9 ms·

Roosevelt Statue Removed from Natural-History Museum for Glorifying Colonialism

42 points by thinkingemote 5y ago

thrower123 5y ago
If they're upset about the statue outside of the museum, they'll be irate about most of the contents of it. That whole back-left corner of the museum is fascinating anthropologically, but not exactly ideologically aligned nowadays.
- jfengel 5y ago
  They're aware of it, and gradually updating it. There's a diorama right up front that they have deliberately kept in all its racist glory. They've annotated it with over a dozen signs explaining everything that's wrong with it, from the literally-identical Native American faces to their supplicating postures. The signage explains how they're working on fixing that throughout the museum, but that it's going to take time.
Oem18 5y ago
nashashmi 5y ago
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  So is Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, China, Japan, Egypt... Countries and humans are the symbol the symbol of colonization since we wiped out the Neanderthal. Does it make it right? No. Should we revel in it? No. But to cherry pick America as the sole proprietor of colonialism and colonization is ridiculous and whatever you have going on with the Free Masons I put down to National Treasure. Fun movie, but fairly baseless.
  - nashashmi 5y ago
    I edited the comment because it sounded more offensive than sarcasm. But your comment makes non equivalent comparisons. All of America is a European colony. Wiping out native Americans and their lifestyle. On a massive scale. This has never happened before.
    - UnpossibleJim 5y ago
      You've heard of Genghis Khan, I'm assuming. Right? Dan Carlin's podcast is AWESOME if you haven't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
    - SSShupe 5y ago
      Ahem ... Cortez and the Aztecs? Pizarro and the Incas? Wiped out the natives and their lifestyles long before there was a United States.
      - nashashmi 5y ago
        Again, European.
namlem 5y ago
This particular statue was pretty questionable fwiw. Picture of it: https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Roosevelt-statue.jpeg?resize=720%2C1079&quality=100&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/...
- tptacek 5y ago
  Whoah. That's not good. Serious Pawnee City Hall Wamapoke Mural energy.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Ouch. Yeah, with the picture of the whole thing it's easier to see why.
- daveslash 5y ago
  Right. From my understanding, plenty of local people have taken issue with this statue for a while. Regardless of how one feels about any individual, there are more and there are less tasteful ways of depicting them with a statue, and this statue isn't in the "more" camp. The knee-jerk reaction many people will have will be to decry this as cancel-culture coming after Theodore Roosevelt; in my personal opinion, I think of this as cancelling _this one particular statue_, not cancelling _Roosevelt_.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    Teddy Roosevelt got millions of innocent people killed around the world and his decisions/treaties while in office made WW2 a lot more deadly. His family, including FDR, was interested in owning all of China, the source of their drug fortune. They fully supported imperial Japan's atrocities in Asia for decades and provided war supplies for this reason. He should never have been celebrated in the 1st place but drug fortunes buy great PR.
- boxed 5y ago
  Can someone explain to me, a non US person, what is bad with that? I see a President standing United with an Indian and a black man. This seems like just the sort of thing that should be celebrated no?
0dayz 5y ago
Having seen the picture of the statue its pretty much good riddance for theo's legacy. However I think that given the very long hiding of usa skeletons in the closet regarding issues like colonialism, I think this is the unfortunate collateral consequence of confronting and uprooting said past even if I find the "importance " about a statue's existence to be eye rolling.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
- ebiester 5y ago
  Look at the statue in question: https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Roosevelt-statue.jpeg?resize=720%2C1079&quality=100&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/... You can acknowledge that Roosevelt is a complicated figure but still a figure of history without defending this particular statue.
bush-bby 5y ago
This is a seemingly purposefully single minded way of viewing arguably one of the most benevolent leaders the United States has ever experienced. Does every president have to have freed the slaves to be considered benevolent. List of Teddy’s accomplishments that come to mind: 1.Square deal 2.Trust motherfucking bust 3.Panama canal 4.preventing Spain from colonizing more of the Americas 5.gave us the idea that the natural world needs to be protected from us. 6.added regulations to railroads 7.added regulations to what we consume 8.served his country well
- vo2maxer 5y ago
  It’s about “viewing” the statue, not Teddy Roosevelt the person and his presidential accomplishments.
etskinner 5y ago
https://archive.is/ZpByJ https://archive.is/ZpByJ
eschulz 5y ago
