What to do with "racist" art from a century ago

[keith99]

Havent heard of this before.
My sense is that whites who reject the "redskins" do so because of its racist connotations.

There is a difference between rejecting 'Redskins' as a team name and opposing anything that could possibly relate to American Indians. One eliminates an offensive name, the other erases them from history. I say could possible because Braves, Chiefs and Warriors are roles not unique to American Indians.

 

[durangodawood]

There is a difference between rejecting 'Redskins' as a team name and opposing anything that could possibly relate to American Indians. One eliminates an offensive name, the other erases them from history. I say could possible because Braves, Chiefs and Warriors are roles not unique to American Indians.

Rejecting Native American sports team mascots is "erasing them from history"???
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

 

[Mister_Al]

All works of art stir up feelings within us. And, different people feel different things when they see them. Should we allow all of mankind to be denied the expression of any work of art simply because a few people don't like what it stirs up in them. To me, that would be the racist act.

Alan

 

[Cearbhall]

Although obviously they benefit from selling their own IP, I think Warner Brothers did a nice job with its disclaimer.

Well done.

 

[Tina W]

I think it should be covered up with some kind of cloth or something that won't damage it. That way you won't be destroying it since it's historical but also won't offend anyone. Has anyone thought of black children who may want to ride the ride and how it would affect them or make them feel to see that and they may be too young to understand why it's there?

 

[KitKatMatt]

Has anyone thought of black children who may want to ride the ride and how it would affect them or make them feel to see that and they may be too young to understand why it's there?

That's a really good point. We have to make sure the views of the past don't negatively impact people today.

 

[buzuxi02]

I would think black children would like seeing black children depicted instead of the usual white kids depicted. You can always paint over their faces and make them white, that way no one will complain about being offended. As I said in reality it's just censoring black history, modern day book burning.

 

[Armoured]

That's a really good point. We have to make sure the views of the past don't negatively impact people today.

Without seeing the image in question, does anyone really think any given child is likely to be negatively impacted by the image? Yes, I get that it's a racist art style, but is anyone likely to see it and be actually harmed?

 

[buzuxi02]

Without seeing the image in question, does anyone really think any given child is likely to be negatively impacted by the image? Yes, I get that it's a racist art style, but is anyone likely to see it and be actually harmed?

Theres a photo of it in the first link of the OP. I would never have thought it was racist and I still don't know what makes it racist. Maybe the black children depicted could have been drawn more cuter???
I still think these things are attempts to suppress the precense of both black and native American histories. The previous poster said to cover them up. This is precisely what Sultan Mehmet II did to christian art when the Ottomons captured Instanbul. He plastered over the mosaics to suppress this history of the previous inhabitants. To be fair to this Sultan he admired the artistry and prefered to plaster over it than allow it to be destroyed by his primitive fellow kinsman. Today much of the plaster has been removed showing the artistry that a previous generation sought to destroy in the name of blasphemy.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Without seeing the image in question, does anyone really think any given child is likely to be negatively impacted by the image? Yes, I get that it's a racist art style, but is anyone likely to see it and be actually harmed?

There are tons of offensive things housed in museums that are relics of the past, but they don't harm anyone. I think it's because, being in a museum, it is not saying "this is acceptable now".

This piece seems to be a historic landmark, which means it probably won't remove any art or anything.

However, if it's still being used as a carousel, it's being used for entertainment purposes. That lends a different message than a piece in a museum.

I'm not saying it should be removed. I just agreed that it's a good point, we don't want to negatively impact anyone by insinuating certain things in the past were OK.

The image may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people, but it doesn't take the connotations away. It's kind of like my great aunt who collects dolls of black people that are modeled in a very racist way because she thinks they are neat looking. They may be neat looking to her, but they were made to display a racist stereotype, and I wouldn't want to see her giving them to any of the kids as Christmas presents or setting them on her outside patio to display.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Theres a photo of it in the first link of the OP. I would never have thought it was racist and I still don't know what makes it racist. Maybe the black children depicted could have been drawn more cuter???

The style of art (mentioned in the OP as "pickaninny"), is a racist caricature style. Here's some info about it:

http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/african/3-coon/2-pickaninny/
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/picaninny/

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

There has been quite a debate going on since last summer regarding a painting on a century-old merry-go-round in New York. The painting shows two black children frightened by a rooster. The kids are depicted in a very derogatory style known as 'Pickaninny'. At the time it was created, the style was considered perfectly acceptable- and for obvious reasons would not be so today.

