Bronze Woman
London's first public statue of a black woman was unveiled in Stockwell Memorial Garden yesterday. The 10ft bronze statue was designed by Ian Walters, who created the statue of Nelson Mandela (2005) in Parliament Square, and completed by Aleix Barbat after Ian's death. It reportedly cost Olmec £84,000 (CLICK). It marks the 60th anniversary of the first shipment of West Indian immigrants to arrive in Britain and the 200th anniversary of Parliament's abolition of the slave trade. The statue doesn't convey any history to me. It's another monument to motherhood which perpetuates the myth that men are unimportant to child rearing, a myth exploded time and time again by scientific studies.
posted by Unknown @ 9.10.08
18 comments
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's another monument to motherhood which perpetuates the myth that men are unimportant to child rearing
I must have misunderstood the meaning of the statue.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment about the importance of both mothers and fathers, and I don't believe that women contribute more to child rearing than men do (unless social norms cause them to play different roles, of course, in which case things are more complicated).
But I thought the statue was based on a character in a poem, and intended to reflect the history of West Indian immigration and, much earlier, the ending of the slave trade. That the statue is of a woman doesn't strike me as a statement about motherhood so much as the fact that London's statues are still primarily of men.
Now, now, Aleix, no need to get your dander up. You've been brainwashed by feminists. As I recall, it was mainly West Indian men who trailblazed into Britain looking for work. When they found work, they sent for their wives and children. So this statue has nothing to do with history. It's history rewritten by feminists. More fool you for being taken in by a lie.
Hi, James.
You make a good point about the majority of statues in London being of men; but, as I've already pointed out to Aleix, I can't see history in this statue, merely a feminist lie.
I'm old enough to remember the influx of West Indians into the East End of London in the late 1950s and early '60s, and they were all men. They wore wide-brimmed straw hats and tropical suits in light-coloured cotton - mainly sky blue and fawn - and their trousers were baggy, but tight round the ankles. If a statue of that appearance had been created, I would have said "Yes, that's history. I remember that." But a feminist-inspired statue to a poem that raises Mother to the level of a goddess, give me a break! This is propaganda, not history.
Incidentally it was London Transport, desperate for bus drivers in post war Britain with many men dead or crippled, that advertised in the West Indies for recruits, and in those days very few women could drive. This fact again puts the lie to that myth which modern feminists are trying to create in retrospect. Don't let them fool you.
I guess I'm just not sure how this statue represents an historical lie.
Were women and children not an integral part of the experience of West Indian immigration? Are they not, now, an integral part of the Caribbean community? Obviously, they were and are. In fact, most members of that community today were, of course, either women or children during that experience.
Do you feel that part of the community's experience should not be celebrated? Or is not genuine? Or is your point that there is a lack of public recognition of the role of male members of the West Indian community -- perhaps specifically, based on your comments, their pioneering role in immigrating in order to look for work?
I thought I'd made myself clear. Yes, the men did the pioneering and when they had enough money they sent for their wives and children. The feminists, as always, are trying to belittle the men and claim credit for what the men did. That's why I believe this statue to be a lie.
Men are still the breadwinners in many parts of the world and when they can't find work where they live they're expected to find work elsewhere to support their families back home. How many of the Chinese cockle pickers who died in Morecombe Bay were women? None. In 50 years time, when the truth has been forgotten, Chinese feminists will be erecting a statue to Woman overlooking Morcombe Bay!
Read "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" by Mildred D. Taylor and you'll find the same story of a man needing to go away from his farm to find work so he can support his family. It's a brilliant book, by the way. Highly recommended.
I think you were clear about those points before. I'm just not sure how they show a lie.
You seem to concentrate on the fact that men often immigrated first. How does this mean that women and children weren't an integral part of the immigrant experience? Does this mean that depictions of the community's experience shouldn't include depictions of women and children? Wouldn't that be the historical lie?
Now, if you're saying that some depictions of this history should show men, then of course I agree. But you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy to prevent men from being shown at all, or that women shouldn't be getting much, if any, credit for being a part of this history.
I would never want to see history re-written to include women where there were none. But the history of West Indian immigrants certainly includes plenty of women.
And, yes, in fifty years I would hope to see historical depictions of Chinese women, even if at the time, their role was to be subordinate to male breadwinners. If there were simply no women in a particular location at a particular time, then in addition to showing the men there, we should probably ask where the women were, and if their lives were at least as hard as the men's.
