member of the least abused and degraded demographic in history, I just have no frame of reference.

I understand for many, these works of art carry significant meaning and serve as a way to honor a persons accomplishments and legacy. And of course for others, they are symbols of great atrocity.

I wonder if the answer to this dilemma is not the destruction of these monuments, but the creation of more, in the same proximity, to add much needed perspective.

For example, this glorious statue of Andrew Jackson near the White House is the target of removal attempts, both legal and illegal.

What if, instead of removing that statue, we placed another one right beside it of AJ paying a $10 bounty to a guy giving one of his fleeing slaves 100 lashes, as he was prone to do. Could look a little something like this.

There. Now everyone can see the full measure of the guy, good and bad, in the same place. We can honor his accomplishments and acknowledge his depravity at the same time.

On the other side of the coin, places where the art focuses exclusively on the negative aspects of an era or person would need to have art alongside it depicting the more noble endeavors.

My guess is neither side would be too happy with this is idea. Which is a little disappointing. People only want their own narrative advertised.

 

[Topguntrophey]

What do horses think of this? I'd like their opinion.

 

[Hit-N-Run]

If I were black or native America I would hate that statue. Just put Teddy there on his own. He did great things as president when it comes to nature/preservation/museums and should be recognized for that. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Of course the normal Orwellian comments from simps are popping up as usual. Self-centered cunts that can't put themselves in other shoes.

 

[Rational Poster]

You can post this a 1000 times. These simpletons will never get it

Try to explain it then?

What does this quote have to do with relocating a statue?

 

[Slick_36]

Taft is an under appreciated figure in US History.
Dude was President and Supreme Court Chief Justice.
As Presidents go, he was not bad nor was he great, which is kind of a reflection on him. He was kind of boring but in a good way. He was a conservative who was consistent. You always knew what Taft was going to do, because that was who he was; consistent. He was an over achiever, and got really fat as President, but the story he got stuck in the bathtub was a false story. Taft would always be a stocky dude, so in shape Taft with Dat Look in his eye, was 5'11" like 225lb, which was his prime weight. He got over 340 as President, which created health problems. So when he was appointed on the Supreme Court he would walk to the court every day, which was 3 miles. Lost the weight, and lived until his 70's.
So being an over achiever, which means he would press Teddy, and with skill and superior size, Taft would beat Teddy in the cage.

 

[Slick_36]

These statue conversations always interest me. I must confess complete ambivalence to pretty much all works of art. I don't think the legal destruction or relocation of any work of art, of anyone or anything, anywhere, would enrage me to the point of action. If they decided to level the Sistine Chapel, I would not lose a wink of sleep.

On the flip side of that, the legal destruction of any work of art, no matter how depraved the image, symbol or meaning, would not give me any sense of satisfaction or justice. Perhaps I might feel differently about that if I saw living monuments to my abuse and degradation everywhere I turned. Being a member of the least abused and degraded demographic in history, I just have no frame of reference.

I understand for many, these works of art carry significant meaning and serve as a way to honor a persons accomplishments and legacy. And of course for others, they are symbols of great atrocity.

I wonder if the answer to this dilemma is not the destruction of these monuments, but the creation of more, in the same proximity, to add much needed perspective.

For example, this glorious statue of Andrew Jackson near the White House is the target of removal attempts, both legal and illegal.

What if, instead of removing that statue, we placed another one right beside it of AJ paying a $10 bounty to a guy giving one of his fleeing slaves 100 lashes, as he was prone to do. Could look a little something like this.

There. Now everyone can see the full measure of the guy, good and bad, in the same place. We can honor his accomplishments and acknowledge his depravity at the same time.

On the other side of the coin, places where the art focuses exclusively on the negative aspects of an era or person would need to have art alongside it depicting the more noble endeavors.

My guess is neither side would be too happy with this is idea. Which is a little disappointing. People only want their own narrative advertised.

I don't think that's a terrible idea, compromise is the right direction at the very least, but I just don't think a side statue would be effective more than just removing the original statue.

Just purely out of logistics. You would need to match the funds of the original statue, there would probably be arguments over preferential treatment in terms of size and budget. You only have so much room and a literal opposing piece really gets in the way of the composition and meaning of a piece of work.

You would get busy, messy work that takes up space and needs to be maintained, and you're basically forcing conflict by having physical symbols of opposition. Like if we think telling kids about racism is making them hate themselves and resent others, counter statues would probably foster tensions as well.

 

[Slick_36]

Agreed. Article titles don't explain the nuance involved here.

I'm not a liberal. Teddy is my favorite president by far but this statue is in poor taste. A statue of just TR would be on thing, but with the native American and black guy flanking him...It just looks weird, like something from Bioshock: Infinite.

Yeah, I fucking love Teddy as well. As a nature loving grappler myself, I identify heavily with the guy. My American history, especially of that era, needs more work so I could be ignorant. But Teddy and Jefferson are my two favorite presidents.

Jefferson for sure is super problematic in certain areas. I want to honor him, but I also 100% understand that he perpetuated and participated in some dark shit that still reverberates today. People may not be as comfortable with a statue of him as I would be.

A figure like Colombus is a little less nuanced, the guy beat babies to death over trees. He was was far from the first to discover this continent and the only thing he really established was European colonization of the US. I am happy to see his statues go, but I also understand there's an argument there and they started with good intentions.

Anyone of the Confederacy can fuck off. Those statues were erected after the war to establish dominance over the newly freed slave population. They were political in the beginning and it never had anything to do with history outside of celebrating traitors and slavers.

 

[cooks1]

I don't think that's a terrible idea, compromise is the right direction at the very least, but I just don't think a side statue would be effective more than just removing the original statue.

Just purely out of logistics. You would need to match the funds of the original statue, there would probably be arguments over preferential treatment in terms of size and budget. You only have so much room and a literal opposing piece really gets in the way of the composition and meaning of a piece of work.

You would get busy, messy work that takes up space and needs to be maintained, and you're basically forcing conflict by having physical symbols of opposition. Like if we think telling kids about racism is making them hate themselves and resent others, counter statues would probably foster tensions as well.

Agreed. I realized it was not practical when I made the suggestion. I was simply trying to make the larger point that most people seem unwilling to acknowledge the other side. And I generalIy find municipal, state, and federal money going to individual works of art kind of wasteful. It's better invested in institutions devoted to those endeavors. Let the ultra rich build the statues.

Rather than outright destruction, putting the controversial works of art in places equipped to tell the whole story seems like the most sensible course of action. But for fuck sakes, plant some trees or do something different with the empty space than erecting new monuments to current figures. Otherwise we will be doing this all over again in 50 or 60 years.

 

[Prefect]

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Still you don't have a job?

 

[Slick_36]

Agreed. Article titles don't explain the nuance involved here.

I'm not a liberal. Teddy is my favorite president by far but this statue is in poor taste. A statue of just TR would be on thing, but with the native American and black guy flanking him...It just looks weird, like something from Bioshock: Infinite.

I kind of diverged from the point in my initial response to this. You understand my point with the statue, good dude, poor image. Symbolism is strong in art like this, just a subtle change in pose can change the message entirely.

If this had a nameless white guy on the same level as the Native American and African guy, it might not come across so bad. But things weren't great for either group in Teddy's time, and showing them as nameless servants following a graceful white man riding above them is not a great look.

That's why I said if this was a literal depiction of something that happened, it wouldn't be as bad. But as something made up with symbolic intent, you have to consider the white savior message is clearly portrays.

 

[Slick_36]

Agreed. I realized it was not practical when I made the suggestion. I was simply trying to make the larger point that most people seem unwilling to acknowledge the other side. And I generalIy find municipal, state, and federal money going to individual works of art kind of wasteful. It's better invested in institutions devoted to those endeavors. Let the ultra rich build the statues.

Rather than outright destruction, putting the controversial works of art in places equipped to tell the whole story seems like the most sensible course of action. But for fuck sakes, plant some trees or do something different with the empty space than erecting new monuments to current figures. Otherwise we will be doing this all over again in 50 or 60 years.

There just needs to be careful consideration when making a permanent public message. No one gave a shit about historical or even contemporary oppression of people when most of these statues were placed. The Confederate statues were placed with the intent to oppress.

I think that's a misconception by the right of the left, that the left is excited to judge and hate someone for being wrong. I really don't think that's the case, more often than not because those jerks do exist, but the effort to be considerate is way more important. That self reflection is hugely important, no one is perfect and everyone has blind spots. Sometimes social norms and beliefs change. The important thing is the effort and the humility to look back and reanalyze.