Tag: statues

bookmark_borderSilent Sam: UNC Chapel Hill’s destroyed Confederate statue

Posted on by Marissa

The amount of destruction of historic statues that has taken place over the past months and years has been absolutely overwhelming. As a result, I admittedly haven’t been able to read and absorb all of the news as it’s been happening. As painful as it is, I’ve been spending the past couple of weeks catching up on old news stories about various incidents of statue vandalism and removal. One article that I came across is about Silent Sam, a Confederate statue that called University of North Carolina Chapel Hill home until August 20, 2018, when he was destroyed by protesters. As with all acts of destruction committed against statues, I condemn this despicable action in the strongest possible terms.

In the article, history professor Anne Bailey describes Silent Sam as a “powerful symbol of white supremacy” and “a divisive symbol of white supremacy” who “was meant to pay tribute to those who wanted to maintain slavery.” She also writes that “Confederate statues, therefore, represent a step backwards – a symbol of what the United States once was – not what it is now.”

In my opinion, Confederate statues are not symbols of white supremacy; they are simply symbols of the Confederacy, a short-lived nation that, like all nations, had various attributes, some admirable and some less so. And representing a step backwards is not necessarily a bad thing; there’s no reason why the way the country used to be is necessarily inferior to the way the country is today. (The pervasiveness and widespread acceptance of attacks on statues such as Silent Sam weighs heavily in favor of the argument that the U.S. was a better place in the past than it is now.)

As for the claim about being divisive, those who use this term seem to be assuming that it’s a bad thing to display any kind of symbol that is liked by some people and not others; in other words that only universally liked symbols should be displayed. But this is a recipe for a uniform, bland, sterile, conformist society containing nothing interesting or distinctive and no diversity. Not every monument or memorial, not every piece of public art is going to be liked by everyone, and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s why tearing down statues is so wrong. Perpetrators claim to be carrying out this destruction in the name of diversity and inclusion, but what they are doing is contrary to these ideals. Destroying works of art because you do not like them violates the rights of those who do and demonstrates a complete disregard for their preferences and viewpoints.

Bailey also writes:

Today, the nation is experiencing what some call a civil war over statues. The only way to avert this new civil war – in some ways a symbolic one over the outcome of the original Civil War – is to have dialogue. And after dialogue, actions must follow. It could be that protesters who toppled Silent Sam acted out of a sense that dialogue had reached a standstill after years of debate. Communities may decide to take the statues down or replace them with monuments that honor abolitionists like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, William H. Seward or Thaddeus Stephens. They may also choose to keep the Confederate statues intact with a plaque that gives a more balanced view of the causes of the war.

While dialogue is always a good thing, Bailey seems to be assuming that the only options to be discussed are getting rid of Confederate statues or adding plaques that profess a negative view towards the Confederacy (Bailey’s idea of a more balanced view of the causes of the war isn’t necessarily everyone’s). The option of leaving the statues completely as they are isn’t mentioned, let alone the option of adding more Confederate statues in places that do not currently have them. In this way, Bailey is presuming the truth of what she is trying to prove, namely that Confederate statues are bad. The idea that someone might consider the statues just fine as they are, or even want new ones to be built, isn’t even acknowledged as a possibility.

bookmark_borderAnother day, another defamatory blog post

Posted on by Marissa

I came across another defamatory blog post by Michelle Davis at Living Blue in Texas, in which she insults the Confederate statue at Parker County Courthouse in Weatherford, Texas, as well as those who support it.

“There is no question about it, Progressives in Parker County are modern day civil rights activists standing up to hate in their own town,” she pompously gloats.

As usual, Davis repeatedly defames people who support the Confederate statue by calling them “racists” (and also defames the statue itself by calling it a “racist statue”). Also as usual, she personally attacks those who disagree with her, calling the Confederate flag a “loser flag,” categorizing opinions that are different from hers as “garbage,” describing statue supporters as “doing some type of circle-jerk around the statue,” and referring insultingly (and falsely) to the statue as “their precious ode to white supremacy.” And also as usual, she refers to them as “counter-protesters” with the derisive quotes, which makes no sense because the people she is describing actually are counter-protesters. 

