Comments by "3namechangezalowd Evry90dayzlernmor" (@3namechangezalowdevry90day7) on "‘His Name Was Bélizaire’: Rare Portrait of Enslaved Child Arrives at the Met" video.

This is all fine and good, but these historians really need to get over themselves with this " giving him his name" nonsense as if they did that kid an actual favor. If this guy Belizaire from the records is the same kid in the paintings, I'm sure his portrait getting painted over in the future would have been the least of his concerns with all the crap he would have had to put up with in life.
106
This is a historian's "educated guess". Cool story but no definitive proof.
37
It's like priceless object hoarding disorder behind the scenes. There are stacks of actual mummified pharaohs in the basements of Egyptian museums.
16
@mkuti-childress3625 It's possible, but artists or schools of artists often get "same face syndrome". The female characters in Pixar movies for instance. Hard to tell apart except by their hair.
8
The whole "black erasure conspiracy" angle makes no sense. Think about it. If someone wanted to create propaganda to make people think slavery was no big deal, they'd WANT to show this guy! Then they could say " look how well dressed he is! Free room and board just for babysitting!"
7
Ever seen Antiques Roadshow? Every item that gets brought in is "priceless" and there's almost always a "family legend". Then, most of the items turn out to be crap, just really old. There's no "conspiracy to hide black people" here. Face it, if someone was out to convince people that slavery wasn't that bad they'd WANT this painting restored and shown ASAP! Then, they could say " He's well dressed and treated like family! Free room and board just for babysitting!"
6
@mamadouaziza2536 He likely wouldn't have been educated. There were some laws in the South that criminalized teaching a slave to read and write.
5
Sure, they would! Why not? It's a cool little mystery that would grab the kids' attention.
4
@juliz2500 Yeah, pretty sure having his portrait painted over wasn't even that big of a deal compared to the other crap in his life. You have to take this whole story with a grain of salt because at best, it's an educated guess. The historian lady just looked back in the records and found someone who would "fit". The family may have owned other slaves than the guy they think it is. Archaeologists get a little full of themselves and romanticize history " we gave him back his name!" A few years back an egyptologist had a whole Discovery special about how she found the mummy of Nefertiti, complete with a face reconstruction and a CGI animated sequence of her entering the afterlife as she had been " given back her name"! " she has nefer beads so it must be her!" Years later that mummy was proved to be Tutankhamun's aunt and mother through DNA and the Egyptologist got banned from Egypt!
4
@phiakate Have you ever seen Antiques Roadshow? Everything's "priceless" and has a story. And then a lot of it is assessed to be crap. A museum making a bad call because they had more donations than they could afford to store isn't a " juicy" enough story so they went with the " giant conspiracy to erase black people from history" angle.
4
@globalcitizenn How do you know his dad was white.? Could have been native American or Hispanic.
3
What did he erase? All he did was work at a place that owned a donated painting by who knows who that had a blur in the back that was rumored to be a painted over slave. He said that selling the thing and not gambling the $$ to have it restored was a mistake.
3
The whole "black erasure conspiracy" angle makes no sense. Think about it. If someone wanted to create propaganda to make people think slavery was no big deal, they'd WANT to show this guy! Then they could say " look how well dressed he is! Free room and board just for babysitting!"
3
The whole "black erasure conspiracy" angle makes no sense. Think about it. If someone wanted to create propaganda to make people think slavery was no big deal, they'd WANT to show this guy! Then they could say " look how well dressed he is! Free room and board just for babysitting!"
3
@GullibleTarget That painting is the EXACT sort of thing slavery apologists would WANT restored and shown ASAP! " Look, he's well fed and well dressed! Treated like family!" The NY museum bought this already restored, with a historical narrative that would pull viewers attached. When the previous museum got it, it was just three white kids and a blur, (maybe slave? ) artist unknown.
