Politically Correct?

Typical. Should've seen that one coming.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Goes hand-in-hand with the feel-good history revisionists and the "dig up dirt on the Founding Fathers" brigade.

It's funny: sometimes I'll be watching a commercial (or I'll see an ad in magazine) and it'll be SO heavy-handed and cheesy in its attempts to "include one of everything and appeal to EVERYBODY".

I mean, you'll see an ad for a plumber or air conditioner repairman (err, excuse me... repairPERSON) and everyone in the damn house is every color, gender, etc. you can imagine.

Roto-Rooter guy rings the bell and 16 Hilfiger-clad kids answer (obviously having a Super Bowl party, or possibly an interracial swing orgy...I tend to want to imagine the latter, because I'm just that way...) and there's dreadlock guy, Asian girl, black guy with glasses, hispanic girl, lesbian in a wheelchair, an Eskimo, two Samoans...AND a token honky, usually in the form of the laborer or visiting repairman.



"That'll show 'em! Make whitey crawl all up under this house and unclog our toilet!".



I'm betting before this whole statue thing is over, one of them will be a woman. And one of them might be autistic or alcoholic. If we're REALLY lucky, one will be in a wheelchair and in the latter stages of a sex change operation.



Idiots.

What do you want to bet if that famous photo actually depicted two black guys and an Asian firefighter raising the flag, that any uproar or stink would be made about "we gotta include a caucasian" in the statue version?

Yeah, I thought so...

It's dumb that some think the black and hispanic firefighers will feel "exculded" if they are not depicted.

Damn, most hispanics look white anyway..

What the hell, I hate this bullcrap.

Ever seen when Bush interacts with kids on TV? It's always black and white kids.

Yes rewriting history to be politically correct.

It's a little known fact that Jamestown was settled by gay and lesbian refugees.

this is ridiculous. and let me tell you, firemen are PISSED big time.

must calm down

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>It's a little known fact that Jamestown was settled by gay and lesbian refugees.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Folks, this isn't history, it's art. It's a statue, not a history book. They just used the photo as a model.

You guys are just upset because it's racial. If they had changed one of the poses, or what one of them was wearing, or anything else, you wouldn't have cared at all.

Dumb, dumb, bumb..................

Wow...that is even worse than just a bunch of tree huggin' hippie crap. Misguided and Delusional more like....

"Gee, maybe if I make the three guys look the way I *wish* they had been, everyone will actually think that's the way they WERE."

Asshole(s). Like there is something wrong with three white guys raising a flag in tribute to fallen comrades (of all colors). Fu*king ultra-liberal [BS]. If you want to do something that is symbolic and not literal, fine, make the guys any color you want, and have them doing whatever you like. But if you're trying to recapture the moment, then the three guys -- by definition -- have to be white. Period.

Not a racial thing, it's a factual thing. To say we wouldn't care about inaccurate details like clothing, is to totally miss the point. Maybe the guy who did the statue of Iwojima should've included a few women and some generals too, because you know...it would read more like a storybook. The scene that unfolded with those three firemen was what it was. To try and change it to make a social statement is bullcrap.

Stupid hippies! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>

BRussell, I hope you're not thinking that we're somehow racist in our outcries and opinions.



Moogs above says it pretty well. As do a couple of others. I highly doubt Eugene, applenut and others who've raised their disapproval about this are doing it because of any issues of race.

If you're going to base a statue on a true, real-life, "captured on film for all the world to see", then make it accurate and reflect that. Anything else seems hollow and pandering to me.

Otherwise, simply create a nice statue that ISN'T based on that famous photograph and simply use it to depict various races, genders, etc.

I assure you, NONE of us would have a problem with that whatsoever. Simply showing firemen of various ethnic backgrounds working in the rubble or comforting one another, OR carrying out a fallen comrade would be a beautiful statement.

But, like Moogs said, this photo exists. We've all seen it. It's real. It WOULD be like adding a general, a woman, a Japanese-American and who-knows-what-else to the Iwo Jima statue, when we all know there were none there, raising the flag.

Not at all an issue of race, simply one of accuracy and truth.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Folks, this isn't history, it's art. It's a statue, not a history book. They just used the photo as a model.

You guys are just upset because it's racial. If they had changed one of the poses, or what one of them was wearing, or anything else, you wouldn't have cared at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

uh.. THEY are being racial. if we are all supposed to be equal why does a black and hispanic guy have to be equal./

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
Moogs above says it pretty well. As do a couple of others. I highly doubt Eugene, applenut and others who've raised their disapproval about this are doing it because of any issues of race.</strong><hr></blockquote>

defnitely not. if a black guy was one of the three he should be a black guy in the statue but to "add one in" just to be "politically correct" is ridiculous and an insult to the firefights who actually did raise the flag.

I'm with BRussell on this one. If they had chosen to give the men manniquen faces with no racial features at all no one would through a fuss. It's art, stupid! It's meant to be symbolic not photo-accurate. I agree that it's ridiculous to always apply a racial filter to something to make sure it's representative, but the filter works both ways.

Are the people who get upset about the racial switch going to get as upset if the artist decides to give the firemen bigger biceps, or make the flag bigger, or omit a playboy that happen to be part of the rubble (if that were the case), etc...

Don't forget that the picture of the flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged.

[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>I'm with BRussell on this one. If they had chosen to give the men manniquen faces with no racial features at all no one would through a fuss. It's art, stupid! It's meant to be symbolic not photo-accurate. I agree that it's ridiculous to always apply a racial filter to something to make sure it's representative, but the filter works both ways.

Are the people who get upset about the racial switch going to get as upset if the artist decides to give the firemen bigger biceps, or make the flag bigger, or omit a playboy that happen to be part of the rubble (if that were the case), etc...

Don't forget that the picture of the flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I think if you were a firemen or even had a clue you would think differently.

[quote]Goes hand-in-hand with the feel-good history revisionists and the "dig up dirt on the Founding Fathers" brigade.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I believe painting an accurate picture of the Founding Fathers is preferrable to the prevailing belief that they were perfect and everything they said and did was without fault.

Which is a hell of a lot more revisionist, if you ask me.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]</p>

I just saw that article on CNN and came here to post it. Then I realized that's what this thread was about.

I can't believe they did that.

I can't tell from the picture, but I remember a pretty out-of-shape (fat) Fireman, too. Does anyone think that they slimmed him down for the picture as well?

What's wrong with a FAT hero?

(Next, let's check their bulges. Did they leave 'white' bulges, or is there a 'black' bulge?)

Ahh, great to be back on the AI boards, reading the social commentary on the AppleOutsider forum.

Of all the boards I've been to, this one seems to have the most intelligent & well educated readers. I'm glad to realize, once again, that I'm not the only one who thinks that artificial diversity is an insulting phenomenon.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
I think if you were a firemen or even had a clue you would think differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, if you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that the Fire Department was behind the idea and so was the Vulcan Society (which represents black firemen). So, it would seem that quite a lot of firemen are ok with it. It's fitting that you would think that all firemen would think alike since this is the very mentality that finds diversity so insidious.

Let me suggest that if you were a relative of one of the 12 black firemen that died fighting the fire you MIGHT think differently.

[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

Well, if you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that the Fire Department was behind the idea and so was the Vulcan Society (which represents black firemen). So, it would seem that quite a lot of firemen are ok with it. It's fitting that you would think that all firemen would think alike since this is the very mentality that finds diversity so insidious.

Let me suggest that if you were a relative of one of the 12 black firemen that died fighting the fire you MIGHT think differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>

WHAT!?

the fire department "higher ups" support it. I want you to go to the local firehouse right here and tell them you support it. I don't think you'll be welcomed to kindly. it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.

12 black firemen died. how does that change the fact that 3 white guys raised the flag. if we are all equal why do the black guys need to be portrayed. so they are putting their race above everything else. you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.

let me ask you. if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.

this is just sad

All the people for is this switch ask yourself this. If it had been three black guys and they switched to be more racial sensitive what you you think then? What side do you think the Vulcan Society would fall on? Diversity or accurate.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>If it had been three black guys and they switched to be more racial sensitive what you you think then? What side do you think the Vulcan Society would fall on?</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, but ask yourself this question: If they hadn't changed race, but they had made some guy taller or something like that, would you still have been clamoring for accuracy?

Why would they even do that, BRussell? Nobody IS changing anyone's height. That's one of those strange questions that prolongs things because it's too weird to answer and doesn't speak directly to what's going on.

What if one of the firemen had a caterpillar on his jacket...

:confused:

Hardly the issue here. There probably aren't people running around demanding that everyone of a certain height/weight be represented.

But they ARE changing the content/context of the famous photo.

Like I said in my post above, how hard is it to design and create a nice, beautiful statue NOT based on this photo, thereby circumventing all this bullcrap?

It's obvious to me now that you can't just simply do something easily and quickly these days without it getting hung up in politics, race, class, political correctness, etc.

Amazing. ONLY in late 20th/early 21st Century America would the cool photo of three firemen (not WHITE firemen) being the basis for a cool statue turn into a big ordeal and pain-in-the-ass.

