What about this statue?
At face value, this young African American teenager was being attacked by a police dog while marching for his rights during the famous Children's March of 1963.
But...is that really the whole story? Is there another perspective?
This week's blog is worth 100 points because it requires you to listen to a podcast. The title is "Foot soldier of Birmingham". Click here.
Please be sure to listen to the entire episode before posting on the blog.
For the comment section, answer these two questions (100 words each):
1) What information was surprising to you in the podcast?
2) Do you think it is wrong to alter history (for example, the photograph vs. the statue) in order to prove a larger point?
ReplyDelete1.) I think that it was very surprising to hear how the whole story of the Foot Soldier was wrong. The picture that was taken made it look like a young black teenager was being attacked by a police dog while a policeman wouldn’t let him go. The teenager was also assumed to have been a foot soldier. This story was very wrong. To know what really happened, they interviewed Walter Gadston, the teenager in the picture. It turns out Walter was not even a foot soldier, but he was just a bystander. He said that he was just walking down the street when some protesters were coming near him, and he moved to get out of their way. He ended up running into the police officer and his dog. The policeman grabbed Walter’s shirt for balance and yanked back the dog’s leash to get him off of Walter. The police officer looked like a bad guy in the picture, but in reality, he wasn’t. (165)
2.) I think it is wrong to alter history in order to prove a larger point in some cases. For example, in the podcast, it talked about how Richard Middleton, the police officer, suffered because history was altered. He received a lot of hate mail for something he didn’t even do. It was a very wrong and unfair thing to do to him. History is history. Changing it will just cause confusion and conflict. I understand that changing a story can prove a larger point, but it is still not the truth. Also, like we see in the Foot Soldier, there is usually someone who ends up getting the bad end of the deal because of the history being altered. (120)
I think it is amazing hoe point of view can change everything. In the picture, it looks like a black teenager who is later identified as a foot soldier is being attacked by a dog and the police officer is doing nothing to help the boy. But later after talking to the boy it was realized that the boy was just walking down the road and he bumped into a police officer and the dog jumped on him and the officer was just trying to get the dog off of him and protect the boy. From this, i learned that every picture or story has two sides to it and before you hear both I would be careful what I say about the situation. (125)
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is wrong to alter history. The truth should be the truth and if something is to be altered I believe the person who knows the truth should do their best and try to fix it no matter the surcomestances. I believe that history in the past has been altered just to prove a point and I believe that this is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to happen because a lot of people are fighting for this country and I believe that the history they are figthing for should be true.(100)
1. In my opinion I really liked to hear everything that happened with foot solider. The picture above shows a white police cop holding a black teen with a dog wanting to attack the black teen. The white police man is doing nothing to help the boy. All he is doing is standing and watching. What really happened shocked me! Walter Gadston, which wad the boy in the picture, was later interviewed and told the full real story. Walter later said he was casually walking down the street when he moved out of the way for some people who were protesting. He accidently ran into a cop and the dog jumped on him. The cop was actually trying to help get the dog off Walter. (126)
ReplyDelete2. I think its very wrong and sad to adjust history. I feel bad for both of the people in the picture. First the police man was given the wrong image. And second the black teen must have felt very deceived. I think it’s wrong when someone changes everything about the story. History is so post to prove a point, but this picture looks very raciest to me. Hearing the real story makes me wonder if everything in history could be false. My point of view was really changed. It makes me angry at whoever took this picture because it makes the police look bad and the boy look like he did something wrong. (112)
The podcast was very informational and surprising. I learned that the police officer’s name was Richard Middleton, and that he was considered by his friends a good and nice guy. The police dog’s name was Leo, and the boy’s name was Walter Gadsden. It was interesting to learn how far the truth was stretched from the picture to the statue. I was surprised to learn that the officer was actually trying to restrain the dog. Also, that Walter was not a part of the Civil Rights protest, and he was not even a foot soldier. Walter also said that the statue doesn’t look like him. He is much taller, and the officer much shorter. Although, it is art. Not a literal representation.
ReplyDelete122 words
It is clear by looking at the photo and looking at the statue that the statue is not a literal representation. It was conformed in its creation to prove a point, not create the photograph. I do not think it is necessarily wrong to portray the statue in this way. The podcast speaker says there are many other statues that have the same effect, such as some Confederate statues that make its generals look like war heroes. Creating a statue like this is misleading, because it is not an accurate representation of what actually happened, but it is created this way to prove a point.
