• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge won't let San Francisco school mural be covered

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
28,787
Reaction score
10,023
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The San Francisco school board violated state law when it voted to cover up a 1930s mural that critics said is racist and degrading in its depiction of Black and Native American people, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo said the board failed to conduct an environmental impact review before it voted in 2019 to cover up the sprawling mural at George Washington High School that depicts the life of George Washington, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The 1936 mural was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression. In addition to depicting Washington as a soldier, surveyor and statesman, the 13-panel, 1,600-square-foot (149-square-meter) mural contains images of white pioneers standing over the body of a Native American and slaves working at Washington’s Mount Vernon estate in Virginia.
Another plot to erase history foiled.
 
Another plot to erase history foiled.
well, I am not paying to read the article...so perhaps you can provide a link to the actual decision....ah I see it is because they did not provide the environmental impact study...not about the right of them to actually cover the mural...they can do so, but they have to do the environmental impact study as required by law.
 
Another plot to erase history foiled.
I'm glad they didn't cover up that mural, because it rightly portrays the cruel injustices perpetrated against native Americans and black people, making it very clear that George Washington, the supposed father of our nation, had a direct hand in them.
 
I'm glad they didn't cover up that mural, because it rightly portrays the cruel injustices perpetrated against native Americans and black people, making it very clear that George Washington, the supposed father of our nation, had a direct hand in them.


If they captioned the mural with what you say, in so many words.
 
The decision was that an environmental review had not been completed, not that the board's decision to remove the mural was wrong. Hence, the OP without doubt misrepresented the decision and is simple dishonest.

OTOH, as implied in post #5, it might be better to keep the mural as a historic example of America's systemic racism. And, instead, caption the mural, as suggested in #6, the truth of the racism depicted in the mural.
 
Another plot to erase history foiled.

Still trying to push that hilariously idiotic angle?

....erase history.... :ROFLMAO:







The guy won't be happy until the confederate flag flies over the White House.....
 
The decision was that an environmental review had not been completed, not that the board's decision to remove the mural was wrong. Hence, the OP without doubt misrepresented the decision and is simple dishonest.

OTOH, as implied in post #5, it might be better to keep the mural as a historic example of America's systemic racism. And, instead, caption the mural, as suggested in #6, the truth of the racism depicted in the mural.
I posted what the decision was so it’s not misrepresented. And yeah, a plot to erase history was foiled even if only on a technicality.
 
Still trying to push that hilariously idiotic angle?

....erase history.... :ROFLMAO:







The guy won't be happy until the confederate flag flies over the White House.....
I expected hysterics from you and I’m not disappointed. 😊
 
well, I am not paying to read the article...so perhaps you can provide a link to the actual decision....ah I see it is because they did not provide the environmental impact study...not about the right of them to actually cover the mural...they can do so, but they have to do the environmental impact study as required by law.
If you are interested in seeing the mural and learning more about it go here: https://www.peoplesworld.org/articl...th-the-hidden-history-of-the-arnautoff-mural/
 
Not to worry!

Her Honor will eventually cave to the wokesters.

They all do.
 
I posted what the decision was so it’s not misrepresented. And yeah, a plot to erase history was foiled even if only on a technicality.


So, you're OK with the mural remaining and a caption be incl on the wall as to the truth of the racism depicted in the mural? You don't believe it was a depiction of what incl the practice of racism in the scene?
 
So, you're OK with the mural remaining and a caption be incl on the wall as to the truth of the racism depicted in the mural? You don't believe it was a depiction of what incl the practice of racism in the scene?
The mural speaks for itself as an accurate depiction of history. There’s no need for a caption.
 
Last edited:
The decision was that an environmental review had not been completed, not that the board's decision to remove the mural was wrong. Hence, the OP without doubt misrepresented the decision and is simple dishonest.

OTOH, as implied in post #5, it might be better to keep the mural as a historic example of America's systemic racism. And, instead, caption the mural, as suggested in #6, the truth of the racism depicted in the mural.

That's all they really ever needed to do in the first place, stick a damn plaque next to it advising that the mural was done in the 1930's when racism was a deeply ingrained set of values and that it does not represent modern thinking. The End.
 
That's all they really ever needed to do in the first place, stick a damn plaque next to it advising that the mural was done in the 1930's when racism was a deeply ingrained set of values and that it does not represent modern thinking. The End.

In which case, removal of the mural is overreach. The plaque would have been a much stronger statement than the absence. But I don't know the whole story. Perhaps they offered the plaque approach, but were refused by whatever authority, even with the threat of removal. However, the mural does not represent modern thinking to the same more limited extent as today. Or, there's an awful lot of people out there that do not reflect modern thinking and modern thinking does not pull very much weight. Racism is still deeply ingrained, alive and well, in America today.
 
The mural speaks for itself as an accurate depiction of history. There’s no need for a caption.


The caption would be accurate and speak the truth of the fact that racism/slavery was ingrained in America. What you're saying is there's no need for the truth. If you were to caption in the perspective of the day, it would note that those shown in servile subjugation were inferior beings to white people and in their according roles. Or, would you deem such unfair and object, saying such is wrong? And why?
 
The mural speaks for itself as an accurate depiction of history. There’s no need for a caption.


Then, what is that depiction? What does it characterize?
 
Back
Top Bottom