First, Davis criticizes the statue supporters for arriving early and surrounding the monument to defend it before a recent protest, writing, “they still think that their Black neighbors are going to burn it down, despite they’ve never burned it down in all of the dozens of protests they’ve had this year.” First of all, I’m willing to bet the statue supporters aren’t just concerned about the possibility of black people vandalizing the statue; the statue-destroying, politically correct mob contains people of all races. Second, I’m not really sure why Davis expects the statue supporters to stop defending their statue just because it hasn’t been vandalized yet. There’s always a chance that protesters could vandalize the statue, so it’s wise to physically protect it just in case. (Also, a flyer advertising the protest contained the words “smash racism,” which could reasonably be interpreted encouraging vandalism. If you use the word “smash” in your own flyer, you have no right to ridicule people for being concerned that a statue might possibly end up being vandalized.)

Davis describes comments on the Sons of Confederate Veterans Facebook page as “hateful and racist” and displays screenshots of numerous comments, none of which are hateful or racist. Ironically, Davis’s blog post contains a photo showing a protester with a sign reading, “Black & brown built this town, time to take the statue down,” which is more racist than any of the pro-statue Facebook comments Davis is criticizing. (Is it really true that no white people had any part in building the town of Weatherford? I’m willing to bet not.)

“Likely, these people don’t even realize how hateful and ugly they look,” Davis writes of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other statue supporters. Except that they do not look hateful or ugly at all. They are standing up for a Confederate statue, which is neither hateful nor ugly. It is actually Davis who looks (and is) hateful and ugly for ridiculing and defaming those with different views than her.

“They’ve been lied to their entire lives and were likely indoctrinated into white supremacy when they were kids and it is now intertwined with their identities,” Davis writes. “It is Living Blue in Texas’ opinion that old racists likely will never learn or understand inclusion.” First of all, speculating about why people hold the views that they do is inappropriate. Davis is not in a position to know what her ideological opponents’ upbringings or backgrounds were like. Presuming that anyone who holds pro-Confederate views must have been “indoctrinated” as a child presumes that pro-Confederate views are false, because it denies the possibility that someone could have arrived at such views through careful and deliberate thought. Second, it’s absolutely hilarious that Davis writes about inclusion when she is arguing that a monument must be removed because the cause that it commemorates is not popular in the year 2020. It is the exact opposite of inclusion to defame, ridicule, and obliterate the history of an already marginalized group. But that is exactly what Davis and the Progressives of Parker County are doing. Clearly, they are the ones who do not understand inclusion.

Then, Davis describes an incident at the recent protest in which an anti-statue protester, Tony Crawford, asks the counter-protesters to “prove that the Confederacy wasn’t racist.” Does she not realize that this isn’t how the burden of proof works? It’s the burden of those who think the Confederacy was racist to prove that it was racist, not the other way around. 

And then she glowingly and admiringly describes an incident in which another anti-statue protester, Jessica Luther-Rummel, “pressed some of these racists for their names” and “told all of the white supremacists standing around that they could all go get f***ed up the a**.” How classy. Why exactly would someone consider it a good thing to treat people this way?

Davis complains about “the racism, hate, and violence” allegedly perpetrated by her opponents and criticizes them for being “full of hate and rage.” She complains that statue supporters allegedly threatened members of the anti-statue group but completely ignores the repugnant behavior of those on her own side, as well as the inherent intolerance and injustice of their cause. It is the anti-statue protesters who are truly practicing racism and hate. And it is completely understandable that people would be full of rage when they have been treated the way that Davis, Crawford, Luther-Rummel, and the rest of the anti-statue bullies have been treating those with different views.

And finally, in case there was any doubt that Davis and the Progressives of Parker County are the true bullies, she closes by gloating about how “the Confederate traitors were defeated by America.” Anyone who considers it “treasonous” to rebel against an oppressive government is an authoritarian and a bully. Yes, the Confederacy was defeated by the United States due to the latter being more populous and industrialized, but I am not sure why someone would consider this something to brag about. Which side won a war and which side lost has nothing to do with which side was morally right. Anyone who has the belief that military strength determines moral right and wrong is, you guessed it, an authoritarian and a bully. 

