Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
which is racist, and imperialism:

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
> which is racist, and imperialism:
>
> https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/
>

I really really hope that BLUE BLOODS does an episode on this.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 12:36:00 PM UTC-5, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
> > Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
> > which is racist, and imperialism:
> >
> > https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/
> >
> I really really hope that BLUE BLOODS does an episode on this.
>
> --
LOL

On 2022-01-21 12:35 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>> which is racist, and imperialism:
>>
>> https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/
>>
>
> I really really hope that BLUE BLOODS does an episode on this.
>
It could start with some visitor to Magnum's office freaking out at the
photo of Teddy Roosevelt on his wall and Magnum having a few choice
words with him/her along the lines of "Remove this picture? Over my
freaking dead body!"

--
Rhino

On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,

Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
some people

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 12:35 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>>> which is racist, and imperialism:
>>>
>>> https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/
>>>
>>
>> I really really hope that BLUE BLOODS does an episode on this.
>>
> It could start with some visitor to Magnum's office freaking out at the
> photo of Teddy Roosevelt on his wall and Magnum having a few choice
> words with him/her along the lines of "Remove this picture? Over my
> freaking dead body!"
>

Exactly. They don’t have to go very far to make this an issue.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

In <ssesrl$s11$1@dont-email.me> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>>> which is racist, and imperialism:
>>>
>>> https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/roosevelt-statue-controversy-explained-natural-history-museum-1202691894/
>>>
>>
>> I really really hope that BLUE BLOODS does an episode on this.
>>
>It could start with some visitor to Magnum's office freaking out at the
>photo of Teddy Roosevelt on his wall and Magnum having a few choice
>words with him/her along the lines of "Remove this picture? Over my
>freaking dead body!"

And, if we're lucky....

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:

>>Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,

>Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>some people

What do you think Mount Rushmore is, you blithering idiot? It's yet
another illustration turning him into a Greek god.

Dammit Johnston, his promotion of eugenics is in the very first sentence
of the article. Why do you persist in telling big lies?

The trouble with Roosevelt is that he wrote more in his short life than
the next 100 men and would have expressed a thought on absolutely
anything that entered his head. I'm sure he may have written something
positive about eugenics, and another time, wrote something negative
about it. As far as promoting it, as far as I know, there is nothing
historical about any steps to implement it while in public office.
Anyway, someone who has read more about him than I have can point out
that he did promote it as public policy.

With Roosevelt, there's always going to be something in his writing that
you'll despise and it won't take very long to find it.

In article <ssf0et$38d$1@gioia.aioe.org>, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
> > Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>
> Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
> to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
> some people

There were people who objected to that statue when I was a kid sixty
years ago.

A Friend wrote:

>There were people who objected to that statue when I was a kid sixty
>years ago.

Great! It should have remained in place to show that the same public
sentiment about turning historical figures into Greek gods for modern
political reasons wasn't just limited to former Confederacy Southern
states during counter-Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

Public art is never intended to be an accurate portrayal of the
historial figure. Never. It's always about modern day political
sentiment. Tearing down monuments means that we no longer have to be
confronted with the ugly feelings of those before us, and it's still
done for modern political reasons.

I'm sure this will lead to yet another lecture from Micky DuPree, who
pretends to have kill filed me but reads absolutely everything I write,
about how meaningful and positive it is to rewrite history.

Once again, Chicago has a statue on an obelisk to Balbo, literally a
Fascist (one of the men who put Mussolini in power), that still exists to
this day. It remained up all throughout WWII. The Fascists were the enemy.

No, Balbo should not have been honored, but Mussolini gave it as a gift,
trying to influence Italian ethnics. The Balbo airlift visited Chicago.

I don't want it removed because I don't want this nonsense swept under
the rug.

On 2022-01-21 2:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>
> Wrong.  It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
> to do with his belief in eugenics.  The look of him towering on a horse
> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
> some people
>
You didn't read the article I cited did you?

--
Rhino

On 1/21/2022 12:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>
>> There were people who objected to that statue when I was a kid sixty
>> years ago.
>
> Great! It should have remained in place to show that the same public
> sentiment about turning historical figures into Greek gods for modern
> political reasons wasn't just limited to former Confederacy Southern
> states during counter-Reconstruction and Jim Crow.
>
> Public art is never intended to be an accurate portrayal of the
> historial figure. Never. It's always about modern day political
> sentiment. Tearing down monuments means that we no longer have to be
> confronted with the ugly feelings of those before us, and it's still
> done for modern political reasons.