I have played Devil's Advocate for this statue numerous times over the last year or so. My understanding of Roosevelt is that he was not a racist, and that the statue depicts an incredibly important aspect of his great life. He was a blue blood Ivy League elite from New York, but he was drawn to nature and working class challenges and that largely defined him. Before being president he tried to live in Dakota Territory but for the most part failed. However, he experienced the difficulties and challenges of living in the "wild" which was something not necessary for a young wealthy man from one of New York's most respected families. Then many years later he took a very dangerous and ill advised expedition to the Amazon in collaboration with the museum from where the statue was later placed. He learned a lot on that expedition, and we can learn from the record of his experiences there. Without his difficult and challenging experiences in Dakota, Cuba, Amazon, etc, Roosevelt would have just been an ordinary Ivy League millionaire learning about common people and exotic lands from books in his Oyster Bay library. Instead he put himself out there due to whatever motivations he had, and it put him in touch with working people and nature, and these experienced directly impacted his career. He was considered a leader in worker's rights and natural preservation. His presidency prioritized conservation and established the national parks. As president he met with African American leaders even though his decision to host such people in the White House was incredibly unpopular in the racist press. He had survived Dakota and San Juan Hill, so he was not afraid to be an advocate and ruffle feathers. In light of him not being an proponent of racism, I think the statue can fairly be interpreted as Roosevelt's greatness coming in large part due to his association with people of different races and classes. As a Progressive, he moves in the right direction thanks to his association with the others depicted in the statue. Of course the statue is more than a little crude in depicting this since it was made by people who didn't really experience Roosevelt's life or maybe care to consider it. I think keeping the statue in the public space can offer us the opportunity to discuss and debate its meaning, and Roosevelt's importance to the museum and to the United States. However, that opportunity is now gone since the statue will be moved into hiding.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Looking at the picture someone else posted - knowing almost nothing about Roosevelt, it just looks like a dude on a horse with a native american + uhm....a black man following in tow. Almost like he owns them both. >>I think the statue can fairly be interpreted as Roosevelt's greatness coming in large part due to his association with people of different races and classes I don't see that at all. If it was maybe a stute where(for example) he is sitting down and they are both behind him holding him by the shoulder - sure. As-is the statue looks like he's above them. Again, this is just how I felt seeing it for the first time. Maybe reading up on Roosevelt I'd see it differently, but I imagine lots of people coming into the Natural History museum don't know the details and that's the first thing they see. I'm generally against removal of any and all statues, but this one just feels sour in my mouth for some reason.
friendlydog 5y ago
motohagiography 5y ago
Can one recognize Roosevelt's legacy without defending the most pernicious aspects of the colonization of the americas that occured some 350 years prior? Given you can choose to view literally anything through the labels of oppressor and oppressed, this statue removal has less to do with any actual crimes than hiding examples of leadership and character that would bring shame to current political leaders. This is a man who literally, and almost single handedly organized a volunteer army, which included a significant number of native americans, and took them to war against the vestiges of a european colonial power (Spain). Roosevelt was a great and exceptional man, and a leader others followed willingly, often at great risk to themselves, and other than maybe Martin Luther King, or George Patton, he's probably the best political leader America has ever produced. (I recommend his book on the Rough Riders) His original involvemnent in politics was as a crusader against corruption, and he used his wealth for the one thing it should afford, which is to be able to stand by his principles. People are welcome to do what they want with their cities, but in removing this statue, it will become like all banned art, a symbol of the pettiness and contemptibility of the regime that removed it, and of the individual human greatness they fear most.
- ckrusk 5y ago
  which book about the rough riders are you referring to? https://www.amazon.com/Rough-Riders-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/1619492342 https://www.amazon.com/Rough-Riders-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/16... ?
pmdulaney 5y ago
It seems sadly ironic to me that many of the same people who decry Islamic destruction of non-Muslim religious cultural artifacts are in favor of pulling down statues such as this one. By doing this kind of thing we are teaching our children that people who think at all differently than we do are not to be tolerated in the least.
- beefok 5y ago
  The comparison is not even remotely equivalent. The statue hasn't been destroyed, it was moved to a different location. Islamic destruction of cultural artifacts for 'blasphemy' is a completely different reasoning because it disregards the value of cultural significance and instead creates an artificial 'metaphysical' reason to destroy something. If for some reason you think we need a statue around that shows our 'mastery' over the natives and people we stole from their native lands to do work for free, then you are butt-hurt for the worst possible reason and only show your true color. And if you think we need to teach children to be tolerant of slavery, then you are absolutely wrong for two reasons. (PS: I think Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty cool guy and wasn't a racist beyond the norms of the time, so it's more a problem of what the statue represents at face value)
  - pmdulaney 5y ago
    A more enlightened view, I think, would be to in essence say, "Americans of previous generations had views and attitudes that many of us disagree with today, and we would not care to replicate what we see as their mistakes, but out of respect for them and the different era in which they lived, we allow their monuments to stand."
    - beefok 5y ago
      Hey sorry, I'm late to the game -- I didn't realize you responded. I do understand your view completely, and maybe I came in reactionary. Honestly I'd have to continue thinking about it to provide any sort of meaningful answer -- but I will definitely continue to consider it in any thoughts or comments I make in the future, haha.

