Like the “white pride” post, this is sort of a race issue, but I felt like starting a new topic.
I recently read that there’s plans for a statue at ground zero that’s being made based on a photo of three firefighters putting up an American flag after September 11th. The thing is, all three firefighters in the picture were white - like 80% of the new york firefighting force - and yet the statue is being made so that one of the fellas is white, one black, and one hispanic.
Do people think thats weird seeing as it’s based on a photo where they’re all white? Plus I think it’s really daft - it’s a statue so they’re hardly going to look that different anyway. Personally I’m undecided. I think it’s weird to put a false diversity into the image, but I also see the weirdness of putting all white people in a statue that is meant to represent multi-cultural America regaining it’s strength. hm.
[This message has been edited by nicola (edited 28 February 2002).]
The whole coloration thing seems ridiculous to me, and I’m an American.
I mean, if you’re going to try to represent ethnic diversity, then why not include Native Americans?
Oh wait, but that would be stupid because there are no Sioux in the NY fire department!
i think it is kind of strange, but understandable. and it’s only ‘based’ on the photo, is it not?
as a representation of the NY fire-fighters, maybe it’s inaccurate, but as a symbol of the whole of america, and all it’s cultures, coming together to be strong, i think it’s a lovely idea.
why not make Nelson on Nelson’s column a black man? afterall he was symbol of the power of the british empire and the majority of people under empire rule were not black, why shouldn’t he be indian, black, etc, the statue is only based upon him afterall.
no macca, it’s not the same thing. nelson’s column is representative of one particular man, where as the ground zero statue is only based on a photo. well, that makes sense to me…but i am not very coherant today, so maybe no one else will understand what i am saying.
Nelson was dead when it was made, so it would have had to have been made from painting, memories, sketches, descriptions etc. the september 11th memorial should be the same as the photo, otherwise why don’t we change everything in our history just to be PC
cept this is not actually changing history. and it’s not like we are burning books and lying to people. it may be cliched, obvious, vulgar, tacky to place an object that represents multi-culturalism and people coming together on the site of many deaths but that’s not the point.
since when was art meant to reflect history? especially art with a political message. yes it’s true there was no naked woman called Liberty fighting in the French revolution but that doesn’t make the painting have any less strong a message.
i think the message is a good one. new york still has many racial problems and for the city to make a strong inclusive statement such as this can only inspire hope and confidence in the people who are still suffering.
it’s the same arguement as the Iwo Jima sclupture, since when was art meant to relfect history? why shouldn’t it show the true events? changing the faces of the firemen is just yet another petty excuse for politicians to get their ore in, it all leads us closer to your beloved nanny state.
Um, i do seem to be having a bit of a go at macca at the mo, sorry. but aren’t you being a bit narrow-minded? the point is not to portray how the events literally happened, but rather to portray the strength and unity of the americans in the handling of the crisis. it is not saying “look, 3 white firefighters helped out”.
Surely a statue of the Prophet Mohammed would work much better.
You’d provide the visitors a place to piss on, and for the bargain of the week, annoy all of Islam for the sacrilege of depicting the Prophet.