6 ms·

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 s

by 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.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      >which does not in fact depict Roosevelt's Amazon expedition Prove it
      - tptacek 5y ago
        For starters, the Native American and African men are metaphors, representing the continents of North America and Africa. You could have gotten this far just by going to the museum's web page.
        PebblesRox 5y ago
        Agreed, according to the sculptor himself, they are symbolic figures: “The two figures at [Roosevelt’s] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races.” —Sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1940 The online exhibit is an interesting deeper look at the statue and controversy. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-theodore-roosevelt-statue/making-the-statue https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-theodore-roo...
        tptacek 5y ago
        Further, in the context that statement was made, Roosevelt's "friendliness to all races" was freighted with some icky stuff --- that, for instance, leading them out of the darkness of their indigenous culture was a great favor done for them by western civilization.

by boxed 5y ago

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.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    >which does not in fact depict Roosevelt's Amazon expedition Prove it
    - tptacek 5y ago
      For starters, the Native American and African men are metaphors, representing the continents of North America and Africa. You could have gotten this far just by going to the museum's web page.
      - PebblesRox 5y ago
        Agreed, according to the sculptor himself, they are symbolic figures: “The two figures at [Roosevelt’s] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races.” —Sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1940 The online exhibit is an interesting deeper look at the statue and controversy. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-theodore-roosevelt-statue/making-the-statue https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-theodore-roo...
        tptacek 5y ago
        Further, in the context that statement was made, Roosevelt's "friendliness to all races" was freighted with some icky stuff --- that, for instance, leading them out of the darkness of their indigenous culture was a great favor done for them by western civilization.