Odili Virgin Mary Painting
Mary
looked like, and still has not seen it, I've got the URL of a picture of
the painting. I think it's looks a little weird, but, then, i'm not a very
big fan of art, myself. But! Without further ado, here goes!
http://www.chronicleworld.org/images/8_virgin.jpg
--
blah
Tom
You said it's a weird picture. Can you tell me why you posted it?
Mary
: Mary wrote:
:> For anyone that was interested in seeing what Odili's Virgin Mary Painting
:> looked like, and still has not seen it, I've got the URL of a picture of
:> the painting. I think it's looks a little weird, but, then, i'm not a very
:> big fan of art, myself. But! Without further ado, here goes!
:>
:> http://www.chronicleworld.org/images/8_virgin.jpg
: You said it's a weird picture. Can you tell me why you posted it?
So your question is _why_ did I post it? Quoted from above: "For anyone
that was interested in seeing what Odili's Virgin Mary Painting looked
like, and still has not seen it, I've got the URL of a picture
of the painting."
Then comes _my_opinion_ of the picture: "I think it's looks a little
weird,[...]"
I feel like I've just wasted my time simply requoting what was said in the
post you were whining about, but, then, it's all good.
--
blah
Thomas M.
> Tom <tm...@jarac.com> Scribbled:
> : Mary wrote:
>
> :> For anyone that was interested in seeing what Odili's Virgin Mary Painting
> :> looked like, and still has not seen it, I've got the URL of a picture of
> :> the painting. I think it's looks a little weird, but, then, i'm not a very
> :> big fan of art, myself. But! Without further ado, here goes!
> :>
> :> http://www.chronicleworld.org/images/8_virgin.jpg
>
> : You said it's a weird picture. Can you tell me why you posted it?
Why *this particular* representation of the Virgin Mary?
picasso89p
fashion because of his African heritage. He placed elephant dung on the
painting because elephant dung is sacred in Africa. The cut-up
pornographic pictures around Mary create an allusion to Renaissance
artists use of angels aureoles to surround Mary in their paintings. As
a result of this controversial work, Mr Ofili now has a waiting list of
20 museums and collectors to purchase his work. Currently, his
paintings are worth $50,000 each- yet may rise due to the publicity
created by his Virgin Mary painting.
Ofili lives in England and was the winner of the Tate Museums Turner
Prize a few years back.
Justin K
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Thomas M.
> Thomas M. <tm...@jarac.com> Scribbled:
>
> : Why *this particular* representation of the Virgin Mary?
>
> Did you know *this particular* representation of the Virgin Mary made
> controversial news a while ago? Nuns marching? Mayor of NYC refusing to
> fund the library till it was removed? Elephant dung? Hello? Ring a
> bell? If not, then the picture was not meant for you as I explicitly
> started my message with "for those of you interested."
>
> --
> blah
Why is elephant dung sacred in Africa!!??
picasso89p
American. The painting is owned by Charles Saatchi, the real estate
tycoon. All of the art works in the exhibition are owned by him. In
fact, the exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum is titled "Sensations:
Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection"
picasso89p
cultures.
Mary
Mary
: Why is elephant dung sacred in Africa!!??
That would be some parts of Africa, because I don't know of elephant
dung being sacred in my home town. I don't know why it is sacred in those
parts of Africa, ask someone else.
--
blah
ClockWFT
>First, his name is Chris Ofili. He chose to portray
>Mary in this fashion because of his African
>heritage.
And by consciously chosing to have his work displayed in the US, where he knew
his juxitpositioning of the Virgin and dung would be resented, he showed a few
truckloads of cultural insensitivity.
Mary
: And by consciously chosing to have his work displayed in the US, where he knew
: his juxitpositioning of the Virgin and dung would be resented, he showed a few
: truckloads of cultural insensitivity.
wow. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've heard/read today. And
just so I attempt to contribute something, be reminded that the US is the
hottest spot when it comes to Economics, for sure, and the US might as
well be one of the most diverse countries, which is open to new things all
the time. Maybe you should flip the coin and wonder where the sensitivity
was to his own work.
--
blah
Mary
: fact, the exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum is titled "Sensations:
: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection"
So what became of the Museum case? Did they have to remove the painting,
or is it still there?
--
blah
Wayne Johnson
Either this guy is too unsophisticated to know that elephant shit and
porno shots were going to piss off Christians, or he isn't.
If you're saying he's some rube from the countryside who didn't know
any better, make it clear.
If he's actually a person who had enough experience to know that his
construction was going to be totally offensive to most people who are
religious, then your comment makes no sense at all.
Please tell me that YOU think that the United States is going to be
open to New Things like portraying Christian holy figures in elephant
shit, covered with porno shots. Even as dumb as you act, I don't
think you'd buy into that kind of stupidity.
Wayne "Now, scribble some shit about how blah you feel about that"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Nurse KAT
>Re: Odili Virgin Mary Painting
>And by consciously chosing to have his
>work displayed in the US, where he knew
>his juxitpositioning of the Virgin and dung
>would be resented, he showed a few
>truckloads of cultural insensitivity.
Displaying this picture in the US showed cultural insensitivity to
whom...the entire US? This statement tells me that you feel the US is
composed of just one culture. There are many that were NOT
offended...in fact, there are many who don't even embrace the concept of
"the Virgin."
When you live in a country deemed as a "melting pot," everything one
says, does, or creates has the potential to offend SOMEONE. Thank God
we can choose NOT to view what we find offensive.
Nurse KAT says: Symbolic perception isn't supposed to count for much
when we're talking about, say, the confederate flag, but thrown some
shit on a canvas and suddenly one is displaying "US...cultural
insensitivity." Sounds like a double standard to me. PEACE!
trudogg®
> Either this guy is too unsophisticated to know that elephant shit and
> porno shots were going to piss off Christians, or he isn't.
> If you're saying he's some rube from the countryside who didn't know
> any better, make it clear.
He sounds like a very clever fellow who realizes what it takes to make
a name for himself and get the best buck for his stuff...
Mary
:> Or you can argue that it shows American's complete ignorance of other
:> cultures.
: The dung worshiping culture?
he he ;) I didn't quite agree with the person's statement above, but
of "Say What?", I can at least say that he doesn't know the last thing
about this whole dung issue.
--
blah
Mary
: Either this guy is too unsophisticated to know that elephant shit and
: porno shots were going to piss off Christians, or he isn't.
Being that he's based in the UK (I believe), are you trying to say that
there weren't any Christians that might have gotten pissed off if he did
release it there? Open your mind and think; the only valid argument that
you might have is that he shouldn't have released it at all, not that the
United States was such Holy ground full of Christians where he shouldn't
have released it, (which was, by the way, what I understood from Clock's
post - if this isn't your point, you're out of line, as usual. And if
this wasn't Clocks point, then I apologize to her.) As will would have it,
he's already made the painting, used it to express himself, and it had to
be released somewhere. My point being that he didn't come to the US just
to thread on Christians' toes, because he could very well have done that
back in the UK.
Thanks to the huge ass controversy and media attention the painting has
drawn, if and when those other Musuems do buy the painting, it might not
be known as the protrayal of the Virgin Mary, but as the painting that
caused waves in the NYC Musuem. So thank people like yourself for making
it more popular. Hah!.
: Wayne "Now, scribble some shit about how blah you feel about that"
Look here, bitch, if you've got something to say to me, just say it, and
reserve those idiotic lines for yourself when jacking off in your private
closet.
--
blah
Mary
: He sounds like a very clever fellow who realizes what it takes to make
: a name for himself and get the best buck for his stuff...
And you may follow the coming to the United States is one of the ways to
do that. I'm not saying that the US is a perfect land flowing with Milk
and Honey, but it is way above many others when it comes to
Economics. Definitely. The most I believe anyone can sucessfully do is
convince me that the painting is crap (well, it literally is), but you
cannot say that he came here just to ooooooooooh! Offend Christians.
--
blah
trudogg®
> ...The most I believe anyone can sucessfully do is
> convince me that the painting is crap (well, it literally is), but you
> cannot say that he came here just to ooooooooooh! Offend Christians.
I'd hazard a guess and say that was the exact point. It worked, it
made the news and now his paintings are hot commodities. Where else
but in the good ol' US of A...
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> Scribbled:
>
>: Either this guy is too unsophisticated to know that elephant shit and
>: porno shots were going to piss off Christians, or he isn't.
>
>Being that he's based in the UK (I believe), are you trying to say that
>there weren't any Christians that might have gotten pissed off if he did
>release it there?
I really don't care who he pisses off, as long as I don't have to pay
money for it. As for the UK, the discussion was about the U.S., not
some other place.
I'm not offended by this guy's art, any more than I would be offended
if some lunatic someplace decided to stand on a street corner and
curse God Himself. It would just prove that he's a lunatic. This
"artist" and his supporters just look like the type of idiots that
need attention, and to claim that they didn't know what they were
doing is totally ludicrous.
>Open your mind and think; the only valid argument that
>you might have is that he shouldn't have released it at all, not that the
>United States was such Holy ground full of Christians where he shouldn't
>have released it, (which was, by the way, what I understood from Clock's
>post - if this isn't your point, you're out of line, as usual. And if
>this wasn't Clocks point, then I apologize to her.)
I don't give a damn where he "released" it. This is America, where
anyone can release a picture of himself having sex with a blow up doll
dressed as the Madonna if he likes. It only reflects the mentality of
the "artist", and their need to insult someone else's religious
belief, which is a concept that probably delights someone like your
scribbling, blah self.
>As will would have it,
>he's already made the painting, used it to express himself, and it had to
>be released somewhere. My point being that he didn't come to the US just
>to thread on Christians' toes, because he could very well have done that
>back in the UK.
Again, who cares about the location, or whatever? He does it for fame
and money, so what is your point?
>Thanks to the huge ass controversy and media attention the painting has
>drawn, if and when those other Musuems do buy the painting, it might not
>be known as the protrayal of the Virgin Mary, but as the painting that
>caused waves in the NYC Musuem. So thank people like yourself for making
>it more popular. Hah!.
I have paid absolutely no attention to this "controversy", as the
machinations of lunatics and wealthy attention getters in the art
world are old news.
>: Wayne "Now, scribble some shit about how blah you feel about that"
>
>Look here, bitch, if you've got something to say to me, just say it, and
>reserve those idiotic lines for yourself when jacking off in your private
>closet.
It's obvious that you and Ofili are pretty much the same, with this
kind of simplistic begging for excoriation by the public. Every post
you write has built into it an initial dismissal of the writings of
others as "scribble", no matter who wrote it; and every post ends with
a further dismissal as "blah", insulting every comment made, no matter
by who. As a person who has praised every racist posting to SCAA
since you showed up here, it's safe to say that your insults have all
the effectiveness of a lit fart.
Wayne "...and all the accuracy..." Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
picasso89p
precise. His intention was not to mock the image of Mary. Regardless,
the painting was sold to Mr Charles Saatchi. He then included this
painting in the "sensations" exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
The mayor's actions only served to create this publicity. If the mayor
had not spoken out against the show, the show itself would have caused
no controversy. The painting is nothing spectacular, in the decorative
sense. But because of Guilani's actions, Ofili is now a hot commodity
for collectors and museums.
A judge ruled that Giulani's action of cutting funding for the museum
violated the first ammendment. The funding has been restored. The
exhibit is now over. It was supposed to travel to Australia but the
museum cancelled the show due to the controversy it caused in the US.
As a result, Guilani pleased his Catholic constituents by taking a
stand and Mr Ofili and the rest of the Sensations artists are now
enjoying great exposure and most likely increased prices
Justin K
Thomas M.
"trudoggŽ" wrote:
Why not Africa?
Thomas M.
> Or you can argue that it shows American's complete ignorance of other
> cultures.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Elephant dung is culture?
Mary
: I'd hazard a guess and say that was the exact point. It worked, it
: made the news and now his paintings are hot commodities. Where else
: but in the good ol' US of A...
If offending Christians was his reason for releasing it in the States,
then he very well could have as well released it in any other country in
which there were Christians.
--
blah
Mary
: I really don't care who he pisses off, as long as I don't have to pay
: money for it. As for the UK, the discussion was about the U.S., not
: some other place.
That's right, it was about pissing off the country's "culture", which
would be what else, apart from Christianity, if I may ask? Do
non-Christians give a crap about this? I don't think so. Given that it was
about Christians, my point was that if pissing off Christians was his
purpose, he could have done that in the UK where there are also
Christians. So I don't really see how it can exclude other places, given
that there are Christians there, too.
: I'm not offended by this guy's art, any more than I would be offended
: if some lunatic someplace decided to stand on a street corner and
: curse God Himself. It would just prove that he's a lunatic. This
: "artist" and his supporters just look like the type of idiots that
: need attention, and to claim that they didn't know what they were
: doing is totally ludicrous.
Just for curiousity's sakes, have you thought of what he claims to be the
sacredness of elephant dung in his culture? What do you think about that?
: I don't give a damn where he "released" it.
Stay with me, Wayne, you just said this was only about the United States,
oh?
: This is America, where
: anyone can release a picture of himself having sex with a blow up doll
: dressed as the Madonna if he likes. It only reflects the mentality of
: the "artist", and their need to insult someone else's religious
: belief,
So what if his intention was not to insult the religion? Isn't Art meant
to be the expression of the artist, anymore? Since when is Art made to
please the public? Are you just standing there and yelling, or have you
made any attempt at even glancing at what the Artist said he was trying to
protray?