“It’s baffling how any non-racist can see what’s been happening in Weatherford and not have the urge to stand with or support the Black community and their allies in their efforts to remove this symbol of white supremacy from the lawn of the halls of justice,” writes Davis. Actually, Davis makes it very easy to resist standing with her side. Her mean-spirited, contemptuous treatment of other people reminds me of the bullies that I dealt with in elementary and middle school. There is no place for ridicule and personal attacks in our discourse, and the sheer volume of these that Davis has put forth on her blog makes my brain hurt. The Progressives of Parker County are the furthest thing possible from “modern day civil rights activists standing up to hate.” They are mean, nasty, intolerant bullies who are trampling on the underdog, ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them, and attempting to obliterate from the world everything that does not conform to their narrow definition of political correctness. 

“Enough is enough,” Davis writes. Yes, it is. 

bookmark_border“Stop honoring racist losers”

Posted on by Marissa

“Stop honoring racist losers.” These are the words on a sign held by a protester in Weatherford, Texas earlier this year. Like so many intolerant bullies have been doing throughout these horrible last seven or so months, this person was demanding that a Confederate statue be removed from its place in front of the county courthouse. The protest in question happened back in July, but the topic is still (sadly) relevant and I still have strong opinions about it, so it is still worth blogging about. 

At the protest on July 25, a group of hundreds of counter-protesters who support the monument arrived to stand up to 75 or so protesters who were demanding the statue’s removal. Unjustly, the media coverage largely portrayed the counter-protesters as the ones who acted wrongly. For example, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram emphasized the fact that one counter-protester allegedly punched a protester, another counter-protester allegedly slapped a protester, and some counter-protesters allegedly yelled racial slurs and threw water bottles. (This despite the fact that the video accompanying the article shows Black Lives Matter protesters initiating the pushing and shoving.) Reporter Bud Kennedy tweeted repeatedly about a “white male attacking the leader of a justice protest” and claimed that “there is no question justice protesters were the ones attacked” despite the fact that the latter claim is false, that repeatedly mentioning an individual’s race and gender is racist and sexist, and that the protest was in favor of removing a Confederate statue, which makes it the exact opposite of a justice protest. 

“We started to march, and you could hear the roar of the crowd downtown,” said one BLM protester named Karen Smith, according to the Star-Telegram. “I live here, and I have never seen a display of hate.” The lead bully who organized the protest, Tony Crawford, said, “The level of hatred I saw yesterday was something I hadn’t experienced before.” Another BLM protester claimed that their group did not “try to fight or incite any riots.” And various protesters complained that police failed to protect them.

News flash: anyone who expresses support for removing a Confederate statue is a mean, nasty, authoritarian bully who does not deserve any type of protection. It is irrelevant which side initiated physical contact. Advocating that a Confederate statue be removed is necessarily an act of aggression, and the side that takes this position is necessarily to blame for any conflict that may occur. Anyone who doubts this need only take a look at some of the signs held by the protesters: “Your heritage is racist,” “It’s not ‘Southern pride,’ it’s racist,” and the aforementioned “Stop honoring racist losers,” to give a few examples. Plus, a Facebook post by the group organizing the protest called the statue “treasonous.” How can people who insult another group’s heritage and falsely call the other group racist claim not to be initiating a fight? How can someone who crows about having won a war 150 years ago and considers it treasonous to memorialize those who fought for independence claim that the other side is the aggressor? The political correctness movement’s own signs and Facebook posts disprove their claims of having been victimized. If you go out of your way to stomp on the underdog, insult an unpopular minority, and rub salt into the wounds of the losing side of a war, you have no right to complain when the people that you are harming get angry at you and fight back. 

The blog Living Blue in Texas provided an even more egregiously biased version of events. The blogger repeatedly defamed the defenders of the statue by calling them “violent racists,” “terrorists,” and “aggressors,” and personally insulted them by calling them “toothless hillbillies.”

“The Confederate States of America no longer exists,” she pompously writes. “And until these backwoods hillbillies realize that, they will continue to harass, threaten, and assault every anti-racist working to make the world a better place. Slavery is over. The sooner that the violent racists realize it, the sooner we can start to heal.”

