Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why even depict a play on "kill whitey" at all? What's the purpose? Consider the message. The artist could have just as easily depicted Black women in historic works of art that portray strong women without the added element of the "kill whitey" decapitation of white people.
Because it's provocative! It's getting people to talk, it sparks a reaction. Many, many artists paint difficult subject matter in order to get a reaction. You are reacting strongly, so you're kind of giving the artist what he wants. Artists generally like when their art gets attention. I'm betting his website is getting more hits that when the Obama portrait was first unveiled. It's probably raised the demand for his work, which in turn raises the prices of his work.
Why depict it? You'd really have to ask the artist. I can only guess that he sees friction in the black community, which goes back through our country's history (and the world's history), and that this is an attempt to address that. Is it successful? You are reacting in a way that tells me he's spot on. The statement of "It's sort of a play on the 'kill whitey' thing," was not made in a vacuum. He did not say, "Go kill whitey." He was asked about the painting, and he said it was "sort of a play on" this thing that was a part of a portion of black culture.
It communicates to most Americans that we cannot move into a post-racial society when some, including this artist and former President Obama, continue to cling to their race-based hatred.
You don't speak for "most Americans." You presume too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scirocco
I do recall hearing before the story of Judith beheading Holofernes involved the decapitation of a military general. So, are we take it that in the portraits mentioned above, the artist replaced one form of oppressiveness i.e the armed forces commander with another to feature in the decapitation scene. This time the symbol of oppressiveness met with swift lethal and life ending action is in the form of a generic face representing White women.
That was a no no for Barack Obama & somehow one thinks it was indeed a long middle finger to White Americans.
Bzzzt. Nope. The Book of Judith is called by some "the first novel." There are so many historical inaccuracies, many look at it as deeply symbolic--the noble widow overcoming the tyranny of the invaders by killing their general speaks to the liberation of the underdog. So maybe someone views these paintings as the representation of black women overcoming. The severed head is representative, not literal, and does not mean anyone is going out to decapitate people. I do not find it racist at all, neither do a lot of people, but how we feel is subjective, I will grant that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
ah. so you're going the ''b..b..b..but, this is different!" route.
imagine my surprise.
Um, I've been very clear about what I think, and I don't have a problem saying that it would be different if the races were simply reversed. Of course it would! Think of the CENTURIES of subjugation black people have experienced at the hands of white people. This painting is not in a vacuum. It exists in the same world that has experienced slavery, racism, the KKK, lynchings, and more. So, all things equal, just reversing the races would have a profound effect. But I wouldn't think that it endorsed going out and decapitating a white person. I would first assume a context. I would also assume it was intended to be provocative.
You don't speak for "most Americans." You presume too much.
Bzzzt. Nope. The Book of Judith is called by some "the first novel." There are so many historical inaccuracies, many look at it as deeply symbolic--the noble widow overcoming the tyranny of the invaders by killing their general speaks to the liberation of the underdog. So maybe someone views these paintings as the representation of black women overcoming. The severed head is representative, not literal, and does not mean anyone is going out to decapitate people. I do not find it racist at all, neither do a lot of people, but how we feel is subjective, I will grant that.
Um, I've been very clear about what I think, and I don't have a problem saying that it would be different if the races were simply reversed. Of course it would! Think of the CENTURIES of subjugation black people have experienced at the hands of white people. This painting is not in a vacuum. It exists in the same world that has experienced slavery, racism, the KKK, lynchings, and more. So, all things equal, just reversing the races would have a profound effect. But I wouldn't think that it endorsed going out and decapitating a white person. I would first assume a context. I would also assume it was intended to be provocative.
We're talking about an American president choosing an artist, of all the thousands of other possible artists, who is probably best known for his depictions of decapitated white women's heads held in the grasp of smug looking black women. Do not lose sight of this very glaring reality. (and off the heels of an episode where a self-proclaimed comedienne chose to hold a mock decapitated head of the current president).
Yes, many if not most African Americans have history of experiencing prejudice and their ancestors endured far worse most likely. It is without question and should go without even saying that black in America face a lot of prejudice and navigate life with racism threaded throughout. That is true.
But we cannot continue to draw lines by color - life is not binary like that.
Hardship goes along with every life and many many of other backgrounds, even whites yes, have ancestors who suffered greatly.
This idea that there is a debt in perpetuity is wrong and should not be passed on to today's children. Why should they see images like this? Tit for tat?
Last edited by lightblue; 02-16-2018 at 01:22 PM..