: which is a concept that probably delights someone like your
: scribbling, blah self.
This shall be labelled [Shot 1], I think I'll just wait to handle [Shot 2]
: Again, who cares about the location, or whatever?
Clock did, okay? She made a point, and I responded to it. If you don't
care, maybe you should have thought of that before jumping into the
thread.
: He does it for fame
: and money,
And to express himself in whatever manner ye now see.
: so what is your point?
I've made it, if you're not interested, that's none of my business, so
don't try to make it mine.
: I have paid absolutely no attention to this "controversy",
Oh, no, you haven't!
: It's obvious that you and Ofili are pretty much the same, with this
: kind of simplistic begging for excoriation by the public.
he he ;) If this is how you define Ofili's character, I say you fit the
mold better than the model itself!
: Every post
: you write has built into it an initial dismissal of the writings of
: others as "scribble", no matter who wrote it;
Hold on, now. Are we on Ofili, and my supposed seeking for attention (hey,
may I come get some attention seeking lessons, sometime?), or are we on my
sig and quoting header?
: and every post ends with
: a further dismissal as "blah", insulting every comment made, no matter
: by who.
hmm...like, I knew there had to be a source of your extreme
bitterness. Well, thanks for noticing nothing; I'll now wait for ten new
ideas to come before I change those things.
: As a person who has praised every racist posting to SCAA
: since you showed up here,
Liar boy...
: it's safe to say that your insults have all
: the effectiveness of a lit fart.
Damn. Now you're totally deluded. Sigs, Ofili, attention, quoting headers,
praising every racist post, insults. WOW! That was broad, man! Can we get
back on topic, now?
--
blah
Mary
: Why not Africa?
yeah...why aren't all Africans doing business only in Africa? heh, how
about this one: Why aren't all Americans doing business only in the US of
A?
--
blah
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> Scribbled:
I use a keyboard.
>: I really don't care who he pisses off, as long as I don't have to pay
>: money for it. As for the UK, the discussion was about the U.S., not
>: some other place.
>
>That's right, it was about pissing off the country's "culture", which
>would be what else, apart from Christianity, if I may ask?
What makes you think it has anything to do with nationhood? And
again, I personally don't give a hoot who he offends, as being
offensive is what most people who seek attention try first. It gets
boring. As you well know.
See xona, or your own posts, for details.
>Do non-Christians give a crap about this? I don't think so.
Just as non-Muslims didn't give a hoot about Salman Rushdie, either.
It simply depends on whose ox is gored.
>Given that it was
>about Christians, my point was that if pissing off Christians was his
>purpose, he could have done that in the UK where there are also
>Christians.
What are you babbling about? He didn't design a heat seeking missile
and aim it at the United States; he globbed together some elephant
shit and some porno pictures, and tried to find out if it would get
some attention. It worked, and it wound up getting attention in the
United States.
I don't think anybody actually saw it as some kind of assault. I
think it simply outraged some people, who happened to be in the United
States with his clods of elephant shit when the furor arose.
>So I don't really see how it can exclude other places, given
>that there are Christians there, too.
I can't understand this statement at all, unless you were holding a
conversation with someone else about this. Who excluded anyplace?
>: I'm not offended by this guy's art, any more than I would be offended
>: if some lunatic someplace decided to stand on a street corner and
>: curse God Himself. It would just prove that he's a lunatic. This
>: "artist" and his supporters just look like the type of idiots that
>: need attention, and to claim that they didn't know what they were
>: doing is totally ludicrous.
>
>Just for curiousity's sakes, have you thought of what he claims to be the
>sacredness of elephant dung in his culture? What do you think about that?
Is this guy supposed to be so unsophisticated that he wouldn't know
that juxtaposing animal shit and porno pictures with Christian icons
would be offensive to religious Christians? I doubt that, since it
seems that this fellow was very cognizant of cultural mores in
selecting porno pictures for this picture.
If this fellow actually felt that his own cultural standards shouldn't
be questioned or denigrated - for example, he probably wouldn't want
someone to explain to him that elephant shit is nasty, and not in any
way sacred - then it follows that he wouldn't wish to go out of his
way to screw around with other's ideals.
So I doubt the facile excuse that he held clods of shit to be sacred
is a reasonable excuse. Either he knew it would be offensive, or he
didn't. I don't buy the idea that he simply didn't know; further, I'm
sure he meant to intentionally outrage whatever audience saw his
creations, and if you wish to explain why he shouldn't have known what
he was doing, I'd like to hear it.
>: I don't give a damn where he "released" it.
>
>Stay with me, Wayne, you just said this was only about the United States,
>oh?
Wrong poster. We were discussing the American reaction to it; not the
genesis of the artist, or why it wasn't released or shown somewhere
else.
I also pointed out that his silly work doesn't offend me at all, in
and of itself. I just tire of intentional insensitivity on the part
of silly art mavens, critics, and other twits who constantly look for
ways to outrage the public, like the pedophile who made huge
billboards of little boys playing in their underwear, designed to turn
on the kind of weirdos who like that kind of thing.
That happened in America, too. Along with the notorious "Piss Christ"
business, with a statue of Christ immersed in a glass jar somebody
pissed in.
If you want to talk about some other country, go ahead.
>: This is America, where
>: anyone can release a picture of himself having sex with a blow up doll
>: dressed as the Madonna if he likes. It only reflects the mentality of
>: the "artist", and their need to insult someone else's religious
>: belief,
>
>So what if his intention was not to insult the religion?
Are you saying this guy is simply stupid?
>Isn't Art meant to be the expression of the artist, anymore?
Sure. He can express the fact that he is an asshole, which he was
quite successful in getting across. I don't give a damn, as I
wouldn't pay a nickle to cross the street to spit on his "Art". Would
you?
>Since when is Art made to please the public?
Perhaps you miss your own point. This clown is making major dollars
off of assholes who buy elephant shit, surrounded by porno pictures,
which has some resemblance to classic images of the Madonna. I
imagine that this pleases the public, to some degree, since he will
make money off of it. If he didn't give a damn what the public
wanted, he wouldn't try to sell it, now would he?
>Are you just standing there and yelling, or have you
>made any attempt at even glancing at what the Artist said he was trying to
>protray?
Aw, to hell with that guy. Like I said, I have no interest in clowns
like that. I've seen real art, that offended sectors of the populace,
and they are some of my favorite artists. These artists span the
centuries,and if you want to discuss it, you can see the works of
Keinholz, in this century, or Van Gogh (who no one gave a damn about
when he was alive), or Brueghel, or Bosch.
There is power in what is odd, or grotesque, or outrageous, on many
different levels. This kind of cartoon oddity is not something truly
challenging; it is simplistic sensationalism, designed to get
headlines, not heads thinking.
If this is what you capitalize as Art, you need to spend more time
looking at art. Start on your own continent. Do you think that the
magnificent art of West Africa was done only to delight paying
customers, for God's sake?
