Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Art-gallery jackboots shut down an exhibit using a charge of genocide

A respectful approach to her subject matter got this painter nothing but slanderous vitriol:

An art gallery in Toronto canceled a scheduled exhibit of a Canadian artist’s work after she was accused of committing “cultural genocide” against indigenous people with her paintings.

The artist, Amanda PL, told CBC Toronto that she “tried to learn all she could about the Aboriginal culture, their teachings, their stories” and “capture the beauty of the art style and make it [her] own by drawing upon elements of nature within Canada that have meaning to me.”
Sounds nice, right? Learning about another culture, and appreciating it enough to want to include it in your own work in a special way? Well, according to critics, “nice” is not the right word; a better one might be something like “murderous.”

“What she’s doing is essentially cultural genocide, because she’s taking [indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau's] stories and retelling them, which bastardizes it down the road,” Chippewa artist Jay Soule said, according to CBC. “Other people will see her work and they’ll lose the connection between the real stories that are attached to it.”

Yes — Amanda PL’s paintings were apparently not just “insensitive” or “cultural appropriation,” but full-on, all-out genocide.
Dennis Prager, who has been calling the current state of affairs in our society a second civil war for a while, asked in his column yesterday how much longer it could go on being waged without widespread violence.

We may have a few minutes, Dennis.


43 comments:

  1. Not that I agree with the "critic," but did he utilize violence? Why do you think violence is the answer to differences in opinion, even if one is full of crap, or dog vomit in the bloggie's parlance?

    "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Issac Asimov ( I know I know, like the Pope, as Stalin once quipped: "How many divisions does he have?" I do concede that if one sits and stews, raising hackles & blood pressure and all, one does have a tendency to feel they've been assaulted. Chill, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who you gonna get to kick their asses? The US military?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, stop it and grow up. You are willfully refusing to see a pattern of intimidation - and in all too many cases actual violence - in the defense of an insane identity-politics agenda.

    For God's sake, an art exhibit got shut down on an accusation of genocide - and the artist was somebody sympathetic to the notion of exploring and celebrating the array of cultures to be found on the North American continent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your "hey, was there any actual violence in this isolated situation?" position is - well, it's disgusting and deeply disturbing, to be perfectly candid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did you see my first sentence in my first comment? I would have thought after nearly 12 years of my commenting you would have gotten that I am against censorship and all for intellectual freedom. Are you calling for a Canadian civil war over this or do you envision US troop involvement in a war between us and Canada? I will say I think it's a good bet if it was an exhibit you found distasteful or an individual you did not like who did not espouse your timeless principles, you'd be in line with banning it or them. My bad for inferring that a civil war involves violence. Here I've often heard it said we're held at gunpoint by the taxman. There are civil remedies for the artist if she was physically assaulted, libeled, slandered or a contract was breached. But, oh no, bring on the dogs of a civil war. In Canada, mind you. They've pretty much told the US to take a hike anyhow. They hate our War Machine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyhow, what is it with you, a few weeks back calling me spiritually grotesque and now disgusting and deeply disturbing my comments here inquiring about this ISOLATED situation. You are the only human ever in this my lifetime to hurl such charges. I think I'm done with you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's not an isolated situation. It's of a piece with the Claremont situation in the preceding post, as well as past posts about Berkeley, UCLA and pretty much every post in the category "mob intimidation."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here are a few recent entries in that category:

    - Claremont black students' letter saying objectivity is a concept dreamed up by white supremacists

    - protestors storming offices of Heritage Foundation in DC

    - Berkeley mayor supporting rioting as a means of expressing disagreement

    - protestors at Virginia congressman Tom Garrett's town hall holding up a massive sign saying "No Dialogue with White Supremacists"

    - pussy-hat march supporters waging a campaign of intimidation against knitting-business owner Elizabeth Poe, including phone messages threatening rape and calls for Better Business Bureau to investigate her

    - destruction of Starbucks and MacDonald's and smashing of car windows in DC on Inauguration Day

    - Buzzed attempt to make 'House Hunters' hosts look like anti-gay bigots because their church views marriage the way everybody in our society did no more than ten years ago

    - demand by Marginalized Students of the University of Arizona that all school employees undergo cultural sensitivity training

    ReplyDelete
  11. A person either calls this pattern out and stands up to it, or, frankly, he is part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll answer to God, not you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If I were a Toronto museum patron I'd insist on running the exhibit despite the protestations of one disgruntled Aboriginal Artist, every bit as vociferously as I defended ND for inviting Obama to speak back in '09. You?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Intellectual freedom is sacred to me and vital to the continuing unfolding of the secrets of the vast cosmos we find ourselves planted somewhere within.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But to cite this incident and others you detest as cause for civil war strikes me as quite ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  16. These incidents are increasing in frequency, outrageousness and dangerousness

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hold the line with intellectual freedom. Maybe your ilk led the way protesting Obama at ND. Thank God & Our Lady you did not prevail. But civil war? Who will roll the tanks in and drop the bombs for your side? And in this incident it goes beyond civil war into an international war with Canad

    ReplyDelete
  18. Onward Christian hawks, Praise the Lord & Pass the Ammunition....

    ReplyDelete
  19. As the stoners return to the mountains to prepare to bake or be baked...

    https://thejointblog.com/colorado-house-votes-56-7-prohibit-law-enforcement-assisting-federal-marijuana-crackdown/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Prager fans sitting by their pools, sipping something, just knowing, knowing full well, they think, that theirs is the Power. Let's roll to kick some laggard butt! It's a war, darling, don't worry, we'll be safe and warm, and yes, Yahweh loves us, yes He does....