3
@sarahjames927 That's not what the museum rep is commenting on. The descendants of the family in 5he portrait painted over the guy. The museum rep isn't referring to that as being a mistake, he's saying that the museum having auctioned off the painting was a mistake.
3
@icantfindnone He's saying the museum made a mistake by auctioning the unrestored painting for funds. He's not talking about any of that other stuff.
3
Have you ever seen Antiques Roadshow? Every family heirloom is "priceless" and has a story. And then a lot of it is assessed to be crap. A museum making a bad call because they had more donations than they could afford to store isn't a " juicy" enough story so they went with the " giant conspiracy to erase black people from history" angle.
2
@@SonderDAzeX It's unlikely he was a tutor to the kids..It was illegal to teach slaves to read in some states but he might have been literate anyway. You wouldn't have to read to clean and repair clothes, cook food and babysit, though.
2
You have to take this whole story with a grain of salt because at best, it's an educated guess. The historian lady just looked back in the records and found someone who would "fit". The family may have owned other slaves than the guy they think it is. Archaeologists get a little full of themselves and romanticize history " we gave him back his name!" A few years back an egyptologist had a whole Discovery special about how she found the mummy of Nefertiti, complete with a face reconstruction and a CGI animated sequence of her entering the afterlife as she had been " given back her name"! " she has nefer beads so it must be her!" Years later that mummy was proved to be Tutankhamun's aunt and mother through DNA and the Egyptologist got banned from Egypt!
2
@ddot9566 What's with the rant? Do you really think I don't get that "slavery is bad"? Assuming the historian made the correct assumption and the kid that's portrayed is the one she picked based on " who would have been rich enough to commission this", how many people walking around an art museum are going to dig into the back story of every guy in every painting? Most are going to stroll through and see stereotypical images of loyal servants staring reverently at their masters, obese cheerful cooks, goofy looking guys playing the fool, etc. and walk away with the VISUAL IMPRESSION that " slavery wasn't so bad". People have been complaining that displaying this stuff promotes stereotypes for more than a century, and when they get their way and it's NOT shown, they boo-hoo that there's a conspiracy to erase blacks from history!
2
@free1855 Yes, everything's a minor crime until it's your pocket that's picked or your car that's hotwired. Don't pretend none are violent criminals. Which criminal has the highest chance of reintegration? One with job skills or one who served their time staring at the wall, gambling and getting in fights?
2
Slavery is STILL cruel. Here and wherever. But now they call it "human trafficking", like, "There! Fixed it!"
1
The professionally offended finally got their wish and had all the "stereotypical depictions" removed ..now they have to switch gears and complain about black Americans being "erased"! Loyal servant gazing reverently at master" is a stereotype, too, just like cheerful obese cooks! Remember? The ones that were removed from the grocery store food packaging in order to be less offensive during the BLM riots?
1
@himesilva IS it an accurate depiction of a black American, though? " Loyal servant gazing reverently at master" is a stereotype, too, just like cheerful obese cooks! Remember? The ones that were removed from the grocery store food packaging in order to be less offensive during the BLM riots?
1
@andym9115 Yeah, people need a little healthy skepticism toward historical claims. Also, some other historian saying " it could have been done this other way" doesn't debunk anything. The actual evidence still has to be weighed.
1
Why would white people be "afraid" to look at a painting? This guy's white owners commissioned the painting in the first place. It's a cool mystery. He was important enough to them that they'd want to remember him. I wonder if he might not have done something that caused them to sell him off and paint him out. Or maybe the family just had to sell him off because they went broke and the heirs had him painted out to avoid embarrassing assumptions because the artist's "same face syndrome" made him look related to the other kids...
1
Loyal servant gazing reverently at master" is a stereotype, too, just like cheerful, obese cooks! People DEMANDED this stuff br removed! Recently! Remember? The black cooks that were removed from the grocery store food packaging in order to be less offensive during the BLM riots?