You have completely sidestepped my trail of logic in order to cling to your own beliefs. It's like a religion for you. It isn't worth my while arguing. Rewrite history in the feminist mould if you wish, but it will be a work of fiction, not an objective, factual history.
just have to add in here: this sculpture is an artist's representation of history. it was chosen by a group of some sort, i assume, because it best represented what they thought this commemoration is about.
you could say it represents "hope" as depicted in the eyes of a mother looking at her child and seeing the future, or "new birth" a new start, represented by the child. "goddess" could be an interpretation of this piece, but i do not think that was the intent - nor do i believe it is about "family." but if it were, i think the artist would have included a man beside the woman.
and about the history: women weren't a part of much in history because they were forbidden to be by men. though some feminists may believe in overindulging important females in history, many simply look for the best in the slim pickings history affords us to try to show that a male-dominated past should not lead to a male-dominated future. this is not to de-value men's roles in our history - only to remind us that only one side of the story has been told and of what could have been, if only women were seen as equal, not lessor.
Hi, Jacks
Your first two paragraphs are fair comment, but when you write "women weren't a part of much in history because they were forbidden to be by men" you're repeating a feminist lie.
The woman all feminists must ignore to maintain that lie is Hildegard von Bingen, a hugely creative talent and one of my favourite composers. I've mentioned her in 3 of my posts. Just put her name in my Blogger search box to find out about her.
The truth of the matter is that prior to efficient contraception women were too busy having babies to make much of a contribution to history, but if you look you'll find many examples of historically important women. (Hildegard was a nun, which is one way of avoiding pregnancy.)
Modern sanitary towels and tampons have also made a major contribution to female emancipation. Even today, in primitive tribes, menstruating women are forbidden (more by other women than by men) to enter the main village compound. In some primitive societies they must stay in huts specially reserved for menstruating women.
Prior to bottle-feeding (not good for babies, but a modern convenience) women needed to keep their babies close by, another restriction on their movements and on their participation in society.
So, it is biology, not men, which has kept women restricted. Those feminists who refuse to accept this truth and who blame men for everything are no better than fascists.
I'm sorry, but this argument--that biology, and not men, historically restricted women--doesn't begin to hold up.
For instance, history is replete with women who were young, single, and without children, or who were older and no longer having children. Very few of them were allowed to participate fully in most forms of public life--higher education, scholarship, literature, arts, politics, military life, and most economic activity above the family unit. Typically, we see that they were prevented from these activities by inflexible social rules and frequently laws and/or the direct actions of those already in their chosen fields.
The fact that you can point to a single example in history of a nun who was able to compose music hardly refutes this observation.
Also, according to Wikipedia, Hildegard of Bingen was *given* to the Church by her parents at age eight. Hardly a good example of a woman who wasn't subjugated by men.
It's also true that most women of childbearing years have historically spent time bearing children. But bearing and raising children hardly precludes participation in most other life activities, as we can see today and from the fact that many men have been equally busy at breadwinning and still been able to make major contributions in other areas.
Finally, your argument about menstruation defeats itself. For you describe the restrictions often placed on women who are menstruating, and of course these restrictions have no basis whatsoever in biology (except as patently unnecessary excuses for restricting women).
Lest I seem entirely argumentative, I agree with you that bottle-feeding is not particularly healthy for infants, despite being a convenient answer for modern parents. ;-)
Thanks,
James
James, you're missing the point yet again.
The societal restrictions placed on women arose from the biology. Nobody flicked a coin to answer the daft question "Which sex shall we discriminate against?" Genetics flicked that coin.
If you had to select animal warriors for an army, would you choose stags or hinds? If you're sane, you'd choose stags. And would you then put a hind in charge of the stags? Of course not!
The only female army - the Amazons - is a myth. And those mythical female warriors were fabled to cut off one of their breasts to be able to fire their bows and arrows. Would you really want to recruit women soldiers who all needed mastectomies to be enabled to fight? Now that modern technology has reduced slaughter to the touch of a button, women are free to join military forces. And good luck to them.
The fact that Hildegard von Bingen was given to the Church at the age of 8 doesn't prove some anti-female plot, because boys of that age were given to the Church in those days. And they were given to knights for training in warfare at that age too. And to masters of trades. In fact far more boys were given away than girls, who tended to stay at home and learn from their mothers.
It was only in the last century that the Catholic Church stopped the foul practice of castrating its finest choirboys in order to keep their sweet voices into adult life. I've heard an old 78 recording of the last castralto. Pathetic. None of Hildegard's nuns had to lose an important part of their anatomy in order to sing.
Don't get me started on female circumcision. That's appalling too. But it's women who perpetuate that foul practice, not men.
Remove your feminist blinkers and take a look at the real world.
At least we can agree on breast-feeding. Let's leave it at that.
The societal restrictions placed on women arose from the biology.
These restrictions involve biology. They weren't dictated by biology, however.
Of course, the average male is physically stronger, and better suited on the whole for hunting or fighting. But many primative societies use both men and women for these roles, so there's nothing stopping women from engaging in these activities. Many women, in fact, are stronger than many men.
More importantly, there are comparatively few activities where even an average advantage in physical strength is relevant.
And would you then put a hind in charge of the stags? Of course not!
Why wouldn't you put a hind in charge of stags? Do you think males have a genetic advantage in military leadership??
