Little-known Lady To Be Honored With Statue

that takes the place of a little-known Confederate general.

Mary McCloud Bethune

As explained in this article from artnet.com, a statue of Ms. Bethune will soon represent Florida in the the US capital's National Statuary Hall, replacing that of Civil War Confederate general Edmund Kirby Smith, whoever he was.

The removal of statues that commemorate failed military leaders, or even successful ones, and their replacement by those of important contributors in other spheres is admirable. But why are three-dimensional images of southern white males of the War Between the States era the focus of banishment?

While the slavery of American blacks deserves some form of approbation, does it really compare in misery to that of the native Americans, once owners of the entire continent, subjected to near genocide by a technologically superior society,  now barely surviving on the most inhospitable portions of the country? Were the slave-holding southerners expected to simply release their human property because William Wilberforce and Charles Sumner felt that was the right thing to do? And then what?

The former slaves became bonafide US citizens in 1866, native Americans weren't extended this status by the all-powerful state until 1924. The aftermath of the War Between the States included the formation of several all-black military units, the "Buffalo Soldiers" whose job was to continue the extermination of the plains Indians under the policies of General Phillip Sheridan. "Little Phil", who was quoted as saying that "the only good Indian I ever saw was a dead one", is honored to this day with statues, street names, and even the names of towns.

 

Phillip Sheridan statue in Sheridan Circle, Washington, DC, just a few blocks from the National Statuary Hall.

Native Americans are behind the effort to rid the country of statues of others instrumental in their subjugation, as explained here.

William McKinley, whose statue is the center of controversy in the northern California hamlet of Arcata, is not only depised by native Americans for his policies, but also by Hawaiians for signing the Newlands Resolution that annexed the islands in 1898. He's no hero in what's now the 50th state but was once the Republic of Hawaii. 

Selling Leadership

Once upon a time educational institutions were in the business of education, adding to the learning ability of students and increasing their knowledge. In their ongoing effort to serve student/consumers, and maintain enrollment, they're attempting to peddle changes in social relationships between their graduates and the rest of the world. They're now selling leadership.

It's always been our position that leadership is a quality that really can't be taught. The military academies, whose primary purpose is to mold good students into martial leaders, can't actually do so. Most military officers are individuals that fit well into an existing structure. Their leadership qualities are often only recognized by the insignia on their clothing and their ability to adhere to bureaucratic procedures.

 
 The concept of leadership itself implies followers. After all, leaders must have acquiescent followers in order to be leaders. In fact, there must be far more followers than leader.

 

This sign over the entrance to an elementary school probably can't be read or understood by most of the students. It's purpose is probably to make parents happy about the prospects for their children, whom they do not wish to become followers. It's implicit that it's better to be a leader than a follower and that attendance at Jefferson School will assure this outcome.

Even a cursory historical analysis indicates that a huge proportion of leaders have led their followers down destructive paths, for both themselves and others. Leaders initiate unsuccessful theories and negative actions, many of which don't become apparent until it's too late.

It might be better if the educational process produced people that were determined to mind their own business rather than a minority that attempted to force their views on others.

Rankings of World Military Expenditure

Facebook and Pornography

Along with helping the Russians get Donald Trump elected to the US presidency, social media giant Facebook is under fire for its algorithm that identifies nudity as pornography and removes it as "inappropriate content".

The latest censorship incident involves the "Venus of Willendorf", a 30,000 year old statue discovered near Vienna in 1908 that currently resides in the Naturhistorisches Museum in the Austrian capital, as explained here.


As is also explained in the article, this isn't the first time that there's been controversy over Facebook censorship. Famous 19th century French artist Gustave Courbet's 1866 painting " L’Origine du Monde" was included in a Facebook post that resulted in the closing of an account, although it hangs today in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris. Artnet News weighs in on the matter here.

 
L'Origine du Monde

The Facebook policy brings up some interesting questions. If they can rightfully refuse to carry what they consider pornographic, who else can do the same? Facebook is in the business of accommodating the public, just like people that bake wedding cakes. Do they have the right to censor not only images but also verbiage? Who is the judge of pornography? While there have been US Supreme Court decisions in this regard, who decides what is or is not pornographic in an individual case? How is it that ghastly images of death and destruction, murder, abortion, etc. are standard fare in all kinds of media, including Facebook, but a nude female, certainly familiar to almost everyone and a threat to no one, is forbidden? If Facebook, in its role of accommodating the public, can refuse certain images or ideas, what of other businesses? Can the power company disconnect the electricity of art galleries festooned with nudes?