BREAKING THE SILENCE – AT 9:08 A.M. ET: And it's about time. The Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Washington is being dedicated this week. There's been a lot of soft buzz – political correctness prevents louder comments – that the sculpture of King is entirely inappropriate for an American memorial.
The critics are right. And now a black Washington Post columnist speaks out about a work of "art" that was sculpted by a Chinese sculptor loyal to the Beijing regime. That in itself has raised eyebrows. Was not an American artist available? From Accuracy in Media:
A Washington Post columnist has criticized the new Martin Luther King, Jr. monument, while his paper is publishing a 24-page special supplement hailing the unveiling of the “Stone of Hope” in the memorial that includes the 30-foot tall statue of the civil rights leader.
Black columnist Courtland Milloy writes, “Let’s face it: There really is something peculiar about having an artist from communist China sculpt the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial statue. And, yes, it would have been fantastic had an African American sculptor been chosen instead.”
He is correct. But you may be sure there'll be no questions asked by the mainstream media. Anyone who questions will immediately be accused of "McCarthyism."
He adds, “The sculpture is based on a 1966 photograph of King taken in his office in Atlanta, standing at his desk, with a picture of Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi on a wall in the background. In it, King has soft eyes and an open face that conveys the blessed assurance of a man who walks by faith. Lei Yixin has turned those eyes into something of a steely squint. The result is a stern colossus, dressed no less in a style of suit similar to ones found on many statues of Stalin.”
Milloy goes on to complain about the fact that the sculptor and the monument are from China. He writes, “…the fact remains that Lei hails from a country that oppresses ethnic minorities, exploits its workers, and jails human-rights activists and the attorneys who try to defend them. In their day, King and civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall would likely have been taken by the Red Guard and never heard from again.”
Back in 2008, another Post columnist, Marc Fisher, complained that the planned monument depicted King “in the arrogant stance of a dictator, clad in a boxy suit, with an impassive, unapproachable mien, looking more like an East Bloc Politburo member than an inspirational, transformational preacher who won a war armed with nothing but truth and words.”
COMMENT: The monument is an embarrassment, but we must ask why this had to be. Have we come to the point where the political left is so powerful that a monstrosity like this can be created with only token opposition? I'm afraid it is.
One of the sad but true aspects of the civil rights movement is that it was heavily influenced by the far left. I recall, as a student at the University of Chicago, seeing this truth displayed all the time. And yet, that too is an undiscussable subject.
Let the discussion begin, if only in a whisper:
August 25, 2011