105 words
This podcast was filled of great things that I dd not know. I did not even know this stature was a real thing till I heard about to this week. Also the man who sculpted the statue took him 3 days but he wanted to wait a week so it wouldn’t look rushed. I liked how it was talking about statues being a picture of your time, so the next generation knows what the passed looked like. The start of the dog attacking the kid was when Bill Houston took a picture of him and the policeman let the dog attack him. (106)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that it is not good to changer or alter history. Because if you change history; then how will we know how not to repeat history? So even if history could be changed I vote strongly against it. Also if you change history then you will miss all the trials that we and faced and all the good that had gone on so far, and you will miss the details that makes America who we are. Like in this situation, if you changed the fact that instead of the picture that ticked off the police. What if it was a middle aged man cussing out the guy. Sometimes changing history involves changing the outlooks of others. Finally people won’t know the real history of we change it to something else.
(140)
The podcast was very interesting and was full of many new things. I did not even know what the statue or picture was! One thing that surprised me was the fact that the story behind the statue and the picture is so different from that of what you would expect. In fact, the police man, Walter, in the picture was actually trying to pull his dog away from the black boy, Walter, after Walter accidently bumped into him. Richard was only grabbing the boy's shirt for balance as well. It is funny how different a story can change when you only see a portion of what was really happening. (109)
ReplyDeleteI believe it is wrong to alter history to prove a larger point. The policeman in the photo was not trying to hurt the boy at all, but he was actually trying to help him. After that photo was taken people started to speculate what was actually happening. The story was changed and the policeman, who was completely innocent, got a lot of letters and threats from very angry people. It was said in the podcast altering history causes confusion and conflict. This statement is completely true when you look at what was happening after the word got out. In conclusion I believe it is important to not alter history and to keep it completely truthful so things such as these don't happen again. (124)
One thing that surprised me about the statue was the a foot soldier, and in the photo the boy was not even a foot soldier. Also, when they interviewed the boy, that was being attacked in the photo, later on in his life they asked him how his family reacted when they saw the picture. The man responded saying that they were angry that he was not at school, but there instead. It was also surprising that the police officer was trying to hold his dog back and he was nervous because he did not want to hurt the child, but the statue seems to be telling a whole different story. Also, the child was not even African American, he said that he was light skinned, which is not how his features look in the statue.
ReplyDelete(Word Count: 137)
2. I do not think that it is right to alter history to prove a larger point, because if people would do this then would it even be considered history. The answer is no, because it is not history because it never happened. If the artist changed the statue because he wanted the statue to have a greater meaning, then he did not have to say that it was based off of the photo. The author said that history is how each side views the issue and tells its story, but I disagree with that statement. It is a very sensitive issue because the African Americans were so wrongly treated, but that does not make it ok to change the truth. But on that note, the whites were so racist and it was not right for them to celebrate their hateful leaders and treat them as heroes, because they were not even close to gaining that title.
(Word Count: 156)
This statue in Biringham, Alabama is portrayed falsely. The sculptor was just starting out, and trying to make a name for himself t the time. So he looked at the photograph the officer, the boy and the German shepherd dog, and tried to depict wat he saw as well as what the event was about. This picture was taken during the protests, led by Martin Luther King, for Civil Rights. The boy who was photographed in the picture was onl at the scene to see Martin Luther King, he was not even protesting! And the dog with the officer saw the boy, and went crazy attacking the boy. Officer Middleton did not leathe dog to the attack, in fact he was dying to hold the dog back! (120)
ReplyDeleteI think "enlarging history", if you will, is plain wrong. To take a photograph, and merely sculpt what you see based on the time period is wrong. I believe the sculptor should have met with the officer and boy to get more information, rather than rushing through this project in threee days when he had three weeks to do it. If he would have taken the time to learn more about the photograph, this controversy would have even avoided all together. 80 Today this sculpture deceives those who see it. Maybe they learn abut the time a little bit, but all in all they are not getting the full history of this sculpture just the perspective that the sculptor wanted the viewers to see. (122)
There was a lot of interesting information in this podcast. For example, the statue is different from what actually happened, and it is different than the picture. Walter Gadsden was not even a foot soldier in the march. He was an innocent bystander. Then the guy who is depicted in the statue is not him. The kid is too short to be him, and he has the features of a black person. The police officer in the statue is also depicted wrong. He was trying to hold the dog back, and this is confirmed because the leash was taut. Gadsden was also putting his knee out to push the dog away from him. (114)