    ReplyDelete
  21. It almost sounds like you buy into the leftist notion that there is a privileged stratum in our society consisting of self-satisfied white straight Christian (and Jewish) males with pinched little world views that is indifferent to, at best, and more probably seeking the subjugation of, other demographics in society.

    The Leftists who have instigated the trouble in each of the cases I list above had that view, think that there really is such a class, and that it needs to be defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Prager is the one calling for a civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I do believe I think I'm familiar with Prager's type, pious as he is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You're stating an egregious falsehood here. I won't attempt to parse whether it's deliberate or just a case of not understanding where Prager is coming from. In any case, he's warning that it's already happening. He's not "calling for" it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're stating an egregious falsehood here. I won't attempt to parse whether it's deliberate or just a case of not understanding where Prager is coming from. In any case, he's warning that it's already happening. He's not "calling for" it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I listen to Prager sometimes at noon but can't take his constant hammering at the left as if it's this monolithic Gidless force in league with the Legions. Not that he does not have many good points, but he's so oftentimes prissy. And he's also pulling for WW III because he thinks it will finally set his people Israel free, all other survivors must pay their chosen toll.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think he's wrong that the nice-affable-polite-interested-in-constructive-dialogue-type left-leaner has largely disappeared from our society.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I heard him at lunch today saying he's all for CA seceding.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I heard the first 15 min. of DP's Happiness Hour at lunch. No mention of the dastardly left, just universal principles.IMHO, that's when he's best.

    ReplyDelete
  30. But war starts when people give up on working it out non-violently, perhaps years before the body bags start rolling on out off the battlefields. The first casualty, of course, as we know, is truth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. These incidents are increasing in frequency, outrageousness and dangerousness
    The first causality we know is truth.
    Imagine when Gutenberg created the western printing press, he could not find a way to place the ink on his newly invented type. Everything he used to put the ink on the type absorbed the expensive ink, everything was porous. In Guetenbergs observations "dogs" do not sweat, in his reasoning therefore their skin was not porous and this would make a "nice pouch" for padding the ink to the press.
    I wonder what that dogs name was ? I guess it was a dog serving mans greater purpose. Which served us better that dog or the press created, I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Although the bloggie calls my views on violent vs. non-violent protest "deeply disturbing and disgusting" and claims I view his opinions through distorted lenses, and I actually was a bit hurt by his insult, I know I am in league with some very principled, yet basically powerless people. Stay Protestant, bloggie, you might find a church that affirms violence and you can then Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and of course as always, go onward, Christian soldiers. Not that there might be numerous non-violent ways to work things out. No no no, nevermore, always same as it ever was, right? Right, oh so rightie right bloggie? Call out the dogs of war, bang the drum loudly and, well, roll on to Civil War, with, of course, God on your side. But you will probably try to depose this Satanic leftist Pope.





    "Let us say once more a firm and clear 'No!' to every form of violence, vengeance and hatred carried out in the name of religion or in the name of God", the pope told a peace conference at Egypt's highest Islamic authority, Al-Azhar. The Pope also emphasized brotherhood. Pope Francis underlined the need to respect the religious rights and freedoms of the other and to pursue the call of tolerance in fully awareness that no act of violence can be committed in the name of God."The path is the path of negotiation, the path of diplomatic solutions", he said.

    http://ismboard.com/2017/05/07/in-egypt-pope-seeks-christian-muslim-rejection-of-violence.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. Quit being disingenuous. It had nothing to do with your general views on nonviolence per se and you know it. It was your excuse-making for the leftist agenda of crushing free speech as well as its imposition of absolutely insane ideas about gender & race.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have always defended intellectual freedom. You brought civil war into the conversation. Perhaps civil war has morphed into metaphor but it always used to mean violence on both sides, as usual both sides claiming the other side incited them to it. So, reread my first sentence in my initial volley: "Not that I agree with the "critic," but did he utilize violence?" And if live/let live is an absolutely insane idea about gender & race, then, well, I guess I can see your reaction as disgusted and disturbed. Yours is the coiled-up rage, doesn't take much to unravel you. Just add liquid.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But you see, the Left has no interest in live & let live. If you believe certain modes of sexuality are abnormal and sinful, or that "diversity" programs are harmful, the Left is determined to shut you up

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am not of the Left and frankly tire of such simplistic divisions purporting to ezlplain the gestalt of it all. I realize there's left, there's right and there's mighty might. Which is precisely why I defend intellectual freedom as no side is entirely right and all opinions are provisional by the very nature of the cosmos we are unraveling but which proves to be ever expanding of course more provisional than ever these days. Now I will be again accused of dismissing eternal verities.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, that case could certainly be made.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If the verities are eternal, they will be proven so in the end, but it's not for me to encumber anyone but myself and mine with them. Preach the gospel always; use words only when necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You ended your verbiage with the term "widespread violence." I was obviously still stunned by that in reference to matters civil here in the body Republic and hence directed my reply towards that, er, launch as opposed to volley; I also indicated that I did not agree with the Aboriginal Artist. I will defend both his and the banned female artist right to their artistic aka intellectual freedom unto your death, if not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And as for me, movin' on the road, I do have a code that I do live by...

    ReplyDelete
  41. If the left has no interest in living/letting live, so be it. I am not of them though constantly being accused of being so. So in the end, oh esteemed bloggie, stay disgusted snd disturbed all you want to. It's your peace of mind maybe. As for me, screw you and your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/09/why-liberals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think-215114




    Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

    www.politico.com

    The political left might consider itself more open-minded than the right. But research shows that liberals are just as prejudiced against conservatives as conservatives are against liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  43. They had to do a bunch of research to determine that?

    ReplyDelete