>: which is a concept that probably delights someone like your
>: scribbling, blah self.
>
>This shall be labelled [Shot 1], I think I'll just wait to handle [Shot 2]
Start using your damned brain, and stop all this "who can I piss off
today" bullshit. You're capable of a far higher level of discourse
than you've ever tried to show in this group on a sustained basis, and
the first thing you need to do is knock off this bullshit of beginning
and ending every post with an insult.
>: Again, who cares about the location, or whatever?
>
>Clock did, okay? She made a point, and I responded to it. If you don't
>care, maybe you should have thought of that before jumping into the
>thread.
It's obvious you're trying to nail down Americans, for some reason.
Americans say, quite clearly, that this guy has a legal right to
display his stuff under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Try
that in the Vatican, and get back to us.
>: He does it for fame
>: and money,
>
>And to express himself in whatever manner ye now see.
Like I said: the guy wanted to express the fact that he is an asshole,
which some people find quite exciting.
>: so what is your point?
>
>I've made it, if you're not interested, that's none of my business, so
>don't try to make it mine.
You're ducking the question, but that's not surprising.
>: I have paid absolutely no attention to this "controversy",
>
>Oh, no, you haven't!
No kidding. Remember when this first came up in this group, where
your cute racist friends all decided that this was more TBN, or
whatever it is? I really didn't give a damn; watching a bunch of
religious fanatics go ballistic about what is essentially a troll
strikes me as quite dumb.
>: It's obvious that you and Ofili are pretty much the same, with this
>: kind of simplistic begging for excoriation by the public.
>
>he he ;) If this is how you define Ofili's character, I say you fit the
>mold better than the model itself!
One more time: do you think this guy knew his shit scribbling was
offensive, or not?
>: Every post
>: you write has built into it an initial dismissal of the writings of
>: others as "scribble", no matter who wrote it;
>
>Hold on, now. Are we on Ofili, and my supposed seeking for attention (hey,
>may I come get some attention seeking lessons, sometime?), or are we on my
>sig and quoting header?
We're talking about intentionally offensive actions, directed at
anyone who comes along.
>: and every post ends with
>: a further dismissal as "blah", insulting every comment made, no matter
>: by who.
>
>hmm...like, I knew there had to be a source of your extreme
>bitterness. Well, thanks for noticing nothing; I'll now wait for ten new
>ideas to come before I change those things.
I only mention it because you repeatedly act as if I'm out to offend
people. So far, I've scorched people in SCAA who come in here and
ally themselves with racists - something you've done regularly since
coming here.
With a paucity of decent posters in this group to offend, you've taken
to putting an offensive header and sig on each post. It's your
attitude; it's people of your ilk who like weirdos like Ofili. What's
your beef with my assessment?
>: As a person who has praised every racist posting to SCAA
>: since you showed up here,
>
>Liar boy...
Tell it to badboy3000, or Fatass.
>: it's safe to say that your insults have all
>: the effectiveness of a lit fart.
>
>Damn. Now you're totally deluded. Sigs, Ofili, attention, quoting headers,
>praising every racist post, insults. WOW! That was broad, man! Can we get
>back on topic, now?
Sure. Do you think Ofili knew his shit smearings were offensive, or
not?
>--
>blah
If you don't give a damn, why should anyone answer your posts?
Wayne "Tell us which culture in Africa sees shit as sacred, when you
find out" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Mary
: I use a keyboard.
If you want me to change my quote line, Wayne, you're gonna havo to quit
messing around and ask politely.
:>That's right, it was about pissing off the country's "culture", which
:>would be what else, apart from Christianity, if I may ask?
: What makes you think it has anything to do with nationhood?
Clock did. If you don't follow this aspect of the conversation, then we're
simply not communicating.
: And
: again, I personally don't give a hoot who he offends, as being
: offensive is what most people who seek attention try first. It gets
: boring. As you well know.
And you wouldn't?
: See xona, or your own posts, for details.
Absolutely no way, man, I'd rather refer to your posts!
:>Do non-Christians give a crap about this? I don't think so.
: Just as non-Muslims didn't give a hoot about Salman Rushdie, either.
: It simply depends on whose ox is gored.
Great. So what does that make of Clock's statement (to which I responded),
which tried to pass across the fact that he came here to be insensitive to
other people's cultures?
:>Given that it was
:>about Christians, my point was that if pissing off Christians was his
:>purpose, he could have done that in the UK where there are also
:>Christians.
: What are you babbling about?
I think there's a slight problem with your attention span. You had no clue
what Clock's post was about, no clue what my response was about - why
don't you just go ahead and rename the thread, or something, so we may get
a start from there?
: He didn't design a heat seeking missile
: and aim it at the United States; he globbed together some elephant
: shit and some porno pictures, and tried to find out if it would get
: some attention. It worked, and it wound up getting attention in the
: United States.
Yes. So did he come here just to be insensitive to other people's
cultures? That's the theme of what I'm on this thread for. If you have no
contributions to that, we cannot communicate, because this is what I'm
talking about!!!
: I don't think anybody actually saw it as some kind of assault. I
: think it simply outraged some people, who happened to be in the United
: States with his clods of elephant shit when the furor arose.
Many Arts have offended people; be they Impressionist Paintings or
Elephant dung covered paintings.
:>So I don't really see how it can exclude other places, given
:>that there are Christians there, too.
: I can't understand this statement at all, unless you were holding a
: conversation with someone else about this. Who excluded anyplace?
You just said we were only talking about the United States, and that this
discussion wasn't about the UK - which I introduced because this painting
is clearly supposed to have offended Christians, and definitely not
everyone in the United States.
: If this fellow actually felt that his own cultural standards shouldn't
: be questioned or denigrated - for example, he probably wouldn't want
: someone to explain to him that elephant shit is nasty, and not in any
: way sacred -
oh? Now you're telling him about his own culture?
: then it follows that he wouldn't wish to go out of his
: way to screw around with other's ideals.
No, it's not "other's" ideals, there may very well be Christians where
he's from. So maybe the question would be, how could he hold elephant dung
as sacred, if he winds up trying to represent a Christian figure in his
paintings? I'll give you a hint as to the answer. Ever heard of 95%
Christian and 100% traditionalists, especially in colonized cultures?
Apparently, you're just focusing on your own rage and not in anyway trying
to understand the Painter's goddamn point. Good for you. As I have pointed
out in the past and you've somewhat agreed, he wasn't seeking to please
and he definitely wasn't seeking to please you.
: So I doubt the facile excuse that he held clods of shit to be sacred
: is a reasonable excuse. Either he knew it would be offensive, or he
: didn't. I don't buy the idea that he simply didn't know;
I don't recall saying he didn't know. I'd personally rather consider the
fact that he knew but decided to let his own expression take precedence,
as I believe should be, in Art.