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the reason to alter history. The statue shows a bigger picture. While what the statue depicts is not what actually happens, it tells a bigger story. It shows what the African Americans had to deal with during their march for civil rights. That statue is the epitome of what African Americans had to go through to get their rights. It is also a reminder of to the younger generations, so that we won’t forget what happened. So in short, I do not think it is wrong unless it is for the right reason, or if it depicts a story, or if it proves a point. (110)
1. One of the things that was surprising was that the statue was not what it meant at all. The statue was to represent what went on during the Civil Rights Movement of when the kid at the time was grabbed by the police officer and the dog tried to bite the kid. From the interview, the man that was the kid in the picture was not black as it appeared to be in the statue and in the picture that was taken at the time. Also, the officer's wife said in an interview that he was trying to hold his dog back from biting the kid. Of course, everyone else thought that the statue and the picture meant that the police officer was trying to "confront the kid and then let his dog Leo do the rest which was not the case at all. (133 words)
ReplyDelete2. I think that it is wrong to alter history because there are many reasons of messing something up, and you could possibly delete someone's birth such as MLK Jr. If you try to alter history then you could change the timeline of how things occurred or happened. You could also change the date of things that did happen and that would possibly end up not happening at all. God orchestrated things to happen for a reason and we do not know why, but it just happens for reasons that we don't understand. It is best that altering history does not happen, and thank goodness it is impossible to do that. (107 words)
What was surprising was statue of the police man and dog and the black boy, how view people the USA back then, 1st black mayor of Birmingham Alabama and built that statue, KKK really likes bomb, Jesus command to go to Birmingham, the statue is based on a picture taken during a movement to show had bad it is in the south the park there is basically a shrine for all those blacks that have died in MLK junior and three girls that died in the 16 street church bombing by the KKK, the foot soldier statue was for those who died in the Birmingham movement. words106
ReplyDeleteIt’s both a good and bad idea because the good part it opens the peoples’ eyes to the truth which shows had bad it really was if you were living at that time but it is also really because people would take this the wrong way by it was thinking it was ok or they wouldn’t even care because people like that still exist today and probably still happened in many other places it could also people could bind people by telling something that the know isn’t true that’s why there’s cults and gangs and many other things related to this.words101
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to hear the actual story of the Foot Soldier. The original picture that was taken portrays that the black teenager was being attacked by a police dog and the policeman had a strong hold on him not letting him get away. Walter Gadston, the teenager who is seen in the picture, was interviewed and told his point of view on everything. First off, Gadston was assumed to be a Foot soldier, which he was not. He was only a bystander.He happened to be walking down the street with protesters near by.He tried to move out of their way, but ended up running into the police officer and his dog. The police officer yanked the dog’s leash to keep him off of Gadston and also grabbed onto his shirt for balance. The police officer was portrayed as the enemy in the picture even though he was only trying to help.(155)
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong to alter history in order to prove a point. Yes, the photograph would make an important point, but it would bring anger and confusion. The police officer got unnecessary backlash for something he did not do. I think there are other ways you can prove a point without changing history and putting someone down for something they did not do. Altering history can be misleading and it should not be done because there are other ways to bring attention to something.(102)
In the podcast I learned some very new things that i never heard or even know before. The young men who was named Walter Gadston that is in the photo and the statue was never part of the protest in Birmingham. He just came down Martin Luther King Jr. who was in town for that protest. Gadston just ran into Richard Middleton by accident. Middleton when dog Leo jump on top of Gadston then Middleton just tried to get him off of him. When Gadston got home his parents was just more upset that he missed school. The whole story of the statue is just backwards to what really happened is so crazy. (113)
ReplyDeleteTell the story of History is just like one big story telling. There will be alway a part of history from other point of view. The statue vs. the Photograph is that of major arm trest that change how people look at that of civil right movement. Walter Gadston was just there to see people. He just got trap between this and the the photo was taken. Then the creator of the statue want to make a bigger point to what was happening in Birmingham. So to change the what really happen is just wrong. This really alway happen throughout history the retelling of story to change what really happen to everyone involved. (113)
1. honestly, until we brought up the statue in class i didnt know anything about it and the video helped bring light to it. the picture too. the man in the picture, walter gadston, was said to have been a protestor who attacked the police officer and was a soldier for the african americans, but in actuallity, he was just someone in the street who moved out of the way of the protestors and bumped into the cop, causing the cop to act quick to grab the boys shirt and move him away from the dog. the cop was given a bad wrap cause of this and he honestly was trying to protect the boy, which is super sad to see. 121 words
