Comanche Moon: Rangers, Tramps, and Thieves
Stereotype of the Year dishonorable mention
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
These entries "win" for propounding ugly stereotypes in a popular medium with a lot of visibility and a long shelf life.
Felicia's choices
For another viewpoint, here are the choices by editorial assistant Felicia Wetzig:
Although it also serves on a somewhat positive note since the AIM and SKINS members present were able to use the situation educate people, overall it was an exhibition of white arrogance and ignorance on the part of the artist.
Thom Ross’s website about the show:
"Ross's work is always based on historical facts, though the focus of the work is always much more concerned with the mythic elements then historical accuracy."
Always based on historical facts but more concerned with mythic elements? You can’t really have both since the two are often contradictory.
The newspaper article got mixed reviews from the public but most of them were praising the exhibit.
Some of the more interesting comments:
Impeach_Bush (7:17 AM on September 6, 2008) a tribute to a working sustainable society we cut down like weeds because they got in the way of our greed.
Dishonorable Mention: Campbell Brown slams Indians
This is still one of my top picks because it happened on CNN, I would think that Campbell Brown is typically someone who is generally trusted and influential and expected to have her story straight.
Comanche Moon was also one of my top choices, but once I looked into it I found that it didn't seem to go over too well in general; even critics who are fans of this type of western gave it poor reviews.
Below: A bucking bronco...indoors! Wes Studi shows how wild Indians can be in Comanche Moon.
6 comments:
I said it before and I'll say it again: Stick to the subject or I'll delete your comments.
You do more than that Rob, you tend to delete the subjects as well. That is why Dmarks and I posted on this one, you arbitrarily decide when and what can be discussed.
If you choose to censor our writings, how are you different than those you oppose?
Won't be long before this comment I am making, and the one above it, are also deleted.
I don't even know what "delete the subject" means. Except for one or two postings where the links were no longer valid, I've never deleted my blog postings.
You may not be following my reasoning, but the choices aren't at all arbitrary. Stephen M. has a long history of anti-Islamic bigotry. DMarks has a long history of excusing right-wing incompetence and immorality. I'm tired of having to make the same arguments over and over.
FYI, it's not censorship when you're free to post responses elsewhere. Nothing requires me to tolerate people's ridiculous opinions. In the case of Stephen M. calling me ignorant, Geno calling me a racist, or DMarks defending teabaggers, they've literally never come up with an argument I couldn't crush. I've seen it all before.
Since this blog is a record of my views, I feel obligated to rebut these worthless challenges. I'd rather not waste the time. Since I've proved I can do it before, it's unnecessary to do it again.
If you don't like my policy, post responses in your own blogs where I'm not responsible for them. Trying to circumvent the policy is simply childish, if you ask me. I'm not going to allow it so stop trying to do it.
Post a Comment