It's art, it's meant to evoke feelings. You want reality, use a photo,
not a painting.

>
> I'm sure this will lead to yet another lecture from Micky DuPree, who
> pretends to have kill filed me but reads absolutely everything I write,
> about how meaningful and positive it is to rewrite history.
>
> Once again, Chicago has a statue on an obelisk to Balbo, literally a
> Fascist (one of the men who put Mussolini in power), that still exists to
> this day. It remained up all throughout WWII. The Fascists were the enemy.
>
> No, Balbo should not have been honored, but Mussolini gave it as a gift,
> trying to influence Italian ethnics. The Balbo airlift visited Chicago.
>
> I don't want it removed because I don't want this nonsense swept under
> the rug.
>

On 2022-01-21 1:13 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
>
>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>
>> Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>> to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>> some people
>
> What do you think Mount Rushmore is, you blithering idiot? It's yet
> another illustration turning him into a Greek god.

Except that it doesn't have the black guy and the native.

>
> Dammit Johnston, his promotion of eugenics is in the very first sentence
> of the article. Why do you persist in telling big lies?

It is yes. But the article is wrong in implying that has something to
do with why the statue is being removed. That was just the writer
talking about his own issue with Teddy Roosevelt.

>
> The trouble with Roosevelt is that he wrote more in his short life than
> the next 100 men and would have expressed a thought on absolutely
> anything that entered his head. I'm sure he may have written something
> positive about eugenics, and another time, wrote something negative
> about it. As far as promoting it, as far as I know, there is nothing
> historical about any steps to implement it while in public office.

Oh he definitely advocated for sterilizing criminals. Eugenics was the
darker side of early 20th century progressivism

> Anyway, someone who has read more about him than I have can point out
> that he did promote it as public policy.
>
> With Roosevelt, there's always going to be something in his writing that
> you'll despise and it won't take very long to find it.

On 2022-01-21 3:19 p.m., Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 2:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>>
>> Wrong.  It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>> to do with his belief in eugenics.  The look of him towering on a
>> horse over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him
>> for protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating
>> to some people
>>
> You didn't read the article I cited did you?
>

I did. And it was something less than accurate.

On 1/21/2022 4:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 12:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> A Friend wrote:
>>
>>> There were people who objected to that statue when I was a kid sixty
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Great! It should have remained in place to show that the same public
>> sentiment about turning historical figures into Greek gods for modern
>> political reasons wasn't just limited to former Confederacy Southern
>> states during counter-Reconstruction and Jim Crow.
>>
>> Public art is never intended to be an accurate portrayal of the
>> historial figure. Never. It's always about modern day political
>> sentiment. Tearing down monuments means that we no longer have to be
>> confronted with the ugly feelings of those before us, and it's still
>> done for modern political reasons.
>
> It's art, it's meant to evoke feelings. You want reality, use a photo,
> not a painting.

Verman lacks the basic intelligence to do so.

On 2022-01-21 6:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:13:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>>
>>> Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>> to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>>> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>> some people
>
> So with Washington and Jefferson damned by the woke for having slaves,
> "cancelling" TR leaves us just with Lincoln - anybody taking bets on
> when the talk begins to cancel him? Or is he now to be damned as
> rascist or worse?
>
Worse: Lincoln was a <gasp> REPUBLICAN! Since this is the party Trump
ran for, Lincoln is guilty by association as are all Republicans. And
given that Nixon was also a Republican and covered up Watergate, there
is enough proof that Republicans in general are Not Good People. I
expect they'll come up with a line of argument along that line to
justify cancelling Lincoln in due course, as if merely being white isn't
already enough....

> <sarcasm on>
> Because to the best of my knowledge he never killed a black man but
> permitted 600,000+ white men to be killed for black liberty. I should
> think that would cover a few sins to the woke brigade - but perhaps
> I'm wrong on that
>
You're definitely wrong about that. Today's "progressives" are such
absolutists that the merest wrong act or word, no matter how slight or
subject to dispute, condemns you to perpetual darkness with no
possibility of parole. Of course, if you're one of THEM, then everything
is different: they can find excuses and mitigations for the most heinous
of monsters, including Stalin and Mao.