ReplyDeletei think it is very wrong to take an event or picture like this out of context and make it a bigger deal and different than what is really was. but for this instance, i think it was ok to do this because the blacks especially in the south were extremely persecuted and treated very wrongly, needing something to be an example to the Whites and the rest of the world as a ," hello we are here and they are hurting us for no reason." so i do agree that it was okay to make the statue for the time period and what it stood for was good. 108 words
Before this blog I had no clue that this statue even existed. However, it intrigued me to find out that not everything is how it seems. This statue looks like police brutality at its highest point, but that was not even the case at all. The real story is not as fascinating as people have made it out to be. The "foot soldier" was frankly just a little boy walking around town while he was supposed to be in school and ended up accidentally bumping into a police officer and his dog. The dog jumped on the child as they are trained to do, but the policeman was holding him back in order to not harm the child. (119)
ReplyDeleteI think it is a transgression to history to try and alter a story, all because a better or bigger outcome was wanted from the people who were telling the story. They twisted this very innocent story into something wicked and cruel. This is not fair to the real victim of this, and that is the police officer. I'm sure the police officer has faced many trials and an abounding amount of backlash from the people in the area and of the people of the media. History is just that; history. We should not be trying to change something that happened because we like the outcome more. We need to stick by what happened and learn from our mistakes and also be able to see all the good that has been done. (132)
It was very interesting and insightful to learn the true story about the foot soldier. When you look at the picture of the African American teen, the dog, and police officer, you would assume the teenager is apart of the violence of the march. But after hearing that the teenager was completely innocent and so was the police officer it shows how things can always be different than they seem. The African American teenagers name was Walter Gadston and after officials spoke with him they found out he wasn't being attacked on purpose. Gadston told them he was simply walking down the street when he bumped into the police officer who then grabbed him to try and protect him from the dog. So sadly the picture did not tell the whole story and it made the police officer and the boy seem bad. (143)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it is wrong to alter history in order to prove a bigger point. Yes in some cases it may give people a Better understanding of certain events and things, but just like situations like Richard Middletons, things can end up badly. And all because something is altered your life can change drastically and you can be perceived as a bad person. It is just wrong and unfair to who it affects. I believe that we always need to stop and think about how the things we do can affect people. Even if it is to prove a bigger point. (102)
Before we brought this topic to light in class discussion I was unaware of the existence of the statue in Birmingham. The statue is portraying a young boy being held onto by and officer and being attacked by a vicious attack dog. The sculptor at the time was a no name artist who was just trying to make ends meet with his art so he looked at the picture where it was a man standing up with the officers hand on him and the dog close to the man and saw it as an opportunity. The opportunity was to depict what was really going on in the south with racial injustice. (111)
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that it is wrong to alter something in order to prove a point historically. The original picture still showed the racial injustice that the people in the south were suffering with. The picture still showed the police with his hand on a black person. The picture also still showed the vicious attack dog ready to pounce. The sculptor did however make the sculpture a little dramatized to prove the point and show the people on the outside of what was really going on in the south and not what the news told them what was happening. (100)
“The city of Birmingham was often referred to as Bombingham because that seemed to be the weapon of choice for the white supremacist to keep the blacks down.” It really surprised me that the white supremacist would bomb a house of worship even though many of its members claim Christianity as their religion. How heartless do these people have to be to bomb a place knowing that there would be innocent children there and that they would be cutting their life short? That some people have such hatred in their heart to kill people just because the color of their skin and for doing things that they legally had the right to do. (113)
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is right to alter history for the greater good of a good movement. In this statue it is observed that the officer is trying to pull the boy near and release the dog, but in the actual photograph the officer is trying restrain the dog. This statue makes Officer Richard Middleton look like he was going after a protester. But this is actually a picture of a bystander that actually was trying to ovoid the crowd of protesters and accidentally turns into the officer with the dog and the dog lunges at him. But the statue shows the opposite of what happened and its right to tell the truth because if you don't it hurts reputations. (120)
I really liked this podcast when I listened to it last semester and JE. Listening to it a second time made it much more interesting. The thing that surprised me this time is how he changed the photo of the dog and the boy into something different to support civil rights. For example, Mack made the dog look more menacing and the officer looking like he wanted to hurt him. The truth is the officer had no intention of harming the young boy the dog bit him on accident. Which interesting that they still used it for civil rights purposes.(100)
