This topic warrants it's own thread due to the politics involved with this. On Thursday, the statue of Theodore Rossevelt that stood in front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City for over 80 years was removed. I think that this went a little too far and that recontextualization would have worked since it was already at a museum with educational information. Makes me wonder what will happen with bigger monuements like the Jefferson Memorial.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... story/amp/

Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting character, no doubt. Even viewed through the lens of 2022, he still managed to do a lot of good

That said…this statue is just awful. Talk about epitomizing the white savior trope. Might as well build one of George W Bush walking holding hands with Iraqi and Afghani children

Lord knows I'm no Politically Correct Warrior but "some" history just is "of it's time". There's no formula nowadays to determine what is offensive vs. what is historically relevant. Half the Founding Fathers were slaveholders with noble intentions, with exceptions of course. The present day is a tough time in American history, the South is rising again for (not better) or WORSE IMHO. Everyone has their own opinions, but to eliminate history is of course a means to repeat the same horrors. Take the film "Birth of A Nation" by DW Griffith. Some argue it should NEVER be shown as it IS a racist viewpoint of it's director. But it IS a major milestone in American film history. As a film buff, this SHOULD be shown with the caveat that it was OF IT'S TIME, and not a viewpoint which has any relevance today. Rant Over.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Lord knows I'm no Politically Correct Warrior but "some" history just is "of it's time". There's no formula nowadays to determine what is offensive vs. what is historically relevant. Half the Founding Fathers were slaveholders with noble intentions, with exceptions of course. The present day is a tough time in American history, the South is rising again for (not better) or WORSE IMHO. Everyone has their own opinions, but to eliminate history is of course a means to repeat the same horrors. Take the film "Birth of A Nation" by DW Griffith. Some argue it should NEVER be shown as it IS a racist viewpoint of it's director. But it IS a major milestone in American film history. As a film buff, this SHOULD be shown with the caveat that it was OF IT'S TIME, and not a viewpoint which has any relevance today. Rant Over.

Absolutely my take as well. But your perspective requires approaching these things with nuance, and that's not what the emotion brigades driving narrative on extreme left and right want.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Lord knows I'm no Politically Correct Warrior but "some" history just is "of it's time". There's no formula nowadays to determine what is offensive vs. what is historically relevant. Half the Founding Fathers were slaveholders with noble intentions, with exceptions of course. The present day is a tough time in American history, the South is rising again for (not better) or WORSE IMHO. Everyone has their own opinions, but to eliminate history is of course a means to repeat the same horrors. Take the film "Birth of A Nation" by DW Griffith. Some argue it should NEVER be shown as it IS a racist viewpoint of it's director. But it IS a major milestone in American film history. As a film buff, this SHOULD be shown with the caveat that it was OF IT'S TIME, and not a viewpoint which has any relevance today. Rant Over.

The slave owning Founding Fathers certainly had their flaws, but they did a number of good things for our nation. I think that teaching both sides of them would be in our best interests. George Floyd had a number of flaws as a criminal, but he also did not need to suffer from police brutality.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

The slave owning Founding Fathers certainly had their flaws, but they did a number of good things for our nation. I think that teaching both sides of them would be in our best interests. George Floyd had a number of flaws as a criminal, but he also did not need to suffer from police brutality.

Indeed. We have all made mistakes but I always try to better myself after them. And no one should have to suffer the way George did.

FGITD wrote:

Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting character, no doubt. Even viewed through the lens of 2022, he still managed to do a lot of good

That said…this statue is just awful. Talk about epitomizing the white savior trope. Might as well build one of George W Bush walking holding hands with Iraqi and Afghani children

The statue of Christopher Columbus at Columbus Circle on the other hand is not coming down. A number of injustices to the Native American people, like the spread of disease also took place under Columbus. So, why is the statue of Teddy Rossevelt more problematic than Christopher Columbus?

ArchGuy1 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting character, no doubt. Even viewed through the lens of 2022, he still managed to do a lot of good

That said…this statue is just awful. Talk about epitomizing the white savior trope. Might as well build one of George W Bush walking holding hands with Iraqi and Afghani children

The statue of Christopher Columbus at Columbus Circle on the other hand is not coming down. A number of injustices to the Native American people, like the spread of disease also took place under Columbus. So, why is the statue of Teddy Rossevelt more problematic than Christopher Columbus?

I’d be Ok with blowing up the Columbus statue. The reason it’s still there likely comes down to one thing…lots of Italian heritage folks in NYC, and for some reason they think Columbus is an Italian National hero worthy of respect. Boston had a smaller Columbus statue in the traditionally Italian neighborhood. It’s head kept being removed, so despite pushback…it was taken out of public display. And would you believe, ever since it’s been gone…no one cares that it was ever there

Using this logic shouldn't virtually every statue of someone born before 1970 be taken down?

We have to recognize that many 'great' people of the past have very disturbing issues about them we now know of due to the internet and social media. What was socially acceptable a century ago isn't today. People who feel insulted by names of public places, statues like this are speaking out. Politicians, governments, private companies are reacting to demands to remove, relocate, rename that which offends a critical mass of their voters. It is also likely being removed legally before a mob takes it down and destroys it, like a number of statues of those connected with slavery have been in recent years.

With this statue Theodore Roosevelt are those of 2 Native Americans. While TR was a progressive in some ways, including the preservation of lands that now part of Yellowstone and other national parks, he like many politicians and the public when alive (1858-1919) continued the destruction of Native American cultures, tearing apart of tribes, genocide, forced 'White' education on them and vile racism toward them. He allegedly said one of the most infamous and offensive comments of Native Americans. That is the backstory that has led to the removal of this statue this link discusses. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/ ... ad-indians

We have moved away from such honors with rare exceptions. There will be very few public places for President Obama except in some Black city districts and likely none for President Trump.

OzarkD9S wrote:

but to eliminate history is of course a means to repeat the same horrors.

How does removing the statue of a US president in a controversial arrangement "eliminating history"? Teddy Roosevelt was and will always be a president of the nation; his face is carved on Mt Rushmore; and among historians, he's ranked highly. I'm fairly certain that had the statue been just him on a horse or even standing, it would be benign enough to not cause a stir; him on a horse with a Native on one side and a Black on the other opens it up to several interpretations: he was a leader who gained the respect of both groups or he was a tyrant that presided over the oppression of both groups.

Eliminating history would be deleting any mention of Teddy, forbidding any lessons on him, erasing all traces of him (pictures, statues, books, mentions, etc.), and penalizing people for even thinking about bringing him up...kinda like how they're doing with Critical Race Theory.

Some items belong in museums (like Confederate or Nazi items) or private places; that's where history is preserved without glorifying it out in the open by government. If the AMNH wants to have an effigy of Teddy Roosevelt, then maybe either a statue or bust of him is good enough, though even then where's the link between the museum and Teddy anyway?

ltbewr wrote:

likely none for President Trump.

I wouldn't put it past hardcore conservatives in R states (ID, WY, WV, and AL) to want to create monuments for him.

I was actually thinking about suggesting that any of those states offer a license plate that pays tribute to him and see which states jump aboard and how many people rush to get a Trump license plate.

einsteinboricua wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

likely none for President Trump.

I wouldn't put it past hardcore conservatives in R states (ID, WY, WV, and AL) to want to create monuments for him.

I was actually thinking about suggesting that any of those states offer a license plate that pays tribute to him and see which states jump aboard and how many people rush to get a Trump license plate.

Give the US another 3 years of its international status waning and 7% inflation, and we'll find out.