Except that those who advocate for the removal of Confederate statues are working to make the world a worse place, not a better one. And that those defending the statues are not violent racists, or racists of any sort, for that matter. The fact that the C.S.A. no longer exists is exactly why statues honoring it are so important. The Southern states were denied the right to form an independent nation, so to attempt to deny them the right to even memorialize their dead is beyond ridiculous. To take away a Confederate monument is to further hurt a group who are already hurting, and who have already been treated unjustly. This is the exact opposite of healing. It’s easy for someone to talk about healing when they are not part of the group whose history and identity are under constant attack. 

Jim Webster, a member of the counter-protest, hit the nail on the head with these comments to the Star-Telegram: “Weatherford citizens stood up to people who came to take down our statue, to tell us how to run our lives and, overall, be bullies… But the thing is, they came to us. We didn’t go to them. We didn’t start anything. They came over here starting stuff. And the citizens of Weatherford won’t put up with being bullied. They consider everybody who tried to protect the statue racist. You know if everybody is a racist, then nobody is a racist.”

Exactly. Enough with these people who go out of their way to trample on an unpopular minority and then claim that said unpopular minority is the aggressor. Enough with this practice of calling everything that you disagree with “racist.” If you don’t want a fight, don’t start one by trying to bully another group into removing their statue.

bookmark_borderReal estate website calls Columbus “genocidal explorer” – really??

Posted on by Marissa

In a dismaying example of how thoroughly the political correctness movement has infiltrated our society, an article on the real estate and urban design website Curbed refers to Christopher Columbus as a “genocidal explorer.” The article by Brock Keeling, about San Francisco’s decision to remove its statue of Columbus, begins:

Christopher Columbus never stepped foot on what is today the United States. He never visited California or sailed the Pacific Ocean. And he didn’t discover America in 1492. But that hasn’t stopped American cities, including San Francisco, from erecting statues honoring the genocidal explorer. 

Seriously? Why is an article on a real estate website personally insulting a historical figure? The article mentions that Nancy Pelosi and Maya Angelou have been suggested as possible replacements for Columbus, both of which make me sick to my stomach. And it mentions matter-of-factly that vandals have attacked the Columbus statue repeatedly over the years, usually on Columbus Day. Does Keeling not realize that these despicable acts constitute hate crimes against the Italian-American community? It’s inappropriate to treat heinous acts of bigotry and destruction as perfectly normal events.

A spokeswoman for the city’s art commission, Rachelle Axel, said that the beautiful statue was removed “because it doesn’t align with San Francisco’s values or our commitment to racial justice… who and what we honor through our public art can and should reflect our values.”

The idea that a statue of Christopher Columbus does not align with San Francisco’s values reflects poorly on San Francisco. A world in which a statue of a brilliant, courageous explorer is considered contrary to the predominant values is a dismal place that I would not want to live in. 

bookmark_borderJustice for Father Serra

Posted on by Marissa

An iota of good news from San Rafael, California: five despicable human beings are actually being held accountable for their decision to trespass on a Catholic church’s property and destroy a statue of Father Junipero Serra.

On Columbus Day, a group of intolerant bullies held a protest at the Mission San Rafael (I didn’t hear about this when it happened because I was too busy battling with people who were making insulting comments on my social media post about Christopher Columbus). Five of them attacked the statue, ripping off the duct tape that church employees had placed to protect it, spraying red paint all over it, writing the words “genocide” and “rape” on its pedestal, chipping at it with rocks, attaching ropes to it, and pulling it down. Police arrested these five bullies and charged them with felony vandalism. They submitted the case to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office and recommended additional charges of vandalism to a place of worship, which is a hate crime. The defendants’ names are as follows:

  • Ines Shiam Gardilcic, 40, of Oakland
  • Victoria Eva Montanopena, 29, of Oakland
  • Melissa Aguilar, 36, of Novato
  • Mayorgi Nadeska Delgadillo, 36, of San Rafael
  • Moira Cribben Van de Walker, 25, of San Anselmo

The San Francisco Archdiocese took a strong stance in defense of the statue and the Catholic community and urged the D.A. to prosecute the vandals to the fullest extent of the law. “This attack on a cherished religious symbol on our own church property is not a minor property crime, but an attack on Catholics as a people,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. “If the perpetrators of this crime are not brought to justice, small mobs will be able to decide what religious symbols all people of faith may display on their own property to further their faith, and they will continue to inflict considerable spiritual suffering on ordinary Catholic people who would see our sacred spaces as unprotected by law.” 

