June 25, 2007

• I do hope they'll be on display somewhere, as they sort of show a historical viewpoint of history, if that makes any sense. I mean, they help us understand how people living in a previous century understood people from their previous centuries.
• Absolutely agree with TUM.
• They're only from the '30s. That's not exactly Lascaux. These depictions of the First Nations are rather objectionable, & could possibly still be harmful. As for keeping them displayed as a record of the sociology of the period, we have photographs. IMHO.
• Displayed somewhere, with posted information that explains them and the reasons for their removal from their prominent location. The debate continues -- is the removal tokenism, a whitewash of history, or simply a just correction? I think, rather than any of the above, it is a good sign.
• Displayed somewhere, with posted information that explains them and the reasons for their removal from their prominent location. Oh, absolutely. I agree that they're not appropriate for where they are.
• I wonder if some sort of warning will be added to all the old films and TV programs containing simplistic and insulting depictions of Native Americans if they're shown in the future. And what about the continued use of a lazy, sombrero-wearing, invariably mustachioed, cactus-leaning racial stereotype for the promotion of Mexican restaurants?
• Any record of any legislature from before the time of Christ should absolutely be preserved. If they are doing this to the really old stuff, what will they do to the legislature from after death?
• Siesta is one of the most civilized practices of any country.
• "And what about the continued use of a lazy, sombrero-wearing, invariably mustachioed, cactus-leaning racial stereotype for the promotion of Mexican restaurants?" Hmmm. Seen any Speedy Gonzales reruns, lately? Frog in a hot tub, man, frog in a hot tub.
• Positive steps from the land with no treaties. Equally as interesting is the Musqueam land claim regarding the U.B.C. Golf Course (on the University endowment lands). The land value is absolutely phenomenal in that area; the course was sold to the current owner cheaply only under the condition that it remain a golf course. Campbell's gov't seems to be focused on changing its image by befriending the masses and alienating the rich (180 degrees from the previous course). When's the next election? But I'd lean towards a whitewash of history on this one, considering the colonists did use native labor, and their clothing is more or less historically accurate. But what can I say? They aren't showing me the controversial pictures (save for a possibly loaded example) so I have to believe in the fears of lobbyists and the words of of journalists.
• While sympathetic to the sensbilities of the aboriginal peoples, the destruction, removal or alteration of works of art from a previous epoque for reasons of political correctness remains a form of falsification of history that will always raise my hackles. The times in which the murals were painted actually did have the views and sentiments depicted by the murals, and no amount of retouching or removal can change that, so why try to do so? Germany has cleansed almost all vestiges of the dreaded "Hakenkreuz" swastika from its territory, the Russians are busy removing the hammer-and-sickle and the red star from public buildings. Denial of history? Perhaps, but in this case the removal concerns official symbols of a hated and despised regime, not art. The russians are not removing all the heroic statues (most of which would be considered very bad art in the west) from the soviet era, simply because they are part of their history. Hitler, on the other hand, destroyed what the nazis considered inapropriate or politically incorrect art, the socalled "entartede Art". The artists he persecuted were among the very founders of modern art. Art should be respected for what it is: a mirror of the sentiments, ideals and ideas of the artist and of the period in history in which they were made. The murals may not be slated for destruction, but I will bet almost anything that when they come down, they will stay down, hidden away in some dusty warehouse or museum cellar. Political correctness be damned!
• As someone whose n3kkid body was photographed whilst engaged in unmentionable acts with the objects of a recent animal rights demonstration, which has since been posted all over the dog-gone Intnernets, I welcome this kind of revisionist history. Tear down the wall! OK, it sucks. (As did the bitch.)
• I don't think it's so much *that* it exists, but rather *where* it exists. If you're displaying artwork in a prominent place in your legislature, it's because your government finds that the symbolism reflects its ideals, in other words "this statue/mural/etc. shows the world what we as a country believe in." Since this piece apparently no longer reflects the attitude of the country, I think it's perfectly appropriate for it to be removed to another location, a museum perhaps, and replaced by art that is more accurate to the ideals that BC wishes to identify with.
• Meanwhile, back in Montreal, in a classical egg-tempera mural above the high Altar of Madonna dela Difesa, Mussolini still rides on horseback, in honour of his signing the Lateran Accords (bottom right, photo #7). They covered him up for the duration of the war, but never took him down. There's a keen reminder in that, too.
• Since this piece apparently no longer reflects the attitude of the country, I think it's perfectly appropriate for it to be removed to another location, a museum perhaps, and replaced by art that is more accurate Well said, sir! Although I doubt if it is always "more accurate." I notice some of the "more accurate" replacements of older paternalistic and/or racist art here in the States will have woman/Black/Oriental faces on a 1:5 ratio with the white guys. Me thinks it should be the other way around if we were going according to the numbers, but hey! what do I know. It's not like they don't tear out/tear down good/great art to replace it with stuff that sucks. Just depends on who has the money. Speaking of numbers and who's on top... My daughter and I were talking about what it is like to be a white minority living among an 85% "Hispanic or other" majority in Albuquerque. She says it's strange to be in the minority, yet to be able to live in the privileged white "bubble" that still makes more of the color than of numbers. She finds it amazing that many of the people she deals with don't recognize that there is such a disparity. Sometimes I think I done raized her right.
• Maybe they should just invest in a good set of drapes.
• The 10- to 12-foot statue has its arms raised and a toga draped over its body, but a single breast is completely exposed. "10- to 12-foot?" What, nobody knows exactly how tall it is, with anything closer that a two-foot margin of error? Are they too afraid of the boobie to go up and measure it? Also, what Nickdanger said.
• Maybe they could just cover the offending characters in the mural with post-it notes...
• On a serious note, it does seem a shame if it's locked in a warehouse forever. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and all.
• They are doomed to paint shitty pictures of subserviant Redskins?
• No, they are doomed to forget that their ancestors regarded another race as subservient.
• MonkeyFilter: Doomed.
• Lara keeps pwning me. :(
• Maybe they should just paint the faces over and make it into a Mad Magazine cartoon.
• Here is a paper which gets to the root of the debate and shows all four murals. The focus is on the 'Labour' mural. In the image I see two native people (one female) carrying a timber; one native person and a white person erecting a timber; two native women carrying fish; two white men talking with tools; one native man in prestigious regalia looking on; one bare chested white man carrying or erecting a timber. The most wealthy looking person here (from an archaeological standpoint) is the man in regalia who appears to be directing the two women (possibly slaves taken during a raid) to bring salmon back to his corporate group. Their manner of dress is historically accurate in regard to bare chests. What becomes bitterly ironic about this whole debacle is that it is the bare breasts which are offending native people by these images. Shame of one's body was a European import. These images represent the beginnings of the country. Native labor was used in addition to white labor to build Fort Victoria. If we tear this mother down, all we do is remove this bond from people to people and create a deeper, hidden sort of sentiment of segregation. In other words, this may devalue or gloss over the historical contribution of native people to non-reserve lands and seed more entitlement among the descendants of colonists. Is this more desirable than seeing titties? People seem to forget around here that BC was a place of fairly co-operative cohabitation before confederation; a reason which led to the lack of land treaties.
• All it takes is one person to be offended for something to be deemed offensive. Especially true if that person is a member of an historically oppressed minority group.
• I can't wait to live in that bleak world.