> Or perhaps the woke would consider the ENTIRE Founding Fathers evil
> for revolting against Britain because Britain ended slavery in 1831
> where it wasn't ended until 34 years later in the United States of
> America. (There's a reason why Wilberforce is one of my personal
> heroes...and has been for years)
>
> [Because as far as I can tell they are in their minds one with the
> Almighty (who most of them don't believe in) because they are never
> ever wrong. And a single slip in any person's lifetime is enough to
> forever damn anybody NOT of their ilk. (And God forbid anyone should
> ever condemn their hypocrisy)]
> <sarcasm off>
>
> To me this is the worst excesses of iconoclasm which I regard as an
> EXTREMELY dirty word particularly in the 21st century.

What bothers me the most if that WE LET THEM DO THIS. Instead of letting
them express their opinions and then politely refuting or
contextualizing whatever they're having the vapours about, we grovel and
acquiesce in their "cancellation" of people and any representations
(like statues or paintings) of them. We piss and moan a bit and then
it's over with the individual that has received their ire being made an
unperson, just like Orwell described in 1984.

--
Rhino

On 2022-01-21 6:59 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:56:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sure this will lead to yet another lecture from Micky DuPree, who
>> pretends to have kill filed me but reads absolutely everything I write,
>> about how meaningful and positive it is to rewrite history.
>>
>> Once again, Chicago has a statue on an obelisk to Balbo, literally a
>> Fascist (one of the men who put Mussolini in power), that still exists to
>> this day. It remained up all throughout WWII. The Fascists were the enemy.
>>
>> No, Balbo should not have been honored, but Mussolini gave it as a gift,
>> trying to influence Italian ethnics. The Balbo airlift visited Chicago.
>>
>> I don't want it removed because I don't want this nonsense swept under
>> the rug.
>
> So when is the Seattle statue of Lenin coming down?

That's apparently on private property so not subject to demolition.

--
Rhino

In article <sshf1r$fvo$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> Today's "progressives" are such absolutists that the merest wrong act
> or word, no matter how slight or subject to dispute, condemns you to
> perpetual darkness with no possibility of parole. Of course, if
> you're one of THEM, then everything is different: they can find
> excuses and mitigations for the most heinous of monsters, including
> Stalin and Mao.

Speaking of absolutism, that was a pretty good example of it right up
there.

In article <sshf51$fvo$2@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2022-01-21 6:59 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:56:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> > <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm sure this will lead to yet another lecture from Micky DuPree, who
> >> pretends to have kill filed me but reads absolutely everything I write,
> >> about how meaningful and positive it is to rewrite history.
> >>
> >> Once again, Chicago has a statue on an obelisk to Balbo, literally a
> >> Fascist (one of the men who put Mussolini in power), that still exists to
> >> this day. It remained up all throughout WWII. The Fascists were the enemy.
> >>
> >> No, Balbo should not have been honored, but Mussolini gave it as a gift,
> >> trying to influence Italian ethnics. The Balbo airlift visited Chicago.
> >>
> >> I don't want it removed because I don't want this nonsense swept under
> >> the rug.
> >
> > So when is the Seattle statue of Lenin coming down?
>
> That's apparently on private property so not subject to demolition.

There's no "apparently" about it. The statue is privately owned and
stands on private property. It's being offered for sale, though, so go
ahead and buy it, and then do whatever you want with it.

So far, no one has done anything but talk -- but that, as they say, is
cheap.

On 1/22/2022 12:41 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <sshf1r$fvo$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Today's "progressives" are such absolutists that the merest wrong act
>> or word, no matter how slight or subject to dispute, condemns you to
>> perpetual darkness with no possibility of parole. Of course, if
>> you're one of THEM, then everything is different: they can find
>> excuses and mitigations for the most heinous of monsters, including
>> Stalin and Mao.
>
> Speaking of absolutism, that was a pretty good example of it right up
> there.

'Absolutism'? I thought we'd wandered into the Brothers Grimm...

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2022-01-21 1:13 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:

>>>>Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,

>>>Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>>to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>>>over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>>protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>>some people

>>What do you think Mount Rushmore is, you blithering idiot? It's yet
>>another illustration turning him into a Greek god.