1
@AlexFisher-rg5hd Exactly. Viewers are going to see a well fed, well dressed boy who seems just fine! Most won't dig into his back story to find out any different. If someone was out to prove slavery was no big deal, they'd WANT this restored and displayed ASAP!
1
Assuming the historian made the correct guess and the kid that's portrayed is the one she picked (based on " who would have been rich enough to commission this"), how many people walking around an art museum are going to dig into the back story of every guy in every painting? Most are going to stroll through and see stereotypical images of loyal servants staring reverently at their masters, obese cheerful cooks, goofy looking guys playing the fool, etc. and walk away with the VISUAL IMPRESSION that " slavery wasn't so bad". People have been complaining that displaying this stuff promotes stereotypes for more than a century, and when they get their way and it's NOT shown, they boo-hoo that there's a conspiracy to erase blacks from history!
1
@nymeria7239 Yes, everyone knows smirking while white is a crime! Remember those awful Catholic school boys who smirked on camera when the old native American guy came at them chanting and beating a drum in their faces?
1
Art contains stereotypes. You can't have it both ways. "Loyal servant gazing reverently at master" is a stereotype, too, just like "cheerful obese cooks" ! Remember? The ones that were removed from the grocery store food packaging in order to be less offensive during the BLM riots?
1
@fintan9218 So, is commercial art not a " real" enough form of art to matter? Should the images of people in ads matter less to the public that people in portraits? Both portray an idealized version of life where the subjects are happy to serve. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Those "missing" depictions were put behind closed doors because they contain stereotypes. Unless you just want to go back and re- write history Hamilton/Bridgerton style?
1
@fintan9218 Are you just mad I brought up BLM? Their level of scamming, nepotism, and negligence is legendary, and a matter of public record. Why hide recent history if you're complaining about history being hidden?
1
@fintan9218 I didn't delete any comments. What comment "showed inner bigotry" in your opinion?
1
@ddot9566 A different report said the family sold him off during hard times but bought him back later. But that's beside the point, because the original painting shows a kid that's not starving or suffering. If the first museum HAD spent $$$ to have it restored and displayed it, they'd have gotten a bunch of complaints about displaying propaganda that makes light of slavery!
1
@ddot9566 I'm referring to the conspiracy "angle" that the NYT is promoting here, which is the idea that museums are conspiring to "cover up" black history. If anything, museums are just trying to cover their own butts against accusations of displaying artwork with racist stereotypes. Remember, just the other year, black people holding up food items while smiling was considered too stereotypical for grocery packages! I'm not disputing that the family painted over this particular slave. I've seen even more ridiculous examples of reporting this alleged conspiracy. In one, it was considered racist that statues of Roman Emperor Septimus Severus and his family were displayed as white marble, as if the museums were at fault for not repainting them so that museum patrons could see they were dark skinned!
1
@blackqueen164 Probably why the family's descendants had him painted out during the Jim Crow days. They wanted to keep their poor dead relatives' image, but what's with that kid staring at them? He's gotta go. I doubt it was because they were ashamed their ancestors owned slaves. That would have been a normal thing to any wealthy family.
1
@tenitarichards3203 Where's your proof that there's a conspiracy? This is just hype for news ratings. It wasn't too long ago that black cooks were removed from supermarket packaging in order to be "anti-racist", now that that's been done the professionally offended have switched gears to " not enough" black images!
1
@K.YouTube2 Autism puts him at a disadvantage detecting emotions, but he's saying he's trained himself to compensate through analysis.
1
@youweremymuse The museum knew that the donors had a family story that the painted over area had been a slave. They didn't know for sure.
1
@leeanndap7020 He was sold when the family hit hard times ( and bought back later , according to a different report). He was painted over by descendants of the family during the Jim Crow era, not by the generation of people that knew him.
1
@K.YouTube2 Someone autistic is always autistic but they can learn to mask or compensate. Similar to someone deaf learning to lip read.
1