To prove it isn't about race, I'd be pissed off if they stuck a woman in there. Or a robot. Or a butcher, a Senator or a movie theater usher.

There, that help?



Yes, it is about accuracy. NONE of those people were in the photo or were the three main figures seen - worldwide - participating in that moment! And it's lame to pretend they were.

If two black firemen and a Korean paramedic had raised the flag, assisted by a female Hispanic steelworker, AND a famous, moving photograph was taken of it, I GUARANTEE you that I, nor anyone I know, would expect the statue based on the photo to depict anything different.

I would think "wow, those four people will be memorialized forever...cool!"

It would bother me if they DID change it, even if they were adding a white guy, in the interest of "inclusion" or whatever. I'd also see THAT for what it is and bitch about it too, BRussell.

In other words, I would not be running around, pissed off and demanding they "stick a white guy in there!".

Jeez.

Why does it work the other way? And why is that accepted and not called what it is?

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>The fire department "higher ups" support it. ... it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's no indication in the article that all firefighters are uniformly against this. In fact, the article suggests otherwise. You are outright asking me to ignore the article and start imposing your biased assumptions. I'm supposed to assume that despite the fire department and a firefighter association supporting it that, to the contrary, every single living breathing fire fighter (black, white, and hispanic) thinks like you. I'm supposed to assume that the head of these groups are not and never were fire fighters themselves.

[quote]<strong>you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Man do you have a limited attention span. I clearly stated that I find it ridiculous to always apply a racial filter to such things. But this racial filter is also being applied by many of the people who are so upset about this. Ok, I suppose people can hide their racism behind the photo-realism thing, but no one has yet said that they would be just as upset to see the artist shave a few pounds off a fat fireman or beef up his biceps or make the flag large and unfurled as if supported by a celestial force or remove an errant playboy from the rubble, etc, etc, etc...

[quote]<strong>if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When arts concerned I can guaranty that someone will object no matter what it is. I personally would try and judge the art by the statement it's supposed to make and not it's photo-realism. In the scenario you propose I don't think the NAACP would be upset if the 3 black guys were replaced with one white guy, one black guy, and one hispanic (the three white guy example isn't a fair counter-example) for the stated purpose of promoting diversity with the understanding that the art is meant to reflect the accomplishments of firefighters as a whole and not the actual accomplishments of just three firefighters.

Now, let me ask you this. Does the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (or statue it inspired) really piss you off because it was staged? If not would you be pissed if the WTC flag raising had been staged (say using black, white, and hispanic firefighters) to begin with?

And please spare me the righteous indignation.

Let me guess: "Righteous indignation" only works from one side, right?

Coming from anyone else, it's "closeminded, borderline racism"?

I don't know...I'm asking.

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Let me guess: "Righteous indignation" only works from one side, right?

Coming from anyone else, it's "closeminded, borderline racism"?

I don't know...I'm asking.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, in fact the point I'm making that everyone seems to ignore so as to jump right into the familiar barking that occurs on P.I. (with Mahr not Magnum) is that it's just as annoying to see this emphasis on race coming from both sides. Also, I get annoyed with people who are quick to be appauled as if to even challenge their position is equivalent to pissing on firefighters graves.

To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.

To change the slimness or muscularity of a person is one thing, to completely change the race or gender is something else altogether. I do not think it is right to alter the moment because it makes people feel better about a situation that was not that way. If there had not been said flag raising in reality then let them choose their heroes/heroines. No biggie. The moment happened, the reality is far more powerful than the made up baloney the artist is now trying to pawn off. It should be as accurate as possible for the people and the moment. Some of the details like playboy in the rubble or the shadow of the sun are just that, details. Altering ones race or gender for diversity is more than a detail. It changes the entire person, and the man that was there who gets replaced by one of anotehr race has now been cut from the scene that he unknowingly helped to create. Not right, predictable, and not too suprising given that diversity reigns supreme when those that are "hurt" by it are white males.

[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So next time they should be sure to search the rescuers for three men of diverse ethnic background so that they can be "represented fairly" for the American media to photograph.

This is not about fair representation. This is about a real moment that is being altered in the name of fair representation and diversity. Goodnight!

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>
I think you are naive. The NAACP won't cause a ruckus if a black man is replaced by a white man? What about people with cult-like followers...like Jesse Jackson, who throw out boycotts left and right if there aren't enough black employees at a particular business to suit him?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't think Jesse speaks (or raps) for the NAACP (that would be the Mfume guy), but as I said, I'm sure someone will object when it comes to art. The amount of outrage would seem to be a matter of PR. If it was made quite clear that this was a work of art meant to represent the valiant efforts of all the firefighters and that the flag raising was simply a template, then no, I don't think it would be a big deal.