>Except that it doesn't have the black guy and the native.

On the side of a mountain, he's above EVERYBODY.
>>Dammit Johnston, his promotion of eugenics is in the very first sentence
>>of the article. Why do you persist in telling big lies?

>It is yes. But the article is wrong in implying that has something to
>do with why the statue is being removed. That was just the writer
>talking about his own issue with Teddy Roosevelt.
>>The trouble with Roosevelt is that he wrote more in his short life than
>>the next 100 men and would have expressed a thought on absolutely
>>anything that entered his head. I'm sure he may have written something
>>positive about eugenics, and another time, wrote something negative
>>about it. As far as promoting it, as far as I know, there is nothing
>>historical about any steps to implement it while in public office.

>Oh he definitely advocated for sterilizing criminals. Eugenics was the
>darker side of early 20th century progressivism

Was legislation introduced on his behest to do that? What I'm getting at
I don't believe he did more than express a written opinion.

>>Anyway, someone who has read more about him than I have can point out
>>that he did promote it as public policy.

>>With Roosevelt, there's always going to be something in his writing that
>>you'll despise and it won't take very long to find it.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:13:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,

>>>Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>>to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>>>over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>>protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>>some people

H.G., you retained my attribution line but not my quote. I didn't write
that. Johnston wrote that.

>. . .

On 2022-01-22 5:27 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:31:37 -0500, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-01-21 6:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:13:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>>>> to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>>>>> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>>>> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>>>> some people
>>>
>>> So with Washington and Jefferson damned by the woke for having slaves,
>>> "cancelling" TR leaves us just with Lincoln - anybody taking bets on
>>> when the talk begins to cancel him? Or is he now to be damned as
>>> rascist or worse?
>>>
>> Worse: Lincoln was a <gasp> REPUBLICAN! Since this is the party Trump
>> ran for, Lincoln is guilty by association as are all Republicans. And
>> given that Nixon was also a Republican and covered up Watergate, there
>> is enough proof that Republicans in general are Not Good People. I
>> expect they'll come up with a line of argument along that line to
>> justify cancelling Lincoln in due course, as if merely being white isn't
>> already enough....
>>
>>
>>> <sarcasm on>
>>> Because to the best of my knowledge he never killed a black man but
>>> permitted 600,000+ white men to be killed for black liberty. I should
>>> think that would cover a few sins to the woke brigade - but perhaps
>>> I'm wrong on that
>>>
>> You're definitely wrong about that. Today's "progressives" are such
>> absolutists that the merest wrong act or word, no matter how slight or
>> subject to dispute, condemns you to perpetual darkness with no
>> possibility of parole. Of course, if you're one of THEM, then everything
>> is different: they can find excuses and mitigations for the most heinous
>> of monsters, including Stalin and Mao.
>>
>>> Or perhaps the woke would consider the ENTIRE Founding Fathers evil
>>> for revolting against Britain because Britain ended slavery in 1831
>>> where it wasn't ended until 34 years later in the United States of
>>> America. (There's a reason why Wilberforce is one of my personal
>>> heroes...and has been for years)
>>>
>>> [Because as far as I can tell they are in their minds one with the
>>> Almighty (who most of them don't believe in) because they are never
>>> ever wrong. And a single slip in any person's lifetime is enough to
>>> forever damn anybody NOT of their ilk. (And God forbid anyone should
>>> ever condemn their hypocrisy)]
>>> <sarcasm off>
>>>
>>> To me this is the worst excesses of iconoclasm which I regard as an
>>> EXTREMELY dirty word particularly in the 21st century.
>>
>> What bothers me the most if that WE LET THEM DO THIS. Instead of letting
>> them express their opinions and then politely refuting or
>> contextualizing whatever they're having the vapours about, we grovel and
>> acquiesce in their "cancellation" of people and any representations
>> (like statues or paintings) of them. We piss and moan a bit and then
>> it's over with the individual that has received their ire being made an
>> unperson, just like Orwell described in 1984.
>
> Hopefully it's obvious that my last posting was dripping with sarcasm
> and I pray the grounds for 'cancellation' were only a very bad joke.
>
And mine was dripping with bitterness because what I described SEEMS to
be precisely the way the "progressives" are going and it pisses me off
that they're getting away with almost everything they try to do despite
the sheer ridiculousness of nearly all of it!

