7 ms·

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

by 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?
- tptacek 5y ago
  No, that's not what's being depicted. The sculpture celebrates American culture's conquest of Native Americans and Africans --- Roosevelt literally had conquered chiefs march in his inaugural parade, like Caesar with Vercingetorix. The sculpture itself evokes a Roman Triumph. It's part of a genre --- one Fraser was a big part of, most famously with his "End of the Trail" sculpture --- of "Vanishing Indian" artworks, which cast Native American culture as effectively extinct, subsumed completely into "white" culture. It's ickier still when you contemplate the historical context of Roosevelt's "Triumph", coming as it did in the age of the Gatling Gun. There's much more to be said for The End of the Trail as an important work of art than of this pretty-creepy Roosevelt structure. Not that Teddy should be melted down or anything, but it doesn't make sense to give it a place of honor.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    This interpretation is completely ignorant of the history of this statue, the museum, and Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a long time champion for the Natural History Museum and the research it did in the natural world. He funded the museum heavily, and then himself led a huge expedition into the Amazon to discover and map one of the main tributaries to the Amazon river, deep in uncharted south american jungle. This statue was commissioned to represent that specific expedition, and the people next to him represent the people that HELPED his expedition. The creator wanted to INCLUDE them in the historical narrative. It was a peaceful expedition. They found the tributary and mapped it, despite all nearly dying and contracting malaria. It's actually a famous book describing the expedition called The River or Doubt.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Again, you're trying to educate me about Roosevelt, but I'm not making any contentions about Roosevelt being unworthy of prominent sculpture. The problem is this sculpture, which does not in fact depict Roosevelt's Amazon expedition. A good way to make a case in favor of the Equestrian Teddy is to cite artistic analysis that precedes the controversy over the sculpture's removal, when it became a culture war football. That way, you're less likely to accidentally retcon the work into something it isn't.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
q1w2 5y ago
It's important to understand the history of the statue before you jump to conclusions. Roosevelt was a long time champion for the Natural History Museum and the research it did in the natural world. He funded expeditions for the museum heavily, and then himself led a huge expedition into the Amazon to discover and map one of the main tributaries to the Amazon river, deep in the uncharted South American jungle. This statue represented that specific expedition, and the people next to him represent those that HELPED his expedition. The creator wanted to INCLUDE them in the historical narrative. He's on a horse because they also wanted to capture a major part of his, unrelated, personal history as a member of a famous cavalry unity that had fought in the war against the Spanish. It was a peaceful expedition of scientific exploration, not colonial exploitation. In the end, they found the tributary and mapped it, and brought back various nature samples to the museum for study - despite all nearly dying of starvation and contracting malaria. There is actually a great book describing the expedition called The River or Doubt [1]. ...but of course Twitter mobs know better based on their 3 second hot-take, and now we have to dumb-down history for everyone. [1] https://www.amazon.com/River-Doubt-Theodore-Roosevelts-Darkest/dp/0767913736 https://www.amazon.com/River-Doubt-Theodore-Roosevelts-Darke...
- tptacek 5y ago
  I don't think this is really true at all. Roosevelt's elevation above the lesser races and cultures, and by extension the elevation of Roosevelt's culture, was the intent of the sculpture. Fraser was by no account a virulent racist --- he'd spent time out in the frontier west, and was apparently deeply sympathetic towards Native Americans (he's also the designer of the Buffalo nickel!). But he's unmistakably building on the idea of Native Americans as members of a defeated culture, celebrated in their pacified decline and allowed to quietly vanish off the Earth. Again: we don't so much have to guess about the ideas captured in this work; lots has been written about it. It's modeled after a Renaissance sculpture depicting a ruthless mercenary general. It depicts something like a Roman Triumph --- which, notably, Roosevelt actually held at his inauguration, with conquered Native American chiefs marching to celebrate his victory --- long before the Amazon expedition. I think a problem you're running into here is that you're evaluating Roosevelt and not the statue. I'm sure there's someone who wants to get rid of the Equestrian Teddy because they hate Teddy, but for the most part, the problem is with the sculpture itself and what it's saying, not with some historical assessment of Roosevelt himself.

