But these folks typically claim to be multiculturalist.I think anytime there is a majority support among locals for removing monuments, then the locals get to remove those monuments because they should have control over their own community.
For me, if the piece is in a museum, I likely won't have an issue with it. Especially if I had to go out of my way to see it...and then be offended. (That's just silly.)I guess what I am writing is should all art works, including these be removed from Museums and galleries.
Agree. They are looking for a home for the Foster statue, and people should still have the option to see it.We have a choice of what to read and look at. It is part of freedom.
That's an interesting take on it! And a good example of how art affects people differently.When I saw the statue, the first thing I thought was, "two people from extremely different backgrounds and cultures, brought together by music".
I thought the whole point of ministrel shows was racism - "ain't it hilarious how ignorant the negroes are?"Yes this Stephen Foster song is racist by current standards but perhaps not so by period standards.
The problem here seems less about Foster and more about the particular statue itself. If the statue has simply depicted Foster by himself there probably would be limited outcry.I would say, "Be reasonable," but it is clear reason is not involved. I doubt anyone could name any significant historical person who would not offend someone. If offending someone is the standard, then we will have no monuments to individuals.
A photo is a historical document. Altering it obscures and distorts history, like a letter or official report."Once you head down the path of adjusting the past to fit modern sensibilities, you are engaged in Soviet-style history. In the old days, figures like Trotsky and Beria would simply disappear from historical photographs when their presence became politically uncomfortable."
Before we can answer that question we need to establish how you define "politically incorrect." It seems to be a catchall perjative for "things the other guys of a certain political persuasion think is offensive."So how does America deal with views from the past that are considered politically incorrect by current standards?
... as if Foster was somehow responsible for the fact that most black Americans were slaves at that time. It was simply a fact in his world. As a musician, how else could he have responded to this reality in a way that would have been better?The problem here seems less about Foster and more about the particular statue itself. If the statue has simply depicted Foster by himself there probably would be limited outcry.
You got that right. In this country musicians found ways to circumvent laws that attempted to separate the races.On the racism issue, it seems to me that musicians and serious music fans have always been ahead of the curve.