> On the other hand the late Howard Green (minister of external affairs
> in the Diefenbaker regime and BC's top MP for 20+ years in the
> 40s/50s/60s) had the new Vancouver federal building named for him.
> This got cancelled when it was "revealed" (not that it was any secret
> at the time) that he had supported internment of Japanese-Canadians in
> 1942.
>
> The building was later renamed for a 2 term MP from Green's party
> Douglas Jung
>
> Similarly the airports in Toronto and Montreal are now named for
> Pearson (6 years as PM) and Trudeau (14 years as PM) while Halifax has
> an AIRPORT TERMINAL (note not the entire airport) after Bob Stanfield
> (who was premier for 11 years and national leader of the opposition
> for 9) (Meanwhile the 3rd largest airport in Canada is officially
> named "YVR" which is the 3 letter code for Vancouver.....so not named
> after anybody!
>
> A bit of favoritism for Liberal politicians vs Conservatives
> peut'etre?

The last time I was in Montreal and going to the airport there, everyone
seemed to still call it Dorval, the old name. Mind you that was going on
20 years ago so it might be more popular to call it Trudeau Airport by
now. At least our politicians have the grace to mostly name things only
after dead people. I've read that a great deal of West Virginia was
named after the (then-living) Senator Byrd! Robert Byrd Parkway, Robert
Byrd Trail, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Mind you, I know that there are several public schools named after Rick
Hansen who is still alive so there are obvious exceptions to the naming
policy.

I'm just glad that Trudeau the Lesser hasn't yet named anything after
the people HE admires, like the current Chinese dictator or Fidel Castro....

--
Rhino

On 2022-01-22 3:45 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-21 1:13 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-21 9:54 a.m., Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in eugenics,
>
>>>> Wrong. It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>>> to do with his belief in eugenics. The look of him towering on a horse
>>>> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>>> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>>> some people
>
>>> What do you think Mount Rushmore is, you blithering idiot? It's yet
>>> another illustration turning him into a Greek god.
>
>> Except that it doesn't have the black guy and the native.
>
> On the side of a mountain, he's above EVERYBODY.
>
>>> Dammit Johnston, his promotion of eugenics is in the very first sentence
>>> of the article. Why do you persist in telling big lies?
>
>> It is yes. But the article is wrong in implying that has something to
>> do with why the statue is being removed. That was just the writer
>> talking about his own issue with Teddy Roosevelt.
>
>>> The trouble with Roosevelt is that he wrote more in his short life than
>>> the next 100 men and would have expressed a thought on absolutely
>>> anything that entered his head. I'm sure he may have written something
>>> positive about eugenics, and another time, wrote something negative
>>> about it. As far as promoting it, as far as I know, there is nothing
>>> historical about any steps to implement it while in public office.
>
>> Oh he definitely advocated for sterilizing criminals. Eugenics was the
>> darker side of early 20th century progressivism
>
> Was legislation introduced on his behest to do that? What I'm getting at
> I don't believe he did more than express a written opinion.

That's true. The sterilization laws were state, not federal
jurisdiction, and by the time the first one was passed in 1907 Roosevelt
was already in federal politics

>
>>> Anyway, someone who has read more about him than I have can point out
>>> that he did promote it as public policy.
>
>>> With Roosevelt, there's always going to be something in his writing that
>>> you'll despise and it won't take very long to find it.

On 2022-01-22 10:31 a.m., Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 6:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:13:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Another one bites the dust, this time for being a believer in
>>>>> eugenics,
>>>
>>>> Wrong.  It's just one statue and the reason it was removed had nothing
>>>> to do with his belief in eugenics.  The look of him towering on a horse
>>>> over semi-naked black and native men as they huddle close to him for
>>>> protection like a gay Vallejo painting was just a bit aggravating to
>>>> some people
>>
>> So with Washington and Jefferson damned by the woke for having slaves,
>> "cancelling" TR leaves us just with Lincoln - anybody taking bets on
>> when the talk begins to cancel him? Or is he now to be damned as
>> rascist or worse?
>>
> Worse: Lincoln was a <gasp> REPUBLICAN! Since this is the party Trump
> ran for,

It's just adorable when you make up imaginary positions for other people
to take.