by namlem 5y ago

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?

tptacek 5y ago
No, that's not what's being depicted. The sculpture celebrates American culture's conquest of Native Americans and Africans --- Roosevelt literally had conquered chiefs march in his inaugural parade, like Caesar with Vercingetorix. The sculpture itself evokes a Roman Triumph. It's part of a genre --- one Fraser was a big part of, most famously with his "End of the Trail" sculpture --- of "Vanishing Indian" artworks, which cast Native American culture as effectively extinct, subsumed completely into "white" culture. It's ickier still when you contemplate the historical context of Roosevelt's "Triumph", coming as it did in the age of the Gatling Gun. There's much more to be said for The End of the Trail as an important work of art than of this pretty-creepy Roosevelt structure. Not that Teddy should be melted down or anything, but it doesn't make sense to give it a place of honor.
- q1w2 5y ago
  This interpretation is completely ignorant of the history of this statue, the museum, and Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a long time champion for the Natural History Museum and the research it did in the natural world. He funded the museum heavily, and then himself led a huge expedition into the Amazon to discover and map one of the main tributaries to the Amazon river, deep in uncharted south american jungle. This statue was commissioned to represent that specific expedition, and the people next to him represent the people that HELPED his expedition. The creator wanted to INCLUDE them in the historical narrative. It was a peaceful expedition. They found the tributary and mapped it, despite all nearly dying and contracting malaria. It's actually a famous book describing the expedition called The River or Doubt.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Again, you're trying to educate me about Roosevelt, but I'm not making any contentions about Roosevelt being unworthy of prominent sculpture. The problem is this sculpture, which does not in fact depict Roosevelt's Amazon expedition. A good way to make a case in favor of the Equestrian Teddy is to cite artistic analysis that precedes the controversy over the sculpture's removal, when it became a culture war football. That way, you're less likely to accidentally retcon the work into something it isn't.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

q1w2 5y ago

It's important to understand the history of the statue before you jump to conclusions. Roosevelt was a long time champion for the Natural History Museum and the research it did in the natural world. He funded expeditions for the museum heavily, and then himself led a huge expedition into the Amazon to discover and map one of the main tributaries to the Amazon river, deep in the uncharted South American jungle. This statue represented that specific expedition, and the people next to him represent those that HELPED his expedition. The creator wanted to INCLUDE them in the historical narrative. He's on a horse because they also wanted to capture a major part of his, unrelated, personal history as a member of a famous cavalry unity that had fought in the war against the Spanish. It was a peaceful expedition of scientific exploration, not colonial exploitation. In the end, they found the tributary and mapped it, and brought back various nature samples to the museum for study - despite all nearly dying of starvation and contracting malaria. There is actually a great book describing the expedition called The River or Doubt [1]. ...but of course Twitter mobs know better based on their 3 second hot-take, and now we have to dumb-down history for everyone. [1] https://www.amazon.com/River-Doubt-Theodore-Roosevelts-Darkest/dp/0767913736 https://www.amazon.com/River-Doubt-Theodore-Roosevelts-Darke...

tptacek 5y ago
I don't think this is really true at all. Roosevelt's elevation above the lesser races and cultures, and by extension the elevation of Roosevelt's culture, was the intent of the sculpture. Fraser was by no account a virulent racist --- he'd spent time out in the frontier west, and was apparently deeply sympathetic towards Native Americans (he's also the designer of the Buffalo nickel!). But he's unmistakably building on the idea of Native Americans as members of a defeated culture, celebrated in their pacified decline and allowed to quietly vanish off the Earth. Again: we don't so much have to guess about the ideas captured in this work; lots has been written about it. It's modeled after a Renaissance sculpture depicting a ruthless mercenary general. It depicts something like a Roman Triumph --- which, notably, Roosevelt actually held at his inauguration, with conquered Native American chiefs marching to celebrate his victory --- long before the Amazon expedition. I think a problem you're running into here is that you're evaluating Roosevelt and not the statue. I'm sure there's someone who wants to get rid of the Equestrian Teddy because they hate Teddy, but for the most part, the problem is with the sculpture itself and what it's saying, not with some historical assessment of Roosevelt himself.