[quote]<strong>
The flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged in a sense that the original, puny flag was taken down and replaced by a larger flag. It wasn't exactly posed for, as there was a film cameraman and photographer on hand.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This can quickly become a debate of he said, the military said, but let's just stick with what we can agree on. 1. They felt it necessary to get a bigger flag (if that ain't symbolic I don't know what is) and 2. the people (and flag) who's image we see and celebrate are not the same people who first planted a flag on Iwo Jima. Do I think it detracts from their original accomplishment? No.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong> If there had not been said flag raising in reality then let them choose their heroes/heroines. No biggie. The moment happened, the reality is far more powerful than the made up baloney the artist is now trying to pawn off. It should be as accurate as possible for the people and the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of the acts performed by firefighters during the WTC disaster I would think that putting the flag up would have to rank pretty low in heroism. If this artist chose to sculpt three firemen of different races carrying wounded people down stairs of a collapsing building you would have no beef, yes? Even if at no time were a white, hispanic, and black guy together in the same time and space? I guess your position is that this picture is simply sacrosanct and beyond artistic embelishment. On this point we simply disagree.

[quote]<strong> Some of the details like playboy in the rubble or the shadow of the sun are just that, details. Altering ones race or gender for diversity is more than a detail. It changes the entire person, and the man that was there who gets replaced by one of anotehr race has now been cut from the scene that he unknowingly helped to create.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since you concede that photo-realism isn't the standard here then we agree that this is, indeed, art? So this really comes down to asthetics. What you like may differ from what other's like. Plain and simple.

The sculpture is kitschy crap whether it has three black women or three white guys.

It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo, as does, and I know I will be wildly flamed for this, lavishing the same kind of worship onto the photo of the firemen at the WTC site.

It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up (where people were killed by madmen who saw through our weak spots) in your own country, to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.


They are still powerfull events --the flag raisings-- however, one of these appears to be the precursor to the other.... its almost as if the photographer and all those in the picture were watching themselves try and fill the footprints left by the innitial image. Now everytime I see it I can't help but feel that maybe they are just slightly acting for the idea of the 'heroism' in the photo that will be.


As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... its like the worst aspects of Rockwell distilled into this farcical heroism . . . which just cheapens the real heroism that took place.....

but then that's what usually happens with sentiments that uses the term 'heroism' without caution . . . it's a very tricky idea that can very easily move towards a self-parody, or worse, to jingoism.

anyway, it kind of reminds me of the famous saying --but not quite -- about history and repetition and farce.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

Staged or not, I felt a wave of emotion come across me as I saw them place and raise that flag.

To me it was simple. Just human beings taking a symbolic piece of cloth and raising it in defiance in public view to show the terrorists that even if it came down to the last man standing, THIS act or raising a flag can be accomplished. No one will deny us our freedom!

I think the statue thing is just a poor decision. But, I couldn't care less about it in the end. The real symbol of our strength is shown everyday with people doing what they do best to keep America strong and proud and a nice place to live. In MY mind, I salute everyone that died and survived on 9/11.

Maybe it should be a heap of smoldering body parts with a flag sticking out of it...

Face it...figurative, realistic or representational scupture here isn't going to work in these "frail" times. Hell, might as well start tearing down all scuptures with people in them and replace them with the Cingular cartoon figure...

Where's Alexander Calder when you need him...

In a way both sides are being pussies in this debate. Toss the whole idea and design a boring abstract symbol of a memorial that points to nobdy but everyone who died at Ground Zero...period.

Wait a minute...reality check here...Isn't this statue going to be placed in front of the NYFD administration building? The firemen have a beef about this? :confused:

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo...</strong><hr></blockquote>

The WTC photo by itself is very good but I agree about the comparisons with the Iwo Jima photo. It's way over the top and undermines the value of both photos.

[quote]<strong>It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up... in your own country...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Precisely.

[quote]<strong>... to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And you were doing so well. You had to overreach, didn't you? Well, I guess what this is all about, isn't it?

[quote]<strong>As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... which just cheapens the real heroism that took place...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep.

And saying it's art not history ignores the historical/political context which art often addresses. This sculpture isn't being produced in a vacuum. It's almost all about historical context.

[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>

if its arts than the "artists" should have been original. he had to know that changing what could possibly become the most famous american symbol of perseverance and freedom would cause an outrage among many people, especially in the fire department. and its even for the fire department!!