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is wrong to alter history today because we don’t fakes history. With the truth we can know what really happened that day. That is what history is all about, so if we had to change or alter it to know the truth are we really doing anything wrong I think not. Because I would rather have the truth then a lie that we all believed to be true. I believe that Mack made it for the right reasons but should have used a different example. One that is actually 100% reliable. So this way nothing would have to change.(103)
In shock after listening to the video, I learned that there is more meaning to the whole foot soldier statue. The statue is there to show how mean and horrific that moment was for the police and the foot soldiers. But what people do not know is that the statue is misleading. Police officers are seen as horrible people by the blacks since they are the ones that have to tell them their boundaries. But in reality, they are just doing their jobs. First off, Walter Gadston—the boy in the picture—wasn’t even a foot soldier he was a bystander. And instead of this police officer trying to attack the boy he was trying to yank the dog off of him. It was also interesting how Gadston wasn’t even supposed to be there and through this picture he got in trouble for being out of school. (147)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, police officers were described to be unspeakable but I the think they were mostly just trying to do their job. I know some police officers were bad and that some abused other blacks but this part of history is very unpleasant. This gives viewers a historical lie. It is wrong to change history. Why change the real facts? To make the story look good? To make it more interesting? In the end, history is history. It should contain real facts and it should respect whatever actually happened on that day. I understand that at the time it wasn’t right for hat some of the officers did but why not just make a different statue with what actually happened. (121)
I think that the sculpture is cool because it shows politics and life becoming something in art. Not everyone sees what is true. Every person on this planet has a biased towards something. But one thing that art can do is tear down the biased and I think that is amazing. But the background story of the art like the sculpture in Alabama is something that we should be educated about, because it can not give out facts and it may make something seem like it is not. The officer did not tell the dog to bite the boy, he just did it . Art can make something you see not what it seems and that is what it did in this case.
ReplyDeletei do not think that is wrong to alter history. Things can be understood the wrong way and seen the wrong way by people over time. I know that culture also changes and peoples opinion and education changes over time . If something is wrong in the past, then we need to make it right because that is our duty so our children can know what is accurate and inaccurate. I really think that things can be placed back to a better and more true point of view in life. But, if it is right but not pretty then we shouldnt try and make everything acceptable because that would scrub all the dirt off things and history would repeat itself and we do not want that. There should be a balance to what we know as correct and what we know is ugly.
What was surprising to me how the statue does not depict depict what really happened. How the boy in the picture was there originally as bystander just trying to figure out who Martin Luther King Jr. was and what the deal was with the entire movement. Walter Gadsden, the boy in the picture, was just trying to get out of the way of the protestors when the dog lunged at him. The statue version of photo taken depicts the situation as if the boy was willingly giving himself up while the police officer was allowing it all to happen. In the photograph, Walter is in the process of protecting himself and the police officer is trying to restrain the dog. Both parties are in shock in this moment and trying to get a hold of the situation. (137)
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong to alter history to try and prove a larger point. Both people in the photograph were put into a situation that neither of them wanted to be involved in. The statue depicts both the officer and the teenager as something they are not. Looking at this statue you would automatically assume that the officer was a monster and that the boy was only a foot soldier standing up for his rights. This is all because of the way they chose to alter the photograph. There was no need for this because there were plenty of other images that could have been used that were more realistic. (111)
What supprised me the most about the podcast was how the man in the picture responded to some of the interviewers questions. He told her how he was never even involved in the civil rights movement and that he and the police officer ran into each other accidentally because the dog took off. I was not expecting the man to say that at all. Another thing that supprised me was the fact that the police officer was trying to hold the dog back from the boy. The first time I looked at the picture I didn't notice it, but now that it has been pointed out you can tell the police officer is pulling the dog back. (118)
ReplyDeleteI think in this instance twisting that piece of history is okay because of the outcome it had on the civil rights movement. If it were being twisted for evil purposes I would disagree with it. However this picture and statue blew up the civil rights movement and that is a great thing. The boy and police officer in the picture may be depicted differently than they desired, but I think it helped Civil rights in America a lot. This picture was on front pages of newspaper and tons of people saw it and it grew immense support for the civil rights cause. (104)