Lion of the Blogosphere

American Museum of Natural History racist against indigenous peoples

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest

Watch the video in the article to see extreme SJWism in action. It’s pretty sickening.

And the most racist part of the entire museum is the statue of Teddy Roosevelt out front, on horseback, flanked by an American Indian in headdress and a half-naked black man wearing primitive African garb.

I fear for the future of this statue.

Note that this protest happened last October before Trump was elected President. It was not in response to Charlottesville or other recent events. But it does demonstrate that the demands to take down statues is not going to end with Confederate stuff.

* * *

The purpose of the statue was to show that Teddy Roosevelt was a humanitarian, nobly concerned with the welfare of lesser races. But SJW types believe that it memorializes the belief that Native Americans and blacks are inferior to whites.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 19, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Posted in New York City

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “The purpose of the statue was to show that Teddy Roosevelt was a humanitarian, nobly concerned with the welfare of lesser races. But SJW types believe that it memorializes the belief that Native Americans and blacks are inferior to whites”

    When you put it like that the opposing views don’t seem mutually exclusive.

    prolier than thou

    August 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    • This spells total doom for America. SWPLs will be harmed by this SJWism — I see an implosion of the left. To NAMs all of Western Civilization is inherently evil and must be destroyed, and this includes White people, when things get completely out of hand.

      JS

      August 19, 2017 at 7:01 pm

  2. Someone should inform these left-wing nitwits that many American Indian tribes were not exactly pacifists. The Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache, and Shoshone (among others) were all warriors who had no qualms slaughtering neighboring tribes.

    Lewis Medlock

    August 19, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    • Yes they were. They were progay & feminist too.

      gothamette

      August 19, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    • Blacks kill each other all the time, but there’s still a freakout when one dies at the hand of White Privilege.

      Richard

      August 19, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • Your racial group unity is racism; theirs is community building.

        Curle

        August 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm

    • The Empire of the Summer Moon about the Comanches is a book that describes the brutality of Indians.

      ttgy

      August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm

      • The only significant difference when it came to brutality was that the Indians and the Negroes were cannibals.

        Yakov

        August 20, 2017 at 12:43 am

      • That whole book is a ripoff of the much better book by TR Fehrenbach, The Comanches: The History of a People.

        gothamette

        August 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    • It’s true that other groups did the same and worse. But one doesn’t get out of the hot seat with a Tu quoque? defense. The only way to put out a fire is to starve it of fuel and oxygen. The longer one argues the longer it burns. Let the other side play with themselves awhile and shoot their wad.

      In the meantime, I wish all those other extremist groups would crawl back under their rocks. They’re only making it worse.

      destructure

      August 19, 2017 at 7:11 pm

  3. And they tried to take Hamilton off the $10 bill last year.

    It wasn’t clear what the reasons for doing so were, but eventually they’ll return to try again. I assume when they go after Hamilton’s monuments they will argue the electoral college Hamilton insisted be enshrined in the Constitution was a racist system that prevented California from winning the Presidency for Hillary Clinton:

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/circulars-august-19-2017/

    Removing Hamilton From The $10 Bill

    We have not forgotten last year’s aborted, abominable, attempt from the Progressive’s magic history eraser to take Hamilton off the $10 bill.

    Their retreat can only make for a temporary, uneasy, peace. Our Hamiltonian radar remains on high alert for any hint of a renewed Progressive offensive against Hamilton’s monuments despite the current day’s mass-hysteria dedicated to Lee and Stonewall Jackson: Hysteria these days – especially these days – is here today, gone tomorrow, replaced by tomorrow’s mass hysteria.

    It is only a matter of time before this whirling Dervish of Liberal insanity makes a round-trip back to Hamilton. I imagine the attack will have something to do with charges of “racism” over the electoral college – which was very strongly supported by Hamilton – denying diverse states the proper “right” to choose the President.

    If not that, the Left will invent a justification equally ludicrous.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    August 19, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    • Most of the ‘scholars’ destroying statues likely don’t know who Hamilton is and if they do they think he’s the black guy from the play. Just start telling everyone he was black, it will probably become internet truth in short order, after all the Pharaohs were sub-Saharans too, haven’t you heard?

      Curle

      August 19, 2017 at 7:22 pm

      • That’s why I think Hamilton is safe for now. The Musical was pretty popular among the same sort of folks who like to ban things and he’s now considered a person of color.

        Mike Street Station

        August 20, 2017 at 9:45 am

    • I think removing Hamilton was merely to replace him with Tubman. One may ask, “Why Hamilton?” Precisely because there was nothing wrong with him. The others were “flawed”. So they could always go after them later. In politics, you never want to remove something you can make an issue of. That’s why so few issues are ever resolved.

      destructure

      August 19, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    • That woman whose husband was stabbed to death in Greenpoint went to Columbia and wanted Hamilton of the tenner.

      Explainer 21

      August 19, 2017 at 9:01 pm

  4. Union officers will be next. Here’s W.T. Sherman’s position on slavery:

    “History had forced this institution on the South, Sherman thought, and its continued prosperity depended on embracing it. “Theoretical notions of humanity and religion,” he flatly declared, “cannot shake the commercial fact that their labor is of great value and cannot be dispensed with.” Further, Sherman believed that slavery benefited both races. In 1854 he assured his brother that blacks thrived in the Southern heat and later told David F. Boyd, one of his professors at the Louisiana military academy and eventual friend, that he considered slavery in the South “the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore.””

    Curle

    August 19, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    • They can easily go after the union generals. The wars against the plains indians heated up right after the civil war. Grant was president and sherman as commander who put them on reservations. The sjws will get around to it eventually. This isn’t about removing offensive statues. This is about the left’s never-ending struggle to make it 1917 by pretending it’s 1939.

      destructure

      August 19, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      • Funny that when the Left took power in E. Germany in 1945 they didn’t begin importing foreigners or did they?

        We always finger the Left but their presence doesn’t seem the stable variable you’d expect to fully answer the question of ‘why’ regarding these pushes towards racial Balkanization. Something more seems to be at play.

        Curle

        August 19, 2017 at 10:29 pm

      • @ Curle

        The left running East Germany was a different set of people than the American left today. They were actual communists, who cared about class, not race. Race wasn’t even an issue then, because immigration was a lot harder than it is today.

        Lowe

        August 20, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    • He and the Southerners are hypocrites. It’s one thing to say that we destroy the Indians and enslave the Negro for our benefit, but to claim that it was the best thing in the world that could have happened to them is idiotic. But it gets worse. These negroes were actively converted to Christianity, so tell me now how is it moral to enslave fellow Christians? Sell them and brake up their families? Violate the sanctity of their marriages? These people were hypocrites and that’s the worst thing I find wrong with them. Their interpretation of religion was phony.

      Yakov

      August 20, 2017 at 12:52 am

      • “but to claim that it was the best thing in the world that could have happened to them is idiotic.”

        People with IQ’s in the 80s are absolutely better off being managed by others. If you don’t think so then you haven’t spent enough time around people with IQ’s in the 80s.

        destructure

        August 21, 2017 at 11:48 am

    • Can you please either supply URLs or citations? It’s dumb to quote and not cite the source.

      Sherman was a huge “Anglo-Saxonist,” and wanted things to go back to the way they were before the war except for slavery. Read Michael Fellman’s book. It’s ironic that the Southerners hate him so. He killed hardly any of them and considered himself a friend of the South, which he was.

      gothamette

      August 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: