--WILLIAM S. BURROUGHS
A Christian group called Return to Order is very upset with the Amazon series Good Omens, which features the forces of heaven and hell teaming up to stop the Antichrist. So upset, in fact, that they have amassed more than 20,000 signatures demanding it be canceled (all episodes are already streaming on Amazon Prime) by … Netflix. While the petition appears to have been taken down from the Order’s website, it is reported to have been titled “Tell Netflix: Cancel Blasphemous ‘Good Omens’ Series,” and called [Good Omens] “another step to make Satanism appear normal, light and acceptable.” The group is also angry that God is voiced by a woman, that an angel and a demon are friends, and that it “mocks God’s wisdom,” according to quotes gathered by The Guardian.
To read the entire post, click HERE.
To see the Return to Order's "updated" petition, click HERE.
2) From Crooks and Liars' 6-29-19 post entitled "Canadian Cartoonist Fired After His Trump Cartoon Goes Viral":
[Political cartoonist Michael] de Adder [has] had his contract terminated with the Brunswick News, a privately-held publishing company that operates in New Brunswick, Canada. The sole owner, James K. Irving, is one of the wealthiest people in Canada and he and his family have a vast array of interests and holdings, many of them dependent on access to the United States. So, when their little newspapers published a political cartoon that went viral completely excoriating the vile and hateful border practices of Trump something had to give....
To see the entire Crooks and Liars post, click HERE.
3) From Robby Soave's 6-20-19 Reason article entitled "Activists Want a Problematic Mural of George Washington Destroyed. It Will Cost a High School $600,000.":
A high school in San Francisco is
considering three options for censoring a mural of George Washington
deemed problematic by the local activist community: putting up a curtain
(price tag: $300,000), painting over it ($600,000), or hiding it behind
panels ($875,000).
No doubt San Francisco United School District could hire quite a few teachers in lieu of executing even the cheapest of those plans, but a 13-member working group asserts the mural must go. It "glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression," and "doesn't represent SFUSD values of social justice, diversity, united, student-centered." It's also responsible for traumatizing students, according to the activists.
The truth is that George Washington High School's mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class.
"He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans," Robert Cherny, a San Francisco State University professor, told the school district's board of education in 2018. "That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing."
Modern activist culture, however, is preoccupied with an ever-expanding definition of safety, which now includes emotional safety. To walk past a mural that depicts violence against Native Americans and people of color—even if that's what actually happened—is considered trauma-inducing, and the purpose of education is to mitigate discomfort. (This is a major theme of my new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, which was released this week and is available in book stores and online.)
"Why do we have to explain the pain caused by the visual offense that we see in that building that is supposed to be an institution for learning?" asked one woman at a public meeting about the issue on Tuesday.
"It's not in a museum, it's inside a school," lamented another speaker, who apparently did not understand the point of a school. "Our students, all of them, deserve better."
Other speakers, several of them Native American, expressed no objection to the mural, correctly pointing out that it was depicting "what actually happened."
According to National Review's James Sutton, most of the students want to keep the mural, or don't really care one way or another. The controversy is the work of "outside busybodies." Naturally, it looks like they are going to get their way. The school board is currently deciding between three different plans, all of which involve destroying the mural, or covering it up....
No doubt San Francisco United School District could hire quite a few teachers in lieu of executing even the cheapest of those plans, but a 13-member working group asserts the mural must go. It "glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression," and "doesn't represent SFUSD values of social justice, diversity, united, student-centered." It's also responsible for traumatizing students, according to the activists.
The truth is that George Washington High School's mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class.
"He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans," Robert Cherny, a San Francisco State University professor, told the school district's board of education in 2018. "That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing."
Modern activist culture, however, is preoccupied with an ever-expanding definition of safety, which now includes emotional safety. To walk past a mural that depicts violence against Native Americans and people of color—even if that's what actually happened—is considered trauma-inducing, and the purpose of education is to mitigate discomfort. (This is a major theme of my new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, which was released this week and is available in book stores and online.)
"Why do we have to explain the pain caused by the visual offense that we see in that building that is supposed to be an institution for learning?" asked one woman at a public meeting about the issue on Tuesday.
"It's not in a museum, it's inside a school," lamented another speaker, who apparently did not understand the point of a school. "Our students, all of them, deserve better."
Other speakers, several of them Native American, expressed no objection to the mural, correctly pointing out that it was depicting "what actually happened."
According to National Review's James Sutton, most of the students want to keep the mural, or don't really care one way or another. The controversy is the work of "outside busybodies." Naturally, it looks like they are going to get their way. The school board is currently deciding between three different plans, all of which involve destroying the mural, or covering it up....
To see the original article, click HERE.
4) From Ray Kelly's 6-19-19 MassLive post entitled "Film Community Decries 'Politically Correct' Decision to Remove Lillian Gish Name From University Theater":
More
than 50 prominent artists, writers, and film scholars are calling for
the restoration of actresses Lillian and Dorothy Gish’s names to a
theater established in their honor 43 years ago at Bowling Green State
University in Ohio.
The
university decided last month to remove the Gish name — but retain the
Ohio native’s endowment and personal memorabilia — because of Lillian
Gish’s role in D. W. Griffith’s controversial 1915 film “The Birth of a
Nation,” a racist silent film which glorified the Ku Klux Klan. It was
one of more than 100 screen appearances by the American Film Institute
and Kennedy Center honoree, who died in 1993 at the age of 99.
“For
a university to dishonor her by singling out just one film, however
offensive it is, is unfortunate and unjust. Doing so makes her a
scapegoat in a broader political debate. A university should be a
bastion of free speech. This is a supreme ‘teachable moment’ if it can
be handled with a more nuanced sense of history,” the letter states in
part.
Among
those signing the letter calling for the restoration of the Gish
Theater name are James Earl Jones, Helen Mirren, Martin Scorsese, George
Stevens Jr., Peter Bogdanovich, Joseph McBride, Malcolm McDowell,
Lauren Hutton, Larry Jackson and Joe Dante.
In removing the Gish name, Bowling Green State University officials said in a 12-page report that
" in no way is our intent to minimize her accomplishments or
contributions to film culture and history. However, as an educational
institution, BGSU has a primary responsibility to its students and an
overriding obligation to create an inclusive learning environment."
McBride,
who wrote the “AFI Life Achievement Award: A Tribute to Lillian Gish”
television special in 1984, decried that conclusion.
“In
this age of rampant ‘political correctness,’ scattershot attacks are
claiming a lot of unfortunate collateral damage. Two of the recent
victims are Lillian and Dorothy Gish. Lillian acted in more than 120
films and television shows, and is universally acknowledged as one of
the greatest actresses is film history, but her supporting role in D. W.
Griffith’s 1915 film ‘The Birth of a Nation’ has landed her on the list
of people to be shunned," McBride said. “It is shameful that Bowling
Green State University shows such little regard for film history or
cultural perspective in taking this rash overreaction to a film that,
while deplorable in its racism, does not represent her entire career.
Dorothy Gish, who did not appear in ‘Birth,’ is merely collateral damage
in this controversy.”
McBride,
a professor at San Francisco State University, added, “A university
should encourage open debate instead of cultural shunning and attempts
to rewrite history.”
To see Kelly's original post, click HERE. 
No comments:
Post a Comment