: further, I'm
: sure he meant to intentionally outrage whatever audience saw his
: creations,
He could have decided to let them be outraged. I gather that Impressionist
Exhibits used to offend tons of people. I'm all for trying something new,
especially when you have a point to them. I'll go ahead and tell you that
I don't understand the porno pieces in the work, but if he says the
elephant dung is sacred where he's from, I'll take it like that till it's
proven otherwise.
: and if you wish to explain why he shouldn't have known what
: he was doing, I'd like to hear it.
Go ask someone who said he didn't know what he was doing.
: Wrong poster. We were discussing the American reaction to it; not the
: genesis of the artist,
Which included the Bad reaction coming from Christians in the US.
: or why it wasn't released or shown somewhere
: else.
These paintings could have been released in the UK, where there were
Christians that could be offended. If you still don't understand my
introduction of the UK as an example, I don't think you ever will.
: I also pointed out that his silly work doesn't offend me at all, in
: and of itself. I just tire of intentional insensitivity on the part
: of silly art mavens, critics, and other twits who constantly look for
: ways to outrage the public, like the pedophile who made huge
: billboards of little boys playing in their underwear, designed to turn
: on the kind of weirdos who like that kind of thing.
I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that you cannot please everyone in
the US. I've read your above paragraph, and I choose to focus on the last
part begining from "designed[...]". If you don't think you're the audience
of such painting, FINE! Don't look, and just don't get yourself
involved. The people who were it's audience may have had a better day
because of those paintings. Too bad it had to be at the expense of people
who didn't like the idea of such paintings being made in the first place,
but what were they doing looking at them?
: That happened in America, too. Along with the notorious "Piss Christ"
: business, with a statue of Christ immersed in a glass jar somebody
: pissed in.
I don't know about the piss christ, or what may have been it's point. At
this point, I don't wanna know, and I mean it.
: If you want to talk about some other country, go ahead.
well.
: Are you saying this guy is simply stupid?
No, I'm saying you've come on this thread without knowing what I was
talking about, in the first place, ready with all your fangs to insult
from the start, you're not going to gain anything from me, and I
definitely have not and will not gain anything from you.
: Sure. He can express the fact that he is an asshole, which he was
: quite successful in getting across.
Good for you, if that's how you perceive him.
: I don't give a damn, as I
: wouldn't pay a nickle to cross the street to spit on his "Art". Would
: you?
I checked it out on the Internet, as I already told you, I'm not a very
big fan of Art. When I have my home, it'll rather have big picture frames
of myself and my relatives, and maybe something like what's in my home
back in Nigeria - it's a big frame with, like, this picture or painting of
different assorted fruits in a basket. But I'm definitely not into
Artsy-Artsy things. If you gave me one for free, I'd hand them to someone
who'd appreciate them better.
:>Since when is Art made to please the public?
: Perhaps you miss your own point. This clown is making major dollars
: off of assholes who buy elephant shit, surrounded by porno pictures,
: which has some resemblance to classic images of the Madonna. I
: imagine that this pleases the public, to some degree, since he will
: make money off of it. If he didn't give a damn what the public
: wanted, he wouldn't try to sell it, now would he?
Is this a long way of saying that every piece of Art sold is definitely
made exclusively to please the public, without the first notion of the
Artist's expression?
:>Are you just standing there and yelling, or have you
:>made any attempt at even glancing at what the Artist said he was trying to
:>protray?
: Aw, to hell with that guy.
Oh, great. I was begining to think you'd tried to understand his end of
the coin but just didn't make any sense of it.
: and they are some of my favorite artists. These artists span the
: centuries,and if you want to discuss it, you can see the works of
: Keinholz, in this century, or Van Gogh (who no one gave a damn about
: when he was alive), or Brueghel, or Bosch.
I personally like the sound of "The Rembrant", but, as you will find out
in a few lines above this, I don't celebrate Art much, at all.
: There is power in what is odd, or grotesque, or outrageous, on many
: different levels. This kind of cartoon oddity is not something truly
: challenging; it is simplistic sensationalism, designed to get
: headlines, not heads thinking.
That's how you perceive it, you haven't made any attempt at understanding
the painter for reasons best known to yourself, so good for you.
: If this is what you capitalize as Art, you need to spend more time
: looking at art. Start on your own continent. Do you think that the
: magnificent art of West Africa was done only to delight paying
: customers, for God's sake?
You've made so many assumptions on this one post, I don't even know where
to start from.
: Start using your damned brain, and stop all this "who can I piss off
: today" bullshit.
Look here, fool, from what it seems like, around here, people hardly read
posts on this newsgroup. If I wanted to piss people off, I'd, at least,
post on a group that people read. I found the goddamn picture on the net,
posted it for anyone to see, and made a comment on the ensuing
thread. Then came you with your, Whoa! Let me dictate a few of my thoughts
on this thread, call them right, and decide not to listen to what anyone
else has to say, and now I'm the one seeking to piss off people?
: You're capable of a far higher level of discourse
: than you've ever tried to show in this group on a sustained basis, and
: the first thing you need to do is knock off this bullshit of beginning
: and ending every post with an insult.
Beg me, Wayne. Say please! You can rest assured that your indirect ways of
dictating to me to remove my quote line will never work, and actually,
since I don't like you, even if you asked politely, I most probably will
refuse. So if it makes you feel any better, keep on with your third grade
insults.
: It's obvious you're trying to nail down Americans, for some reason.
Assumption #383849240998934 on this one post. I've consistently tried to
mention another country, just to butress the fact that I think this is
about Christianity and not Americans, and here you are TELLING me what I'm
trying to do.
: Americans say, quite clearly, that this guy has a legal right to
: display his stuff under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Try
: that in the Vatican, and get back to us.
Try using your freedom of Speech in some other countries, and get back to
us.
: Like I said: the guy wanted to express the fact that he is an asshole,
: which some people find quite exciting.
And I gather from that that you're simply not his audience.
:>: so what is your point?
:>
:>I've made it, if you're not interested, that's none of my business, so
:>don't try to make it mine.
: You're ducking the question, but that's not surprising.
I made my point right from the begining. I don't quite wish to repeat
myself, but if someone else asked, I probably would.
: No kidding. Remember when this first came up in this group, where
: your cute racist friends all decided that this was more TBN, or
: whatever it is?
<chuckle> What are you talking about?
: One more time: do you think this guy knew his shit scribbling was
: offensive, or not?
I'll give you a straight up answer, he most probably did know it would
have been - to a certain group of people who wouldn't try to understand
it but still want to make commentaries on it like they were the ones who
made the paintings.
: We're talking about intentionally offensive actions, directed at
: anyone who comes along.
Oh! Now I see where we are! I thought we were still on some comment Clock
made a while back! Which made perfect sense to me, because that's where my
replies are coming from, in the first place.
: I only mention it because you repeatedly act as if I'm out to offend
: people.
