May 9, 2008...8:22 am
Martin Luther King Jr., Still Too Confrontational For the U.S. Gov’t
Recently, we here at Um have been solidly focused on our schoolwork. This is why you, our loyal readers have been so cruelly deprived of the wit and insight that you come to expect from our editorial staff.
Admit it: When we don’t write, you miss our abuse of the royal first person.
Schoolwork this semester has, for us, meant lots of thinking about revolution–specifically, the one that put these fellas into office. And though it’s deprived you all of such amazing columns as ‘Is It Okay to Call Hillary a Cunt? An Exploration of Why One Shouldn’t Base Their Political Decisions on the Gender of A Candidate,’ which never made it past the idea stage ’cause–you know, the existence of time and crap–it has given us plenty of background knowledge, should the appropriate opportunity present itself.
Well, you lucky ducks, it has.
So ‘member how, way back in the middle part of the 20th Century, a whole bunch of folks got together and decided that, um, institutionally-backed inequality is way sucky? And they decided that the best way to effect some sort of change was to confront the problem and resist its perpetration. ‘Member that? Well the fella who got most of the credit for the successes of that revolution was recently rewarded by his former oppressors with a monument on the National Mall: White duders 4. Non-white duders 1. Yipee, right?
Maybe.
Apparently, the folks in charge of providing the cash for this new monument are miffed ’cause it’s not turning out to be exactly what they’d hoped. Quoth the Washington Post: ” A powerful federal arts commission is urging that the sculpture of Martin Luther King Jr. proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin be reworked because it is too ‘confrontational’ and reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states.”
Okay. A couple of things. First: Hello, geniuses? If you were looking for something subtle, you probably shouldn’t have snagged a Chinese “sculptor known for his monumental works of figures such as Mao Zedong” as your chief designer. And, more importantly, what the fuck is wrong with a portrayal of King that represents him as a larger-than-life, stoic figure? Too confrontational? What the fuck is that?
Hello again, geniuses? Um, that thing that he was a part of (’member that?)? It was all about going where you weren’t wanted, taking on unfair practices, and challenging the popular thinking of the time. It was, in short, about being–ready?–CONFRONTATIONAL.
Jesus effin’ Christ: Build the man his monument. Render his ass in two-and-a-half stories worth of stone. Make it so that future generations can go, look up, and see a symbolic representation of the fact that he would not be moved.
TOO CONFRONTATIONAL? B.U.N.K.
1 Comment
May 9, 2008 at 11:01 am
Admit it: When we don’t write, you miss our abuse of the royal first person.
I have to admit, i do miss it.
As sad as this is, we as a country still need to be confronted, or at least reminded in a strong way, about all of that. Because whether or not much of our society wants to admit it, racism is alive and “well” in this country.
IMHO, confrontational art is better anyway.
Leave a Reply