Notre Dame to cover up Columbus murals.... YIKES!

[Beanz]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...id=mailsignout


I remember in my discussions with Lyle about the removal of Confederate statues, where we basically agreed this was a bad move. I personally didn't mind the decision late last year to rename the Julian Carr Building in the Duke University campus... but have always agreed that removing Confederate statues is akin to that slippery slope that's always been talked about. You start there.... where does it end.

So to find this in the news today was a bit worrisome. Basically the university president is claiming that part of the university community has expressed their objections to the murals because, to quote the article, "many have come to see the murals as at best blind to the consequences of Columbus's voyage" for indigenous people". Wow.

Don't even know where to start with that one... so many faults, misconceptions, and lapses in logic.

It is a bit difficult to know what to think when there are no images of the murals in the article. At least they are not destroying them with a knee jerk response. The demonstration to protest the apparent 'Offensive and stereotypical' portrayal of the Native Americans by some Vatican artist seems to have been conducted peacefully enough. It seems that the part of the University community that object are Native American. Does their opinion not count then?

[TitoFan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...id=mailsignout


I remember in my discussions with Lyle about the removal of Confederate statues, where we basically agreed this was a bad move. I personally didn't mind the decision late last year to rename the Julian Carr Building in the Duke University campus... but have always agreed that removing Confederate statues is akin to that slippery slope that's always been talked about. You start there.... where does it end.

So to find this in the news today was a bit worrisome. Basically the university president is claiming that part of the university community has expressed their objections to the murals because, to quote the article, "many have come to see the murals as at best blind to the consequences of Columbus's voyage" for indigenous people". Wow.

Don't even know where to start with that one... so many faults, misconceptions, and lapses in logic.

It is a bit difficult to know what to think when there are no images of the murals in the article. At least they are not destroying them with a knee jerk response. The demonstration to protest the apparent 'Offensive and stereotypical' portrayal of the Native Americans by some Vatican artist seems to have been conducted peacefully enough. It seems that the part of the University community that object are Native American. Does their opinion not count then?

Unless the murals depict Columbus gunning down Indians, I fail to see the grounds on which these people would object to them. To me it's not whether or not their opinion counts. But shouldn't it be weighed against the opinion of the majority?

Again, as with the Confederate statues issue, I stress that the emphasis should be on the treatment of the people now. Whether it's blacks with the Confederate issue, or American Indians with the Columbus murals..... let's be real here.

Symbols of past history are just that. Shouldn't we be focusing on how these people are being treated nowadays, instead of the pointless eradication of centuries-old statues?

[Beanz]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...id=mailsignout


I remember in my discussions with Lyle about the removal of Confederate statues, where we basically agreed this was a bad move. I personally didn't mind the decision late last year to rename the Julian Carr Building in the Duke University campus... but have always agreed that removing Confederate statues is akin to that slippery slope that's always been talked about. You start there.... where does it end.

So to find this in the news today was a bit worrisome. Basically the university president is claiming that part of the university community has expressed their objections to the murals because, to quote the article, "many have come to see the murals as at best blind to the consequences of Columbus's voyage" for indigenous people". Wow.

Don't even know where to start with that one... so many faults, misconceptions, and lapses in logic.

It is a bit difficult to know what to think when there are no images of the murals in the article. At least they are not destroying them with a knee jerk response. The demonstration to protest the apparent 'Offensive and stereotypical' portrayal of the Native Americans by some Vatican artist seems to have been conducted peacefully enough. It seems that the part of the University community that object are Native American. Does their opinion not count then?

Unless the murals depict Columbus gunning down Indians, I fail to see the grounds on which these people would object to them. To me it's not whether or not their opinion counts. But shouldn't it be weighed against the opinion of the majority?

Again, as with the Confederate statues issue, I stress that the emphasis should be on the treatment of the people now. Whether it's blacks with the Confederate issue, or American Indians with the Columbus murals..... let's be real here.

Symbols of past history are just that. Shouldn't we be focusing on how these people are being treated nowadays, instead of the pointless eradication of centuries-old statues?

Nobody has suggested eradicating them, quite the opposite they are talking about not only protecting them but taking hi-res images to display and thenuncovering them for special occasions. Of course I don't think the opinion of the majority counts for more if they are not the people being depicted. To be honest if the murals depicted Columbus gunning down Native Americans then at lest they would be honest depictions and i personally would not see the problem. If they are showing the indigenous people as looking stupid, primitive, retarded etc then why would anyone want to preserve that? We do not know what the murals look like so who knows?

Surely Nehru, Ghandi and Master's ancestors are Indians and these people depicted are not?

