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 not in cold hard facts? This painting is a faithful rendition of an actual photograph taken of Ruby Bridges being escorted to school.
I think his point was that it was best to avoid than deal with the realities of the past. Then there is the point of (limited) laymen understanding of an artwork, beyond what they see strictly within the confines of a painting (a photograph or any other form of artwork). For example, when they see a painting of Jesus preaching, they can't imagine it being applied across the humanity but only with the tribes, locations and races He engaged in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
It does?
Look at the painting again. What is it focusing on?
That's right. The little girl. It doesn't focus on the division or the hostility, you can't even see the protesters, and the lawmen protecting her are clearly not where your focus is drawn. The focus of the painting is squarely placed on that little black girl, Ruby Bridges, who has a type of courage that I can't even begin to understand.
Amen! But for someone trying to desperately separate self from "the rest of them", all they can see is a race. Beyond which, they firmly hold the ground, such artwork has no significance.
I know it has the potential to educate, I just don't think the average person glancing at this will dig that deep. Like I said, I was just trying to make the point that being opposed to it is not tantamount to waging a war on education about the civil rights era.
All of the above.
I just don't see why we're hanging the scars of our country up in the white house...
I don't see this or similar images as "scars" of our country. I see them for what they are, the history of our country. There are good and bad times for our country. It makes no sense to only show positive images because that would be a misrepresentation.
Do you consider any paintings of the many wars that our country has been involved in as "scars?" And I am not trying to be snarky I would just like to know because they show people being killed and could potentially cause anger to rouse, especially Civil War scenes or the Indian Wars and even portraits of the Trail of Tears. There is a famous painting of Crispus Attucks being the first casualty of the American Revolution.
I have seen photographs of starving white Union soldiers after the liberation of Andersonville that were quite shocking and horrible to see. My first thought was sadness for their suffering though, not anger at the the people who made them that way.
I truly think the average person wouldn't see the rendition of Ruby Bridges as a scar on the history of America. I can see how you view it that way but I don't think that is the dominate view, which can be amassed from the many who have stated as such in this thread. Seeing this image as one of guilt for white people or igniting anger in black people, would be rare with the average person. I know speaking as a black woman the only images I see of injustice featuring black people that make me angry are photos of lynchings with people in a crowd pointing and smiling at a dead black person.
But this image shows bravery on the part of both the black girl and the white artist and that was the first thing that came to my mind. I think I am average (okay...I admit I actually think I am above average in most areas )
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I'll say it again, I'm all for education on the subject, but I would never hang this up in my house. I'll learn about the past, but on a daily basis I'd rather focus on the fact that we do have equal rights now, than the fact that we didn't have them 50 years ago. You're equating my objection to a constant reminder with wanting to "whitewash" history. That's not true; I just don't see what's productive about this. Agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree and actual feel that your own peronal view is a valid one, but like I said above, I don't think it is a mainstream view but more of a minority one. I bet if we took this picture out on the street without any info about the artist or subject and asked people what they thought about it, the main response would be one of sympathy for the girl to have to endure such an assault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats
Why then aren't you offended by the school systems for rewriting Mark Twain classics because of a certain word ? History has its good and bad aspects it should be taught as is not reinterpted to suit those easily offended...there is a lesson to be learned.My question is what is up with the arm bands on the passing adults? When was this painting unveiled during FDR's years? A time when the Negroes were segregated denied their rights like voting or subjects for VD studies?
I actually am offended by the rewriting of Huck Finn. I think that book is a masterpiece and shouldn't be messed with. It offers a great glimpse into that time period of our history and really I don't see why people are so offended by it. But I was a literature major and love great books and art and don't see the need for censoring in any artistic endeavor as long as it doesn't physically injure someone.
And FDR died in the 40s, the CRM didn't take full swing until the late 50s, early 60s. Segregation in school was struck down in 1955 and after that ruling was when Ruby Bridges integrated her school. I am guessing the armbands were the bands designating military police or some other military designation. I have seen MP bands on military police before IRL and I was born in the late 70s.
I know it has the potential to educate, I just don't think the average person glancing at this will dig that deep. Like I said, I was just trying to make the point that being opposed to it is not tantamount to waging a war on education about the civil rights era.
All of the above.
I just don't see why we're hanging the scars of our country up in the white house...
I guess that is part of the difference in how people react to the painting. Some may see the scar, but others see the healing.
I'll learn about the past, but on a daily basis I'd rather focus on the fact that we do have equal rights now, than the fact that we didn't have them 50 years ago. You're equating my objection to a constant reminder with wanting to "whitewash" history.
We have equal rights now in part because of what is portrayed in this painting. How is looking at a reminder of that in any way a negative thing? Your arguments are so ignorant it's unbelievable.
The painting isn't hanging in your house, and the majority of people, thank goodness, don't agree w/your opinion. Get over it.
If we do not learn from our history, we are bound to repeat it. If we hide it, try to pretend it never happened, we aren't really learning. And unfortunately, there are still extremely racist people out there so CLEARLY the education is not over. This is a reminder of our history no matter how damn uncomfortable that makes some people, we must NOT forget it!
I said that to the same poster way back in this thread and was accused of creating a strawman argument.
Some people cannot see the forest for the trees, go figure.
Why then aren't you offended by the school systems for rewriting Mark Twain classics because of a certain word ? History has its good and bad aspects it should be taught as is not reinterpted to suit those easily offended...there is a lesson to be learned.My question is what is up with the arm bands on the passing adults? When was this painting unveiled during FDR's years? A time when the Negroes were segregated denied their rights like voting or subjects for VD studies?
Why in the world do you think I am NOT offended by the rewriting of one of the 19th century greats, and a MO native to boot?
Where did I say it was ok?
Because rewriting of classics is never ok, I put that on a par with revisionist history.
Just remember, the left banned or changed the original Tom Sawyer for its use of the "N" word.
Disney's "Song of the South" has been out of circulation for years because of its depiction of slavery.
Are they not art?
One thing the left excels in is hypocrisy.
If this very same painting were hanging in the Governors mansion in Texas, there would be cries of racism.
Just the truth.
I don't support the editing of Tom Sawyer or any of Mark Twain's writings. "Song of the South" was the first movie I ever saw in a movie theater. I still sing Zippety-Do-Dah when I'm doing chores.
And I don't think "the Left" is responsible for this kind of censorship. There are people on both sides of the political spectrum, who, with the best intentions, try to censor art and media. We must all remain vigilant and adamant that such censorship is wrong.
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.
)
