America's Ugliest Confederate Statue

[Nashvillain]

I came across this article this morning in NYMagazine. My dad used to work for Bill Dorris at Aquabath. Heh. I think I met him once. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/americas-ugliest-confederate-statue-isnt-coming-down-soon.html

 

[Nathan_in_DC]

Regardless of subject, that statue is embarrassingly hideous. I wish the state would plant large, fast growing trees in front.

[MLBrumby]

Leyland Cypress trees!  

[BnaBreaker]

Can't the state just hire a driver of a semi-truck full of fireworks who just HAPPENS to "fall asleep at the wheel" right at that point and veer off the road into it?  Hell, even if it doesn't knock it down, it might improve it!

[fieldmarshaldj]

12 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

Can't the state just hire a driver of a semi-truck full of fireworks who just HAPPENS to "fall asleep at the wheel" right at that point and veer off the road into it?  Hell, even if it doesn't knock it down, it might improve it!

The dude has a right to build a statue on his property, even if we almost all agree that it is pretty ghastly. The subject doesn't particularly bother me (he is a nuanced character, and frankly if we applied the PC standards of today against people of the past, no one would get a statue), but the rendition itself is amateurish and cartoonish and is more of an insult to its subject. Of course, saying the man has rights to put up a statue on his property doesn't similarly mean all have to be subjected to viewing it. If the state wishes to replant trees/high shrubbery, etc. on their side of the property line, that's their call. See, using the Constitution, you can find a way to respect the rights of both sides.

[BnaBreaker]

35 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

The dude has a right to build a statue on his property, even if we almost all agree that it is pretty ghastly. The subject doesn't particularly bother me (he is a nuanced character, and frankly if we applied the PC standards of today against people of the past, no one would get a statue), but the rendition itself is amateurish and cartoonish and is more of an insult to its subject. Of course, saying the man has rights to put up a statue on his property doesn't similarly mean all have to be subjected to viewing it. If the state wishes to replant trees/high shrubbery, etc. on their side of the property line, that's their call. See, using the Constitution, you can find a way to respect the rights of both sides.

When it comes to this statue, I think there is only one side.  We all agree he  has a right to put it on his property, but we also all agree it's a butt ugly statue celebrating something rather shameful.  My solution is simply to pay someone to have an "accident"... or perhaps my recent re-watching of The Sopranos is going to my head??  haha 

[timmay143]

[Skyscrapergeek]

I’m sure a lot have you have already seen this but Nathan has acquired a few more coats of paint since this article.   I don’t usually support vandalism; however, in this case, Vandal, I salute you sir!  As a history fan I have no problem with the subject matter but I can’t stand bad art (Sticks, I’m talking to you too , that’s right, I said it) and this is a horrid example of an equestrian statue.   It looks like an oversized kiddy ride that you used to see in front of Kmart.