42 points by thinkingemote 5y ago

If they're upset about the statue outside of the museum, they'll be irate about most of the contents of it. That whole back-left corner of the museum is fascinating anthropologically, but not exactly ideologically aligned nowadays.

jfengel 5y ago
They're aware of it, and gradually updating it. There's a diorama right up front that they have deliberately kept in all its racist glory. They've annotated it with over a dozen signs explaining everything that's wrong with it, from the literally-identical Native American faces to their supplicating postures. The signage explains how they're working on fixing that throughout the museum, but that it's going to take time.

Oem18 5y ago

nashashmi 5y ago

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
So is Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, China, Japan, Egypt... Countries and humans are the symbol the symbol of colonization since we wiped out the Neanderthal. Does it make it right? No. Should we revel in it? No. But to cherry pick America as the sole proprietor of colonialism and colonization is ridiculous and whatever you have going on with the Free Masons I put down to National Treasure. Fun movie, but fairly baseless.
- nashashmi 5y ago
  I edited the comment because it sounded more offensive than sarcasm. But your comment makes non equivalent comparisons. All of America is a European colony. Wiping out native Americans and their lifestyle. On a massive scale. This has never happened before.
  - UnpossibleJim 5y ago
    You've heard of Genghis Khan, I'm assuming. Right? Dan Carlin's podcast is AWESOME if you haven't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
  - SSShupe 5y ago
    Ahem ... Cortez and the Aztecs? Pizarro and the Incas? Wiped out the natives and their lifestyles long before there was a United States.
    - nashashmi 5y ago
      Again, European.

namlem 5y ago

This particular statue was pretty questionable fwiw. Picture of it: https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Roosevelt-statue.jpeg?resize=720%2C1079&quality=100&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/...

tptacek 5y ago
Whoah. That's not good. Serious Pawnee City Hall Wamapoke Mural energy.
gambiting 5y ago
Ouch. Yeah, with the picture of the whole thing it's easier to see why.
daveslash 5y ago
Right. From my understanding, plenty of local people have taken issue with this statue for a while. Regardless of how one feels about any individual, there are more and there are less tasteful ways of depicting them with a statue, and this statue isn't in the "more" camp. The knee-jerk reaction many people will have will be to decry this as cancel-culture coming after Theodore Roosevelt; in my personal opinion, I think of this as cancelling _this one particular statue_, not cancelling _Roosevelt_.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Teddy Roosevelt got millions of innocent people killed around the world and his decisions/treaties while in office made WW2 a lot more deadly. His family, including FDR, was interested in owning all of China, the source of their drug fortune. They fully supported imperial Japan's atrocities in Asia for decades and provided war supplies for this reason. He should never have been celebrated in the 1st place but drug fortunes buy great PR.
boxed 5y ago
Can someone explain to me, a non US person, what is bad with that? I see a President standing United with an Indian and a black man. This seems like just the sort of thing that should be celebrated no?

0dayz 5y ago

Having seen the picture of the statue its pretty much good riddance for theo's legacy. However I think that given the very long hiding of usa skeletons in the closet regarding issues like colonialism, I think this is the unfortunate collateral consequence of confronting and uprooting said past even if I find the "importance " about a statue's existence to be eye rolling.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

ebiester 5y ago
Look at the statue in question: https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Roosevelt-statue.jpeg?resize=720%2C1079&quality=100&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/... You can acknowledge that Roosevelt is a complicated figure but still a figure of history without defending this particular statue.

bush-bby 5y ago

This is a seemingly purposefully single minded way of viewing arguably one of the most benevolent leaders the United States has ever experienced. Does every president have to have freed the slaves to be considered benevolent. List of Teddy’s accomplishments that come to mind: 1.Square deal 2.Trust motherfucking bust 3.Panama canal 4.preventing Spain from colonizing more of the Americas 5.gave us the idea that the natural world needs to be protected from us. 6.added regulations to railroads 7.added regulations to what we consume 8.served his country well

vo2maxer 5y ago
It’s about “viewing” the statue, not Teddy Roosevelt the person and his presidential accomplishments.