No, I don't. Unless you're talking about round #10 of your wars with GG,
which I don't read, but only pass the occasional comment when someone like
maybe Kat (no offence, Nurse), thinks GG is the Originator of repost
fests, or something. I also do the same when I'm tagged the attention
seeker, when WJ is really the master of them all!
: So far, I've scorched people in SCAA who come in here and
: ally themselves with racists - something you've done regularly since
: coming here.
That's what you've understood of me, and since I don't like you, either, I
don't care what you think about me.
: With a paucity of decent posters in this group to offend, you've taken
: to putting an offensive header and sig on each post. It's your
: attitude; it's people of your ilk who like weirdos like Ofili.
Another assumption, I haven't said I liked the man or his painting. Which
sounds very possible, to me, because I'm not into Art.
: Tell it to badboy3000, or Fatass.
You were the one who asked, I've answered you, and each time, you
pretended like you never saw a response from me. Typical from you, who
comes on threads simply for monolouges. I feel like I've really really
wasted my time replying to you, but that's okay, here I am, awake by 2
o'clock in the AM, don't feel like studying, so replying to this post
and others isn't such a bad idea.
: If you don't give a damn, why should anyone answer your posts?
I don't know, why do you answer my posts? Also, maybe you should attempt
to find out what I wanted to express when I chose "blah" as my sig! :)
: Wayne "Tell us which culture in Africa sees shit as sacred, when you
: find out" Johnson
Ofili would be a better source of that info, and, hey, I'm actually
impressed, you do want to gain some knowledge afterall!
<thinks again> NAH! ;)
--
blah
trudogg®
> If offending Christians was his reason for releasing it in the States,
> then he very well could have as well released it in any other country in
> which there were Christians.
But in what other country would he get the exposure? In what other
country would he find the perfect mix of tight-assed self-
righteousness and loudly proclaimed hypocritical religious beliefs? I
venture that we alone can supply those particular components to his
success...
Mary
: But in what other country would he get the exposure? In what other
: country would he find the perfect mix of tight-assed self-
: righteousness and loudly proclaimed hypocritical religious beliefs? I
: venture that we alone can supply those particular components to his
: success...
I must admit, you've gotta point, there!
--
blah
ClockWFT
[vis a vis the controvery surrounding Odili's Virgin
>and elephant dung Object D'..."}
>Is this guy supposed to be so unsophisti-
>cated that he wouldn't know that juxtapos-
>ing animal shit and porno pictures with Christ-
>ian icons would be offensive to religious Christ-
>ians? I doubt that,
As do I. Well said....
>So I doubt the facile excuse that he held clods
>of shit to be sacred is a reasonable excuse.
Yep. But then, one can't fault him for tossing this excuse out....since it so
conspicuously adheres to the category of "cultural excuse-making" that is so
popular, and succesful, these days.
>
>I also pointed out that his silly work doesn't
>offend me at all, in and of itself.
Nor I...
>I just tire of intentional insensitivity on the part
>of silly art mavens, critics, and other twits who
>constantly look for ways to outrage the public,
Spot on, sir. And I would add that I find tiring that this practice finds most
of its defenders when it targets certain cultures.
Wayne Johnson
>>Wayne wrote:
>>So I doubt the facile excuse that he held clods
>>of shit to be sacred is a reasonable excuse.
>
>Yep. But then, one can't fault him for tossing this excuse out....since it so
>conspicuously adheres to the category of "cultural excuse-making" that is so
>popular, and succesful, these days.
True, when you consider the need of some people to hold up symbols of
slavery, such as the Confederate Battle Flag, as respectable icons.
>>I just tire of intentional insensitivity on the part
>>of silly art mavens, critics, and other twits who
>>constantly look for ways to outrage the public,
>
>Spot on, sir. And I would add that I find tiring that this practice finds most
>of its defenders when it targets certain cultures.
Yes, when the descendants of slaves object to things like the
Confederate Battle Flag, the hypocrisy of the proponents of such
things becomes quite apparent.
Wayne "I'm glad you're adopting the even-handed approach to such
issues" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Christopher Kerr
> Damn. Now you're totally deluded. Sigs, Ofili, attention, quoting headers,
> praising every racist post, insults. WOW! That was broad, man! Can we get
> back on topic, now?
>
> --
> blah
On topic? You are mouthing off about Ofili and what you claim to be his
views on elephant dung and art. I doubt you know much about him at all.
Ofili was born in Manchester in 1968, but his scholarship in Zimbabwe
had the most influence on his style. This is where he first began to
make use of elephant dung, the most distinctive aspect of his work. It
was also in Africa where he started using dots in his paintings.
In his own words:
"I saw a wall in a cave completely covered in very small dots made
with a sharpened twig. The concentration of that wall of dots just
kind of blew me away; it was quite a memorable thing."
"I'm interested in ideas of beauty. Elephant dung in itself is quite a
beautiful object, a different sort of beauty. I want to bring the
beauty and decorativeness of the paintings together with the
apparent concept of ugliness with shit and try to make them exist in
that twilight zone...you know that they're there, but you can't really
ever feel totally comfortable with it."
This kind of sentiment was apparently what inspired his memorable
"Double Captain Shit and the Legend of the Black Stars".
He's entitled to paint whatever he wishes; I'm entitled to argue that
taxpayers ought not have to pay for his work.
Christopher
ClockWFT
>>>So I doubt the facile excuse that he held
>>>able excuse.
>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>Yep. But then, one can't fault him for toss-
>>ing this excuse out....since it so conspic-
>>uously adheres to the category of "cultural
>>cesful, these days.
>
>Wayne wrote:
>True, when you consider the need of some
>people to hold up symbols of slavery, such
>pectable icons.
>
You want this tengent? Okie doke...
Next, as in Texas, will be the demand that *any* and *all* plaques in any way
honoring *any* people associated with the Confederacy be taken down. Then
"let's have at" History itself, outlawing any mention of anything positive
about anyone so associated. Then let's purge outta the history books *anyone*
who owned slaves. Then let's tear down any and all restored plantation houses.
Ad nauseum...?
>>>I just tire of intentional insensitivity on the part
>>>of silly art mavens, critics, and other twits who
>>>constantly look for ways to outrage the public,
>>
>>Spot on, sir. And I would add that I find tiring
>>that this practice finds most of its defend-
>>ers when it targets certain cultures.
>
What luck, folk...we have an example just below.
>Wayne "I'm glad you're adopting the >even-hand-ed approach to such issues"
>Johnson cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
Thanks...just trying my best to "be like Wayne".
Wayne Johnson
>You want this tengent? Okie doke...
>
>Next, as in Texas, will be the demand that *any* and *all* plaques in any way
>honoring *any* people associated with the Confederacy be taken down.
You forgot the part about "...from official government installations."
Why did you leave that part out?