Notice, however, that you've taken an argument about the full range of activities from which women have historically been excluded--including "higher education, scholarship, literature, arts, politics, military life, and most (other) economic activity above the family unit"--and you've simply responded about military activities. Unlike the other activities mentioned, this is the only one which depends on comparative physical strength.
What about all the rest?
boys of that age were given to the Church in those days. And they were given to knights for training in warfare at that age too. And to masters of trades. In fact far more boys were given away than girls, who tended to stay at home and learn from their mothers.
In other words, many boys were trained to be leaders of the Church, military men, tradesmen and merchants? While most women were forced to be homemakers, despite no relevant biological differences (except possibly in the military sphere)?
This seems to refute your argument, doesn't it?
ah yes.... men never wanted an 'heir' in history, and shunned the woman when they were unable to produce one. that didn't happen. Henry VII just shunned his first wife because he wanted to break away from the church all along.
and, silly me, women were just as prominent in parliament and the sciences and the arts throughout history; they were just too ignorant and concerned with babies and menstrual flows and breast feeding to be recognized.
oh, and the ecoles des beaux-arts never exempted women from their teachings; women just didn't have the care or drive to become artists. Camille Claudel got her fair shake. she just copied off of Rodin, after all.
you're right. men throughout history never believed that a woman's place was in the home - women just put themselves there, knowing they could contribute little to society's laws and wars and interests. for thousands of years, women were only interested in sewing and gossiping and fashion.
St. Paul the Apostle, in the most reproduced book in the world, never dictated that women cover their heads to hide their hair so that men would not be tempted by them. he never said that women should be submissive to men, to keep silent, to have no authority over men. that is just made-up lies by those feminists from the days of early Christianity...
women weren't traded for sex at the expense of men. or excluded from public forums. or told to cover their ankles like a virtuous young lady, for fear that a man might think unclean thoughts about her. oh! heaven forbid it. shame to women for making men feel wrong and dirty!
my friend, if you are right, women would not have had to struggle for 70 years for the right to vote in the US. there would be just as many woman artists in history as men - not just suddenly appearing here and there sporadically since the Renaissance and growing conveniently as women gained more rights in society.
as the physically weaker sex, women have bowed to men's will since the beginning of our existence. and lets not forget that if they had audacity enough to buck tradition, they were ostracized and threatened, even beaten into submission.
women were expected to raise the children. they were told they were dirty and unclean for having periods and inciting desire in men. women were raised to believe they were too small-minded and meek to consider the heavy burdens of the world of men - even blamed for tricking Adam into biting the apple of knowledge and thus are the cause of the fall from grace. our children are TAUGHT this as truth, at a very young and impressionable age.
thank god as the human race grows older, we begin to understand that equality is in the mind, the pen IS mightier than the sword, and women and men BOTH contribute vitality and intelligence.
I hesitate even bothering to post this message, as one such as yourself will never be convinced of their error in this matter.
No, your ridiculous and illogical tosh doesn't refute my argument. It just proves what a prejuduced, blinkered fathead you are! That's the end. I've no more time to waste on this nonsense. No further comments from you will be published.
Jacks, I'm not going to get bogged down in the nitty-gritty of your arguments, because they have scant bearing on what I'm saying. You've wildly missed the point.
I'm looking at the biological picture. Men and women are different. It isn't just a matter of genitalia. Nor is an on/off status, but a continuum running from extreme male to extreme female with a lot of in-betweens society prefers not to mention: hermaphrodites, cross-dressers, gays.
There are brain differences, hormonal differences, muscular differences, skeletal differences, visual differences (50% of men have some form of colour blindness). What I'm saying is that these biological differences predispose men and women to act in different ways and societies places different values on those ways of behaving.
As I've tried to point out, modern science has created more of a level playing field between the sexes (and the in-betweens), but this doesn't make us all unisex. Did you know that psychological experiments show that when threatened, women tend to group together, but men tend to isolate themselves? This is merely one example of gender differences.
To bring you back to my original point, which nobody has attempted to refute, healthy children need fathers and mothers. It's amazing that my statement of this simple scientific fact has set you and Andrew off on a wild goose chase to declare and confirm you own prejudices.
This post is now closed to further comments.
And I was just getting interested.
Back to the artwork itself. It depicts what every mother, father, grandparent does. Holding a newborn or young child aloft. It signifies to me a new beginning, the beginning of a life. In the context that it is a black woman and marks two anniversaries leads to me to this:
Being a male I cannot really comment on the rigours of pregnancy but it seems to me that there must be a significant emotional difference in producing a child for slavery and producing a free child. And in producing the first generation of the West Indian immigrants to be born here in the UK.
This statue makes me smile, it makes me think of fresh starts, freedom and hope. I do not see any feminista/motherhood agenda.
The interpretation of art is an individual choice and you are entitled to yours, as I am to mine.
Oh, all right, Weggis. I'll let you have the last word, but this is positively the last comment on this post.
Post a Comment
<< Home