Not Diverse
-
I don't see a problem with painting over the murals. Thankfully, we don't live in the 1950's anymore, despite some people apparently wanting to.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm Mr. fucking PC. Stop your fucking whining already.
-
Thing is, I'm not Mr. PC, you wanker.
I think it's OK to paint over the murals because in the 50's pretty much everybody was racist, and also because they're shit.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Diverse:
90% of the US population in 1950 was white.
I can’t find the racial demographics for Rhode Island in 1950, but I will bet it was even higher.
Those murals are pretty representative ...
I do think it is somewhat goofy to paint over the murals, but at what point does something like that become history, and when is it just something on the wall?
As you said, the murals were representative of Rhode Island 70 years ago. Why is it a bad thing for someone today to be change that to what is like today?
Why do companies update their logos? Why do people not wear fashion from seventy years ago? Why do menus change in restaurants, and product lines change in stores?
The world is ever changing, and every generation wants to use and put their mark on what things are
@taiwan_girl said in Not Diverse:
@LuFins-Dad said in Not Diverse:
90% of the US population in 1950 was white.
I can’t find the racial demographics for Rhode Island in 1950, but I will bet it was even higher.
Those murals are pretty representative ...
I do think it is somewhat goofy to paint over the murals, but at what point does something like that become history, and when is it just something on the wall?
As you said, the murals were representative of Rhode Island 70 years ago. Why is it a bad thing for someone today to be change that to what is like today?
Why do companies update their logos? Why do people not wear fashion from seventy years ago? Why do menus change in restaurants, and product lines change in stores?
The world is ever changing, and every generation wants to use and put their mark on what things are
I get that and would agree for any other building not named "Memorial Union" that wasn't built and privately paid for to specifically honor WWII and the students and alumni of the University of Rhode Island that served in WWII. Don't want a WWII Memorial Union? Build a new one. Want to set up a display to honor African American and other minority contributions to the war effort? Go for it! But let's not ignore or change history.
-
Pretty much everybody is thinking about skin color and judging people based on it now more than in the 50s. Unless you would care to disagree.
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Pretty much everybody is thinking about skin color and judging people based on it now more than in the 50s. Unless you would care to disagree.
From my admittedly limited knowledge of the period , lots of people were looking the other way back then, but if you read biographies of black jazz musicians of the time (1930's - 1950's), which I have, they were treated like shit. Miles Davis was beaten up by a detective for "loitering" outside the club he was headlining in, Bud Powell suffered life-changing injuries due to a similar assault. Musicians touring the south could not stay in the same hotels as their white counterparts, and Billy Holiday narrowly avoided being lynched by a group of southern gentlemen, her sin being to sing for the white Artie Shaw orchestra. These people should have been honoured, not brutalised.
Whites certainly weren't thinking about it as much as blacks, since it didn't really affect them.
I was only joking
-
No, but pretending that everything was fine and dandy back then, and that racial issues are some modern invention is to ignore a truly shameful period in this nation's history.
The fact that large segments of the middle classes could safely ignore this injustice doesn't mean it wasn't a freaking big deal to the people being affected.
-
I’m sure it was. And now in the lifetimes of presently young and productive people it has been fetishized. Which to my mind does not honor a serious memory or reflection of it.
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
I’m sure it was. And now in the lifetimes of presently young and productive people it has been fetishized. Which to my mind does not honor a serious memory or reflection of it.
It's quite possible that the fetishization is in part a reaction to the willful ignorance that occurred previously. Hollywood, for example, has until very recently had a truly dreadful history in its treatment and characterization of minorities, but now suddenly it's preaching from a holy soapbox of it's own invention, whilst arguably not addressing the actual problem in a serious way.
-
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Pretty much everybody is thinking about skin color and judging people based on it now more than in the 50s. Unless you would care to disagree.