>Then
>"let's have at" History itself, outlawing any mention of anything positive
>about anyone so associated.
What do you see as positive about owning human beings, and breeding
them like animals?
>Then let's purge outta the history books *anyone*
>who owned slaves.
Who is "let's"? Everyone feels that it is important to remember this
phase of American history, because it is such an integral part of our
past. Of course, this does not mean that we should hold it up as
something to be respected.
You seem to be convinced that someone wants to remove the name of
Jefferson Davis from the history books. I have never heard this; and
the most fervent opponents of honoring any Confederate actions would
be outraged if this were to happen.
Do you have some example of how any of the slavers of that era are
being removed from historical mention, or who is advocating this idea?
>Then let's tear down any and all restored plantation houses.
Again, who is making these proposals? I've never heard of it, and if
it's something someone wants to do out of sheer spite, I see little
point in it. On the other hand, I see no need for any governmental
institution to fund any activity "honoring" the actions of a
government, or an army, that had as its intent the perpetuation of
slavery, and if you don't think that is the aim of the Confederate
Battle Flag proponents, I'd like for you to explain how this is so.
>Ad nauseum...?
If you're nauseated, you can easily describe in this forum who
nauseated you with the proposals to remove the names of Confederate
figures from history texts, and who wishes to demolish old buildings.
Wayne "Just general information would be enough; a couple of names, or
a source you can cite on the Web would be fine" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
<ckho...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Mary wrote:
>
>> Damn. Now you're totally deluded. Sigs, Ofili, attention, quoting headers,
>> praising every racist post, insults. WOW! That was broad, man! Can we get
>> back on topic, now?
>>
>> --
>> blah
>
>On topic? You are mouthing off about Ofili and what you claim to be his
>views on elephant dung and art. I doubt you know much about him at all.
She admits knowing zilch point squat about that imbecile.
>Ofili was born in Manchester in 1968, but his scholarship in Zimbabwe
>had the most influence on his style. This is where he first began to
>make use of elephant dung, the most distinctive aspect of his work. It
>was also in Africa where he started using dots in his paintings.
Born in Manchester, eh? So what was all this twaddle about his
"culture" and holy elephant dung?
>In his own words:
>
[Ofili's dung deleted]
>
>This kind of sentiment was apparently what inspired his memorable
>"Double Captain Shit and the Legend of the Black Stars".
Maybe Mary can explain if this relates to some cultural beliefs the
rest of us wouldn't know about.
>He's entitled to paint whatever he wishes; I'm entitled to argue that
>taxpayers ought not have to pay for his work.
Plus call him an asshole.
Wayne "Of course, Ofili likes it...good advertising, and all" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
ClockWFT
>>You want this tangent? Okie doke...
>>
>>Next, as in Texas, will be the demand that
>>oring *any* people associated with the Con-
>>federacy be taken down.
>
>You forgot the part about "...from official government installations."
>
>
private organization/location that has such a plaque as insensitive, fascists,
ultra-right-wing, typical whites, etc.
>>Then "let's have at" History itself, outlaw-
>>ing any mention of anything positive about
>>anyone so associated.
>
>What do you see as positive about own-
>ing human beings, and breeding them like
>animals?
>
Point made.
>>Then let's purge outta the history books *any-
>>one* who owned slaves.
>
>Who is "let's"?
There is a difference between a pronoun, noun and verb. Study hard and someday
you too may learn this...:o)
>
>You seem to be convinced that someone wants
>to remove the name of Jefferson Davis from
>the history books.
Nah...just take the name of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington off the
walls of schools...
>
Wayne Johnson
>>>clockwft wrote:
>>>You want this tangent? Okie doke...
>>>
>>>Next, as in Texas, will be the demand that
>>>*any* and *all* plaques in any way hon-
>>>oring *any* people associated with the Con-
>>>federacy be taken down.
>>
>>You forgot the part about "...from official government installations."
>>
>>
>Details, details. That's just the first stage. Then will be labelling of any
>private organization/location that has such a plaque as insensitive, fascists,
>ultra-right-wing, typical whites, etc.
I just watched a documentary that showed the nazi enclave in Idaho,
gaily bedecked in swastikas and nazi flags.
If you can name a single instance of any private organization/location
that has been forced to pull down a Confederate Flag, or even a nazi
flag, it would be interesting to see.
You're talking about "just the first stage"; who has developed these
"stages"? There are no banned symbols in this country. If you know
of one, please post any details you may have.
>>>Then let's purge outta the history books *any-
>>>one* who owned slaves.
>>
>>Who is "let's"?
>
>There is a difference between a pronoun, noun and verb. Study hard and someday
>you too may learn this...:o)
I was hoping for an answer that would deal with the spirit of the
quesiton, instead of whatever you thought were grammatical errors in
the question itself. I honestly can't make heads or tails of your
response.
>>You seem to be convinced that someone wants
>>to remove the name of Jefferson Davis from
>>the history books.
>
>Nah...just take the name of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington off the
>walls of schools...
These men predate the Confederacy by a considerable margin, and were
both devoted to the Union.
Wayne "Study hard and someday you too may learn this..." Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Mary
: She admits knowing zilch point squat about that imbecile.
I do know what has been in the news, and what he's said were his
expressions on the painting. I wonder where you got your line from, maybe
your ass, as usual.
: Maybe Mary can explain if this relates to some cultural beliefs the
: rest of us wouldn't know about.
I can't. Ofili would most probably be able to tell you what you want to
know, though. I've also denied being a big fan, so I wonder why you're
asking me.
of course, Ofili likes it...good advertising, and all" Johnson
Higher prices, too. Sounds quite attractive, to me.
--
blah
Mary
: On topic? You are mouthing off about Ofili and what you claim to be his
: views on elephant dung and art.
I'm discussing what I heard in the news. If you want to give further
information, you don't have to be anal about it. Knowledge about
everything about Ofili's work or Art in general does not put food on my
table, so I reserve the right to or not to know everything about them. I'm
not quite sure what your problem is with this.
: I doubt you know much about him at all.
I know what was in the news.
: He's entitled to paint whatever he wishes; I'm entitled to argue that
: taxpayers ought not have to pay for his work.
I don't recall trying to terminate your rights. I do wonder why you're
being so defensive, though.
--
blah
ClockWFT
>>>>You want this tangent? Okie doke...
>>>>Next, as in Texas, will be the demand that
>>>>*any* and *all* plaques in any way hon-
>>>>oring *any* people associated with the Con-
>>>>federacy be taken down.
>>>
>>>You forgot the part about "...from offi-
>>>cial government installations."
>>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>Details, details. That's just the first stage.
>>ization/location that has such a plaque as
>>cal whites, etc.
>
>Wayne wrote:
>I just watched a documentary that show-
>ed the nazi enclave in Idaho, gaily bedeck-
>ed in swastikas and nazi flags.