etskinner 5y ago

https://archive.is/ZpByJ https://archive.is/ZpByJ

eschulz 5y ago

I have played Devil's Advocate for this statue numerous times over the last year or so. My understanding of Roosevelt is that he was not a racist, and that the statue depicts an incredibly important aspect of his great life. He was a blue blood Ivy League elite from New York, but he was drawn to nature and working class challenges and that largely defined him. Before being president he tried to live in Dakota Territory but for the most part failed. However, he experienced the difficulties and challenges of living in the "wild" which was something not necessary for a young wealthy man from one of New York's most respected families. Then many years later he took a very dangerous and ill advised expedition to the Amazon in collaboration with the museum from where the statue was later placed. He learned a lot on that expedition, and we can learn from the record of his experiences there. Without his difficult and challenging experiences in Dakota, Cuba, Amazon, etc, Roosevelt would have just been an ordinary Ivy League millionaire learning about common people and exotic lands from books in his Oyster Bay library. Instead he put himself out there due to whatever motivations he had, and it put him in touch with working people and nature, and these experienced directly impacted his career. He was considered a leader in worker's rights and natural preservation. His presidency prioritized conservation and established the national parks. As president he met with African American leaders even though his decision to host such people in the White House was incredibly unpopular in the racist press. He had survived Dakota and San Juan Hill, so he was not afraid to be an advocate and ruffle feathers. In light of him not being an proponent of racism, I think the statue can fairly be interpreted as Roosevelt's greatness coming in large part due to his association with people of different races and classes. As a Progressive, he moves in the right direction thanks to his association with the others depicted in the statue. Of course the statue is more than a little crude in depicting this since it was made by people who didn't really experience Roosevelt's life or maybe care to consider it. I think keeping the statue in the public space can offer us the opportunity to discuss and debate its meaning, and Roosevelt's importance to the museum and to the United States. However, that opportunity is now gone since the statue will be moved into hiding.

gambiting 5y ago
Looking at the picture someone else posted - knowing almost nothing about Roosevelt, it just looks like a dude on a horse with a native american + uhm....a black man following in tow. Almost like he owns them both. >>I think the statue can fairly be interpreted as Roosevelt's greatness coming in large part due to his association with people of different races and classes I don't see that at all. If it was maybe a stute where(for example) he is sitting down and they are both behind him holding him by the shoulder - sure. As-is the statue looks like he's above them. Again, this is just how I felt seeing it for the first time. Maybe reading up on Roosevelt I'd see it differently, but I imagine lots of people coming into the Natural History museum don't know the details and that's the first thing they see. I'm generally against removal of any and all statues, but this one just feels sour in my mouth for some reason.

friendlydog 5y ago

motohagiography 5y ago

Can one recognize Roosevelt's legacy without defending the most pernicious aspects of the colonization of the americas that occured some 350 years prior? Given you can choose to view literally anything through the labels of oppressor and oppressed, this statue removal has less to do with any actual crimes than hiding examples of leadership and character that would bring shame to current political leaders. This is a man who literally, and almost single handedly organized a volunteer army, which included a significant number of native americans, and took them to war against the vestiges of a european colonial power (Spain). Roosevelt was a great and exceptional man, and a leader others followed willingly, often at great risk to themselves, and other than maybe Martin Luther King, or George Patton, he's probably the best political leader America has ever produced. (I recommend his book on the Rough Riders) His original involvemnent in politics was as a crusader against corruption, and he used his wealth for the one thing it should afford, which is to be able to stand by his principles. People are welcome to do what they want with their cities, but in removing this statue, it will become like all banned art, a symbol of the pettiness and contemptibility of the regime that removed it, and of the individual human greatness they fear most.

ckrusk 5y ago
which book about the rough riders are you referring to? https://www.amazon.com/Rough-Riders-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/1619492342 https://www.amazon.com/Rough-Riders-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/16... ?

pmdulaney 5y ago

It seems sadly ironic to me that many of the same people who decry Islamic destruction of non-Muslim religious cultural artifacts are in favor of pulling down statues such as this one. By doing this kind of thing we are teaching our children that people who think at all differently than we do are not to be tolerated in the least.

beefok 5y ago
The comparison is not even remotely equivalent. The statue hasn't been destroyed, it was moved to a different location. Islamic destruction of cultural artifacts for 'blasphemy' is a completely different reasoning because it disregards the value of cultural significance and instead creates an artificial 'metaphysical' reason to destroy something. If for some reason you think we need a statue around that shows our 'mastery' over the natives and people we stole from their native lands to do work for free, then you are butt-hurt for the worst possible reason and only show your true color. And if you think we need to teach children to be tolerant of slavery, then you are absolutely wrong for two reasons. (PS: I think Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty cool guy and wasn't a racist beyond the norms of the time, so it's more a problem of what the statue represents at face value)
- pmdulaney 5y ago
  A more enlightened view, I think, would be to in essence say, "Americans of previous generations had views and attitudes that many of us disagree with today, and we would not care to replicate what we see as their mistakes, but out of respect for them and the different era in which they lived, we allow their monuments to stand."
  - beefok 5y ago
    Hey sorry, I'm late to the game -- I didn't realize you responded. I do understand your view completely, and maybe I came in reactionary. Honestly I'd have to continue thinking about it to provide any sort of meaningful answer -- but I will definitely continue to consider it in any thoughts or comments I make in the future, haha.