From my admittedly limited knowledge of the period , lots of people were looking the other way back then, but if you read biographies of black jazz musicians of the time (1930's - 1950's), which I have, they were treated like shit. Miles Davis was beaten up by a detective for "loitering" outside the club he was headlining in, Bud Powell suffered life-changing injuries due to a similar assault. Musicians touring the south could not stay in the same hotels as their white counterparts, and Billy Holiday narrowly avoided being lynched by a group of southern gentlemen, her sin being to sing for the white Artie Shaw orchestra. These people should have been honoured, not brutalised.
Whites certainly weren't thinking about it as much as blacks, since it didn't really affect them.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Not Diverse:
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Pretty much everybody is thinking about skin color and judging people based on it now more than in the 50s. Unless you would care to disagree.
From my admittedly limited knowledge of the period , lots of people were looking the other way back then, but if you read biographies of black jazz musicians of the time (1930's - 1950's), which I have, they were treated like shit. Miles Davis was beaten up by a detective for "loitering" outside the club he was headlining in, Bud Powell suffered life-changing injuries due to a similar assault. Musicians touring the south could not stay in the same hotels as their white counterparts, and Billy Holiday narrowly avoided being lynched by a group of southern gentlemen, her sin being to sing for the white Artie Shaw orchestra. These people should have been honoured, not brutalised.
Whites certainly weren't thinking about it as much as blacks, since it didn't really affect them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but we probably trated a few Brits like crap, starting in 1776. I guess we should pull the Washington Monument down.
Better yet, it's a two-fer...He owned slaves, after all!
-
The actual problem is the breakdown of the family within historically oppressed communities. I’m glad we have reached this agreement that Trump is the best option. Thank you for the fruitful discussion.
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
The actual problem is the breakdown of the family within historically oppressed communities. I’m glad we have reached this agreement that Trump is the best option. Thank you for the fruitful discussion.
Personally, I think Trump is part of the problem. Americans wanted a reaction against all the nicey-nicey guilt-tripping Obama-esque PC bullshit, so they elected a complete douchebag to represent them. Extreme behaviours lead to extreme reactions, but it doesn't mean the extreme reaction actually solves anything. Prior to this, Obama was elected because he was actually capable of reading an auto-cue, a skill his predecessor never seemed to master, and because he seemed less keen on bombing the shit out of everybody.
Obviously, I'm in the minority here. You chaps all seem to think DJT's magnificent, and anybody who thinks otherwise is apparently deranged.
I was only joking
-
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
The actual problem is the breakdown of the family within historically oppressed communities. I’m glad we have reached this agreement that Trump is the best option. Thank you for the fruitful discussion.
Personally, I think Trump is part of the problem. Americans wanted a reaction against all the nicey-nicey guilt-tripping Obama-esque PC bullshit, so they elected a complete douchebag to represent them. Extreme behaviours lead to extreme reactions, but it doesn't mean the extreme reaction actually solves anything. Prior to this, Obama was elected because he was actually capable of reading an auto-cue, a skill his predecessor never seemed to master, and because he seemed less keen on bombing the shit out of everybody.
Obviously, I'm in the minority here. You chaps all seem to think DJT's magnificent, and anybody who thinks otherwise is apparently deranged.
This post is deleted! -
Yeah but you just Trumpified the actual problem. I do think it’s the breakdown of the family. If you don’t have a dad then you don’t have cops either.
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Yeah but you just Trumpified the actual problem.
Yes, because you Trumpified the solution
I guess it's debatable whether the breakdown of the family is a symptom of a greater problem, or the root cause
-
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Yeah but you just Trumpified the actual problem.
Yes, because you Trumpified the solution
I guess it's debatable whether the breakdown of the family is a symptom of a greater problem, or the root cause
@Doctor-Phibes said in Not Diverse:
@Horace said in Not Diverse:
Yeah but you just Trumpified the actual problem.
Yes, because you Trumpified the solution
I guess it's debatable whether the breakdown of the family is a symptom of a greater problem, or the root cause
It's far closer to being the root than Trump is. I can't stand the asshole, but this stuff's been escalating for the last 20 years. Since Bush 43 won...
-
I agree that Trump's a symptom. Not sure what the root of the problem is. Cleverer men than me have been totally wrong about it, I'm sure. Stupider men, too.
