www.americanheritage.com
None them said white man bad, you did. Why are pretending at me in a fit of fragility? I'm going by what you said. I can quote you saying the purpose was white man bad, can you do the same for them?
No sir, it is you distracting. Art isn't aspirational by default. You are incorrect. Nothing I've written is incorrect.
I really don't GAF about the left. Does the left live rent free in your head? The topic is sculpture. It's an art form. It's a tad bit deeper than "the left."
Here's some aspiration for ya. Wha'cha think? Do you know what this piece is? What it means? How does it make you feel? Aspirational?
Well? Are you sticking with the "art is aspirational" deflection or are you coming around to reality?
Because I read the article in the OP where the artist described it as such. Why are you fantasizing about me twerking? What's that about? You fantasize about men twerking often?
I never asked you to share your fantasy of me twerking so why would I thank you for it? I will laugh at it though.
Your fantasies certainly amuse me if that's what you mean. Anything else would just be more fantasy on your part.
Disease got some help.
"Columbus led an expedition against the defenseless Indians that was incredibly savage in its slaughter of the naked islanders and destruction of their villages. The heavily armed Europeans were accompanied by ferocious greyhounds each of which, Las Casas wrote, “in an hour … could tear 100 Indians to pieces because all the people of this island had the custom of going … nude from head to foot.” Many people were taken alive, and five hundred were sent as slaves to be sold in Castile. They were carried in four ships that Antonio de Torres had brought, and they left for Castile on February 24, 1495.
Michele de Cuneo, an Italian compatriot of Columbus, accompanied the admiral as a gentleman adventurer on the second voyage and has left a lively eyewitness account of that trip. He was a passenger on Torres’ slave-laden fleet on the 1495 voyage back to Spain. He related that sixteen hundred Indian captives, male and female, had been gathered in lsabela, the island capital. Five hundred or more of the more salable “pieces” were loaded aboard the ships, and the rest were parcelled out to the colonists. When the fleet reached the colder European waters, about two hundred of the wretched captives died of exposure, and their bodies were thrown into the sea. The survivors were consigned to Juanoto Berardi, Columbus’ Italian business agent in Seville, for sale in the slave market there.
...Thus the island was “pacified” by favor of the Lord, says Ferdinand in his biography of his father: Two squadrons of infantry assaulted the multitude of Indians, putting them to rout with crossbow shots and guns and before they could rally they attacked with horses and dogs. By these means those cowards fled in every direction and the destruction was so great that in brief time the victory was complete. …
Columbus and Genocide
The discoverer of the New World was responsible for the annihilation of the peaceful Arawak Indians
In the 15th and 16th centuries, taking slaves from foreign lands was not illegal and not punishable.
Why would he be punished for slavery? Spain practiced slavery. Jamaica was a Spanish slave colony before it was an English one.
I call bullshit. Show your number.
I never asked you to share your fantasy of me twerking so why would I thank you for it? I will laugh at it though.
He tried to enslave the Taino but the Spanish monarchs told him not to. https://www.osdia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Columbus05_factvsfiction.pdf
Now that you've lost the argument you want to get literal. I said it was implied. I didn't put the statement in quotes.
It's literal fantasy that's why I call it fantasy. When you use your imagination that's you engaging in fantasy. When you imagine whether or not I was twerking that's literally you fantasizing about me twerking. You fantasizing about me and sharing that fantasy is just an objective fact now. I didn't tell you to make it an objective fact but here we are in all ots hilarious glory.
You tell us. We are still talking about your fantasies.
I thought it was about how you love thick black women? What's your real argument then, not so proud boy?
You feeling like I lost some argument isn't the same as it being an objective fact. In fact it's you here now saying white man bad was implied and I agree, implied by you, not the artist. That's your interpretation of the art even though you tried to pretend earlier no one was saying it meant white man bad and now you're here admitting it's the implication you took from it. Is this what you imagine me losing looks like?
no. I dont need to look at it. I've gone over just about everything i can say about it..I did not find it attractive as art.
It's 12 foot high real