[Beanz]

Here we go

[TitoFan]

I really see nothing offensive toward American Indians on those murals but then sensitivity is an individual thing, I guess. One man's innocent portrait is another man's offensive caricature. It really is up to the university brass as to what and how they want to treat those murals. I'm just saying be careful. Today it's a group of Native Americans objecting to harmless murals..... tomorrow you've got any number of ethnic or racial groups objecting to just about any statue, painting, building name, etc. out there. Where is the line to be drawn?

It's not a simple issue, either. I'll give you an example. Two professional sports teams in the U.S. depict the American Indian, and their team logos reflect as much. These are the Cleveland Indians of Major League Baseball, and the Washington Redskins of the National Football League. From my perspective, and granted I'm not Native American, the Redskins logo is quite dignified and respectful, even if inaccurate. The Indians logo is clearly a caricature, and I could see where it might be viewed as offensive. Yet it was the Redskins' owner who recently came under fire to change the team name. He refused to budge, and the issue seemed to die down, surely to resurface in the future. The owner correctly claimed that this was an old, storied football franchise, and that he was not going to cave to special interest pressures and change the name. So it stayed. Personally, I'm glad he held his ground. No one I've ever met has ever said, "Oh look at those Redskins... how ridiculous... hahaha."

In short, it's a thin but distinct line between political correctness and common sense. Too much of the former, and you totally eliminate the latter.

[Beanz]

Personally I don't think they are great and America has some amazing painters so don't think it is a tragedy if they are covered but you are right about the thin end of the wedge. My opinion is neither really here nor there over here in the UK but your point is a universal one. I live in a city made famous by a local pirate in Francis Drake and a slave trader in Hawkins. The same arguments are happening here.There have always been those ready to exploit outrage on both sides and take offense on behalf of others. No one person can speak for others and it is easy for those from marginalised or less commonly represented minorities to pretend they do. So you have Jews pretending that Corbyn is an anti-semite for not supporting the persecution of Palestinians and they do not represent many Jews who are not even Zionist despite their loud voices. The same with political correctness with people taking offense on behalf of people they often have never even taken the time to talk to and idiots on the other side demanding the right to be needlessly offensive as though it were some kind of noble mission.


I will now get down off the fence and pull the splinters out of me arse

[Gandalf]

I don't like Columbus, I disagree with much of what he did, but those murals are now part of the recorded past and must be accepted for what they are. I do not see why anything should be covered up. The people of today have zero connection with what happened hundreds of years ago so need to overcome their feelings and accept things for what they are. It's done, nothing can be done now. Hopefully those same people who consider invasion dangerous, toxic, violent and disease ridden will accept that walls can be useful.

[Freedom]

It seems that the part of the University community that object are Native American. Does their opinion not count then?

Does the opinion of white gentiles not count?

Not in your mind, that's for sure.

[Spicoli]

You can't erase history and you can't have someone gently close your eyes and make it go away. Denying it to youth in a place of greater education in the name of soul sanitation is just dumb. Not sure the funding of Notre Dame ? but if anyone should be outraged it's the educators professors etc who are told to copy & paste actual history.

[walrus]

You can't erase history and you can't have someone gently close your eyes and make it go away. Denying it to youth in a place of greater education in the name of soul sanitation is just dumb. Not sure the funding of Notre Dame ? but if anyone should be outraged it's the educators professors etc who are told to copy & paste actual history.

Outside pressure is making this shit happen everywhere. Notes Dame had to cover up many of its Christian symbols when obama visited. It’s a shame. For 5 hundred years Columbus was known as a cool brave explorer now he is evil. I guess all us white Americans should go back to Europe, I’m sure England will take us

[Spicoli]

You can't erase history and you can't have someone gently close your eyes and make it go away. Denying it to youth in a place of greater education in the name of soul sanitation is just dumb. Not sure the funding of Notre Dame ? but if anyone should be outraged it's the educators professors etc who are told to copy & paste actual history.

Outside pressure is making this shit happen everywhere. Notes Dame had to cover up many of its Christian symbols when obama visited. It’s a shame. For 5 hundred years Columbus was known as a cool brave explorer now he is evil. I guess all us white Americans should go back to Europe, I’m sure England will take us

They did? Man I missed that particular cover up. In fairness we were getting smack back for flying our Columbus meets the Natives banners back in the mid 70's and probably sooner. One year I was told to put the fake rifle away and one year I was told to wash the war paint off my face.

[X]

We have lots of people doing this sort of thing in the UK too.

I'm not sure how one can learn the hard earned lessons from history when society rewrites and covers up events that have happened in the past?