>
>ivate organization/location that has been forced
>to pull down a Confederate Flag, or even a
>nazi flag, it would be interesting to see.
>
>>>>Then let's purge outta the history books *any-
>>>>one* who owned slaves.
>>>
>>>Who is "let's"?
>>
>>There is a difference between a pronoun, noun
>>and verb. Study hard and someday you too
>>may learn this...:o)
>
>I was hoping for an answer that would deal
>with the spirit of the quesiton,
Which you missed by a weeee bit...:o)
>
>>>You seem to be convinced that someone
>>>wants to remove the name of Jefferson Da-
>>>vis from the history books.
>>
>>Nah...just take the name of Thomas Jef-
>>ferson and George Washington off the walls
>>of schools...
>
>These men predate the Confederacy by a con-
>siderable margin, and were both devoted to
>the Union.
>
The people who coerced the schools into dropping the names of Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington did so for the very same reason that people oppose the
Stars 'n Bars.....active support of / involvement in the institution of
slavery.
Wayne Johnson
>>Wayne wrote:
>>If you can name a single instance of any pr-
>>ivate organization/location that has been forced
>>to pull down a Confederate Flag, or even a
>>nazi flag, it would be interesting to see.
>>
>Uh....we are also discussing plaques and other "displays of honor".
I was only mentioning flags; in fact, I was only mentioning the South
Carolina issue, which is the stars and bars controversy currently
raging. You brought it up, so the invitation still applies; name the
private organization that has been forced to pull down a Confederate
Flag, or even a nazi flag.
If you can't do that (and I have no idea whether you can or not)
please give the details of whatever case involving plaques or statues
or whatever it is you're familiar with, where a private group was
forced to remove them.
>>These men predate the Confederacy by a con-
>>siderable margin, and were both devoted to
>>the Union.
>>
>The people who coerced the schools into dropping the names of Thomas Jefferson
>and George Washington did so for the very same reason that people oppose the
>Stars 'n Bars.....active support of / involvement in the institution of
>slavery.
Where did this happen, and when? I've never heard of this issue, and
two of the high schools with the highest ratio of Black students in
Los Angeles are named after these two men. One of them is my alma
mater. I've never heard a word of protest.
Wayne "Again, general information about these incidents would be
welcome" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
ClockWFT
>>>Wayne wrote:
>>>If you can name a single instance of any pr-
>>>ivate organization/location that has been forced
>>>to pull down a Confederate Flag, or even a
>>>nazi flag, it would be interesting to see.
>>>
>>Uh....we are also discussing plaques and other "displays of honor".
>
>I was only mentioning flags;
I was not...
>in fact, I was only mentioning the South Car-
>olina issue, which is the stars and bars con-
>troversy currently raging.
I was not...
Sons of the Confederacy & Daughters of the Confederacy. Now throw your vaunted
"personal archives into gear and do some of that reknowned Wayne-research.
>>>These men predate the Confederacy by
>>>a considerable margin, and were both de-
>>>voted to the Union.
>>>
>>The people who coerced the schools in-
>>to dropping the names of Thomas Jeffer-
>>son and George Washington did so for the
>>very same reason that people oppose the
>>Stars 'n Bars.....active support of / involve-
>>ment in the institution of slavery.
>
>Where did this happen, and when?
Mid-01990s, New Orleans. More research for you...:o)
>I've never heard of this issue,
Interesting...
>and two of the high schools with the high-
>est ratio of Black students in Los Angel-
>es are named after these two men.
Tangent.
Wayne Johnson
>>
>>>>Wayne wrote:
>>in fact, I was only mentioning the South Car-
>>olina issue, which is the stars and bars con-
>>troversy currently raging.
>
>I was not...
>
>Sons of the Confederacy & Daughters of the Confederacy. Now throw your vaunted
>"personal archives into gear and do some of that reknowned Wayne-research.
Under what circumstances?
Look, I don't know whether or not you're being straight about this,
but I honestly have no idea what items you're talking about, what year
this occurred, what state it was in, nothing.
It seems that you have some information about some group that had to
give up some public display or other, at some time or other, in some
place or other.
If you wish to discuss it, go ahead. If you don't, that's your
business.
>>Where did this happen, and when?
>
>Mid-01990s, New Orleans. More research for you...:o)
It seems that you're referring to extremely vague, obscure events,
that have nothing to do with the current topic, really.
If you make a claim that such things actually happen, and then have no
idea how to give that information out, then I'll just forget about it.
Wayne "If you change your mind, and decide to stop playing guessing
games, that's fine too" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
ClockWFT
>
>>>in fact, I was only mentioning the South Car-
>>>olina issue, which is the stars and bars con-
>>>troversy currently raging.
>>
>>I was not...
>>
>>Sons of the Confederacy & Daughters of the
>>sonal archives into gear and do some of that
>>reknowned Wayne-research.
>
>Under what circumstances?
>
>>>Where did this happen, and when?
>>
>>Mid-01990s, New Orleans. More research for you...:o)
>
>It seems that you're referring to extremely vague,
>obscure events,
Still trying to avoid doing some research, eh? Odd, considering your many
previous claims to
that have nothing to do with
>the current topic, really.
>
Dearie...it was you who changed the topic.
Wayne Johnson
>Now, now...do your own research...:o)
Why is it mine? I'm not making any claims.
Wayne "If you don't know what you're talking about, I don't know why
you want me to help you" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>>>cl0ockwft wrote:
>>>Now, now...do your own research...:o)
>>
>>Wayne wrote:
>>Why is it mine? I'm not making any claims.
>
>clockwft wrote:
>
>Nah..... Just that this incident in New Orleans never occured.
That's odd. I never said anything about New Orleans, or whether or
not the incident occurred.
You might want to check the previous posts in this thread on the
question, as I have. When did you think I said anything about this
incident in New Orleans not occurring?
>Enjoy your search, boychik...:o)
Search for what? Again, if you have some issue that you think is
important to discuss, concerning First Amendment rights in a private
organization, I'd like for you to give an example of what you're
talking about.
At this point, it seems that you're not sure what the details are, and
if you don't want to talk about it, that's your choice.
Wayne "It shouldn't be that difficult to substantiate a simple and
clear situation that illustrates your point" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
ClockWFT
>>Now, now...do your own research...:o)
>
>Wayne wrote:
>Why is it mine? I'm not making any claims.
clockwft wrote:
Nah..... Just that this incident in New Orleans never occured.
Enjoy your search, boychik...:o)
>"If you don't know what you're talking about,
>I don't know why you want me to help you"
Now, now....don't be so hard on yourself. Occasionally you get it right...:o)
ClockWFT
>>>>Now, now...do your own research...:o)
>>>
>>>Wayne wrote:
>>>Why is it mine? I'm not making any claims.
>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>
>>Nah..... Just that this incident in New Orleans never occured.
>
>not the incident occurred.
>
Uh hu...