For more than one hundred years, the picture has been in place on the merry-go-round with hardly anyone noticing. People of all races had ridden the ride and not been bothered. Now that someone has noticed and complained about it, there have been protests and a firestorm of controversy surrounding it. Many want to keep it in place, because it is part of a historic ride that is in its original location and has all its original parts. Removing the piece would cause it to lose historical value and integrity. (In fact, the decided solution is to keep it up but to install signs explaining the debate around it and its significance.)

Understandably, several African Americans- and even some other races- are deeply offended by the painting now that it's been brought to light, and are demanding its removal. Most are wanting it to go into a museum, but a few want it to be destroyed. One person was even in favor of the entire merry-go-round being "burned to the ground".

So, here is the debate: regardless of your race, from a Christian standpoint, how would this issue best be handled?


http://www.ijreview.com/2015/08/386...-old-carousel-panel-rochester-ny-will-remain/

http://www.rochestersubway.com/topi...carousel-debate-the-preservation-of-ridicule/

http://talkerofthetown.com/2015/12/...to-the-jim-crow-museum-of-racist-memorabalia/

I think that the biggest middle finger to the piece of art is for black children to enjoy the ride anyway. The person who painted it would likely have found that to have been the most offensive.

 

[buzuxi02]

The style of art (mentioned in the OP as "pickaninny"), is a racist caricature style. Here's some info about it:

http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/african/3-coon/2-pickaninny/
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/picaninny/

Well yes the link shows offensive stereotypes except for that Sambo character. Looking at the merry- go-round depiction which has no inscriptions, my mind simply does not go there to view it as insulting. Just like I never viewed Buckwheat of the Little Rascals as playing a derogatory black character, afterall Alfalfa was never made to look like a genius neither. Nor have I ever thought of Cosby's characters in Fat Albert cartoons as derogatory caricatures.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Well yes the link shows offensive stereotypes except for that Sambo character. Looking at the merry- go-round depiction which has no inscriptions, my mind simply does not go there to view it as insulting. Just like I never viewed Buckwheat of the Little Rascals as playing a derogatory black character, afterall Alfalfa was never made to look like a genius neither.

The style is still the same, which has racist connotations.

 

[Tina W]

I would think black children would like seeing black children depicted instead of the usual white kids depicted. You can always paint over their faces and make them white, that way no one will complain about being offended. As I said in reality it's just censoring black history, modern day book burning.

Not in such a negative way!

Without seeing the image in question, does anyone really think any given child is likely to be negatively impacted by the image? Yes, I get that it's a racist art style, but is anyone likely to see it and be actually harmed?

Yes I think so.

The style of art (mentioned in the OP as "pickaninny"), is a racist caricature style. Here's some info about it:

http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/african/3-coon/2-pickaninny/
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/picaninny/

Oh my goodness! You are correct, those are horrible! I must have been sheltered because I've never seen anything like that. I

 

[continueinfaith]

Those examples are sad. And certainly show how far we've come as a culture (although we still need to do far more)!

 

[keith99]

Well yes the link shows offensive stereotypes except for that Sambo character. Looking at the merry- go-round depiction which has no inscriptions, my mind simply does not go there to view it as insulting. Just like I never viewed Buckwheat of the Little Rascals as playing a derogatory black character, afterall Alfalfa was never made to look like a genius neither. Nor have I ever thought of Cosby's characters in Fat Albert cartoons as derogatory caricatures.

The link loses all credibility when at the top they include 'The 3 Bares' and 'I went all the way with LBJ' either of which would be totally acceptable if the characters were white. It also seems the people who put the link together must be in their 30s at oldest (or be complete idiots) as they associate naked children with racism. Not true, this was the era of the Coppertone adds. We didn't have the insane schizophrenia of today about nudity. And I do mean schizophrenia, flaunted one second and then treated as the ultimate sin the next.

They have some where the pictures are racist, but largely the racism is in the text. (And note that such racism would be most effective by taking a drawing that was popular, especially with blacks, and then adding a racist caption).

 

[keith99]

If she was black would this be racist?

BTW this is current. It is part of an Email I just received from Tomatofest.com. It has the caption 'Tomatoes for me?'.

Since they gave me this timely photo I'm going to pimp them a bit. A great source for tomato seeds. They have hundreds of varieties.

EDIT: For some reason this post shows an x'd out photo. However when I hit Edit or Reply I see it. So perhaps you can see the photo that way too.

 

[continueinfaith]

I couldn't see it. Sorry.

 

[durangodawood]

All works of art stir up feelings within us. And, different people feel different things when they see them. Should we allow all of mankind to be denied the expression of any work of art simply because a few people don't like what it stirs up in them. To me, that would be the racist act.

What do you mean "allow"?
Is this about government censorship?
Or are you saying individuals and corporations need to endorse every artistic product?