Reason: Did not want to diminish the effects of racism in American history
We're talking about an American president choosing an artist, of all the thousands of other possible artists, who is probably best known for his depictions of decapitated white women's heads held in the grasp of smug looking black women. Do not lose sight of this very glaring reality. (and off the heels of an episode where a self-proclaimed comedienne chose to hold a mock decapitated head of the current president).
Yes, many if not most African Americans have history of experiencing prejudice and their ancestors endured far worse most likely. It is without question and should go without even saying that black in America face a lot of prejudice and navigate life with racism threaded throughout. That is true.
But we cannot continue to draw lines by color - life is not binary like that.
Hardship goes along with every life and many many of other backgrounds, even whites yes, have ancestors who suffered greatly.
This idea that there is a debt in perpetuity is wrong and should not be passed on to today's children. Why should they see images like this? Tit for tat?
No, he is NOT best known for that. Well, now he is. Before all the right-wing snowflakes got scared of being decapitated, he wasn't best known for those paintings. He was best known for painting people in large-scale works that drew heavily from classical art.
I don't think a couple of paintings, which draw inspiration from several places, are saying this is saying that this is a debt in perpetuity. They are paintings, drawn from where people are--and it's not my place to censor that and say, "This isn't relevant!" If you don't think it's relevant, that's fine. I don't get to tell you how to think about that. But I see there's still a struggle. I read it in so many of these posts. Anger that this black man would DARE make a statement about cultural issues that don't fit neatly into what others want to see.
And as far as things not being binary, no, they aren't are they? We cannot tell someone when their experience is over, when their suffering ends. And as I say that, I see these paintings in a new light--perhaps they suggest overcoming those things, cutting off the hate, the suffering, the subjugation. We look at that severed head, and maybe it represents the baggage of a communal experience. I don't know.
But if you are suggesting it's been "long enough," and we all need to move on, are you suggesting really that our children shouldn't understand the struggle, the journey to get to that point? My children have seen such images, and they understand them as much as they can. They also understand that it's a complicated world, and that racism is still there, and that it's informing people's lives today, now. My children are better people because they have seen and heard difficult things, but I only raise my kids--you have to pass on what you feel your children need to know about the world.
So Fast & Furious gun running wasn't a scandal? The IRS targeting of conservative groups wasn't a scandal? Benghazi & blaming a video wasn't a scandal? It was endless with Obama.
The point still is that a president of the united states cannot see past his own racism in spite of his election, this glorification and his elevation in society. He's going to point the finger covertly at whitey and place it in the Smithsonian. Unresolved, unrequited and blind.
There is virtually no difference between sticking the dagger in further and those of the NFL players. Millionaires all, successful, bitter and unresolved still fighting a fight that has long since concluded.
The point still is that a president of the united states cannot see past his own racism in spite of his election, this glorification and his elevation in society. He's going to point the finger covertly at whitey and place it in the Smithsonian. Unresolved, unrequited and blind.
There is virtually no difference between sticking the dagger in further and those of the NFL players. Millionaires all, successful, bitter and unresolved still fighting a fight that has long since concluded.
To bad, so sad.
Guess what? You don't get to unilaterally declare that racism is over and that blacks in America no longer face any disparate treatment.
Tamir Rice being dead and Nikolaus Cruz being alive tells you just how false that claim is.
No, he is NOT best known for that. Well, now he is. Before all the right-wing snowflakes got scared of being decapitated, he wasn't best known for those paintings. He was best known for painting people in large-scale works that drew heavily from classical art.
I don't think a couple of paintings, which draw inspiration from several places, are saying this is saying that this is a debt in perpetuity. They are paintings, drawn from where people are--and it's not my place to censor that and say, "This isn't relevant!" If you don't think it's relevant, that's fine. I don't get to tell you how to think about that. But I see there's still a struggle. I read it in so many of these posts. Anger that this black man would DARE make a statement about cultural issues that don't fit neatly into what others want to see.
And as far as things not being binary, no, they aren't are they? We cannot tell someone when their experience is over, when their suffering ends. And as I say that, I see these paintings in a new light--perhaps they suggest overcoming those things, cutting off the hate, the suffering, the subjugation. We look at that severed head, and maybe it represents the baggage of a communal experience. I don't know.
But if you are suggesting it's been "long enough," and we all need to move on, are you suggesting really that our children shouldn't understand the struggle, the journey to get to that point? My children have seen such images, and they understand them as much as they can. They also understand that it's a complicated world, and that racism is still there, and that it's informing people's lives today, now. My children are better people because they have seen and heard difficult things, but I only raise my kids--you have to pass on what you feel your children need to know about the world.
Its a choice, I grant you but if want your children to grow up and be free then don't ask them to incorporate that dark time into their lives. It's only fair to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
