Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Actually, yes, the letter did present the facts. Omitting the other line in the painting ("Is it OK for me to hate if I've been a victim”) would have no bearing on his feelings about the piece – it is precisely his complaint! WHO HAS DONE THE VICTIMIZING? By saying "white man", the artist is making a blanket statement. In his letter, the writer stated his confusion, being that he never owned a slave and had many courteous dealings with black individuals whom he held in high esteem/regard. Why should it be OK for a man to "hate" me simply because he had been victimized by someone ELSE who shares my skin colour? Did I do anything to that man? Did I contribute to his victimization? No! I think before commenting you should try to get to the heart of the issue, that being reverse racism. Is it OK for me to hate all black men if I'm ever victimized by one black man? That argument carries no logic. It never makes sense for anyone to approve of racism in any form.

Reply
Report this post

Actually, yes, the letter did present the facts. Omitting the other line in the painting ("Is it OK for me to hate if I've been a victim”) would have no bearing on his feelings about the piece – it is precisely his complaint! WHO HAS DONE THE VICTIMIZING? By saying "white man", the artist is making a blanket statement. In his letter, the writer stated his confusion, being that he never owned a slave and had many courteous dealings with black individuals whom he held in high esteem/regard. Why should it be OK for a man to "hate" me simply because he had been victimized by someone who shares my skin colour? Did I do anything to that man? Did I contribute to his ordeal or victimization? No! I think before commenting you should try to get to the heart of the issue, that being reverse racism. Is it OK for me to hate all black men if I'm ever victimized by one black man? That argument carries no logic. It never makes sense for anyone to approve of racism in any form.

Reply
Report this post

In the same week I read "Racist label was unfairly assigned" I come across a gentleman on BlogTalk radio by the name of Marcus Lloyd. He is a man of many talents and one of those being an artist. He also had his paintings removed from public viewing because they were said to have religious undertones. He had to fight in court to have his paintings returned for public viewing. Imagine, two artists, both being black had paintings displayed for public viewing. The artist that had the paintings "formula for Hatred" were allowed to stay in Atlanta City Hall and the artist that had paintings with religious undertones had to be removed until he fought in court to have them returned. It really disheartens me to see where our country is today. Maybe this is one of the biggest reasons why the races cannot come together. Wished people would take time to stop and think about this one. Is this where are lawmakers have taken us? How can there ever be peace in our country when this kind of law is accepted. To read about Lloyd Marcuses story go to his website at www.LloydMarcus.com Please take the time to go to his site and read his story and I think you will feel the same as I.

Reply
Report this post

I never questioned the right of the letter writer to be offended by the painting. In fact I openly supported it. After I read the letter, I took the time to Google the painting in question. Once I heard about what the rest of the painting said, ("Is it OK for me to hate if I've been a victim”), I further searched for information on the artist, and confirmed the message that I correctly interpreted from the words of the painting. He specifically stated that he was merely addressing the fact that it has become politically acceptable to hate the white man, not endorsing it. The question in the piece wasn't asking for permission to hate, it was to pose the question if it was ever OK to hate someone, and perhaps lead to some introspection. I thought that since the additional information helped enlighten me on the message of the work, it would do the same for others. It's worth noting that the artist also sat in on a public forum and explained his work, along with conveying his love for this country. He found that when people realized he was actually a conservative citizen who was not saying it was acceptable to hate white people, the novelty of discussing his painting wore off as there was no juicy story to follow. In fact, he has also stated, "We live in the United States where anything is possible and we're better off than most. If you're an American and all you do is complain about your life not being fair, you haven't a clue about what's going on in the rest of the world." Obviously everyone is going to interpret the artist's work differently, as is their right to do so. I maintain that the absence of the entire message distorts the point the artist was trying to make. From what I've seen, the letter writer and the artist actually feel the same way on the subject at hand.

Reply
Report this post

I would strongly recommend doing an internet search on the artist and painting in question. The letter writer left out some key details regarding what else the painting said, not to mention the artist's statement on what the message was intended to be. Obviously a person is still entitled to be offended by the work after being armed with the facts. I would never presume to dictate to someone how they should feel. But the letter didn't provide an entirely accurate picture, and I think that information is needed before passing judgement.