Protesters also demonstrated outside the D.A.’s office with signs reading “Save Our Statues” and “Vandalism is a Crime.” 

As a result of these efforts, D.A. Lori Frugoli announced on November 13 that she was bringing felony vandalism charges against the five defendants. 

Cordileone praised this decision, noting that it “represents the first time that any of the lawbreakers attacking statues of St. Junipero Serra and other acts of vandalism on Catholic Church property across California will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.” He continued:

“The crime was caught on video. The lawbreakers came prepared with ropes, chisels and spray paint, clearly indicating forethought in committing this crime. If crimes like these are not punished, then the government is telling mobs they get to decide what symbols Catholics and other faiths may display. Given that this was vandalism at a house of worship, the San Rafael Police Department understandably recommended that the perpetrators be charged with a hate crime. Indeed, to vandalize a house of worship to express one’s views is not a mere property crime: it is an attack on the identity and rights of a whole faith community. In a diverse society we may debate and disagree about many things, including St. Junipero Serra’s legacy. But mobs do not get to trespass on other people’s holy grounds to destroy their sacred symbols. While a hate crime was not charged in this case, let us hope that this prosecution will nonetheless contribute to putting an end to attacks on all houses of worship.”

Father Luello Palacpac, the pastor of Mission San Rafael, described the act of vandalism as traumatic for his congregants and added, “Whether you agree or disagree with the historic record of St. Junipero, no one has a right to trespass on a faith community’s sacred grounds to destroy property and even more importantly the symbols of its faith.”

The San Rafael Police Department justifiably faced some criticism for the fact that officers made no attempt to actually stop the vandals from attacking the statue. According to the Marin Independent Journal, Police Chief Diana Bishop said, “It’s not last year. It’s not the year before, how police officers see something and they just run into it and take care of it. That’s how we are programmed. That’s what we want to do. We have to be more thoughtful when a property crime is occurring and a person is not being injured, and that’s what the plan was.” It would have been better if police had intervened to protect this statue before it was destroyed; in my opinion it is just as bad (if not worse) for a statue to be injured as for a person to be injured. But the police department is to be commended for charging the vandals. Far too many times, intolerant bullies have cruelly destroyed irreplaceable statues all over the world and faced no consequences whatsoever for their despicable behavior. 

Continue reading “Justice for Father Serra”

bookmark_borderStatues and “intolerance for partial narratives”

Posted on by Marissa

An article in San Francisco Weekly claims that the despicable acts of destruction that have been perpetrated against beautiful statues and monuments are motivated by “growing intolerance for partial narratives.”

In June, mobs of intolerant bullies ruined statues of Father Junipero Serra, Francis Scott Key, and Ulysses Grant in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. Mayor London Breed cravenly got rid of the city’s beautiful statue of Christopher Columbus because of the threat that it, too, would be violently destroyed. But if someone considered partial narratives to be a problem, then destroying all statues that represent viewpoints and cultures other than their own would be the exact opposite of what they would want to do. Presenting a full and complete version of history requires the inclusion of figures such as Serra, Key, Grant, and Columbus, because presenting a full and complete version of history requires the inclusion of all viewpoints and cultures. The actions of these vicious bullies have made the historical narrative partial and incomplete by dictating that only those viewpoints deemed to be compliant with political correctness be included. 

I was struck by a social media comment quoted in the article, where the commenter said, “Monuments reflect our values. We need updated monuments for updated values.” But values are not something that should change over time. Moral right and wrong are absolute and eternal; there is no reason why the values commonly held in 2020 are any more likely to be correct than the values held in 1492 or 1861 or any other year. Additionally, people have different ideas about what constitutes moral right and wrong and therefore which historical figures are worthy of admiration. To change monuments based on the values that happen to be popular at the time is unfair to those who hold values that happen not to be popular. Why should some people get to see their values reflected in the monuments around them, while others are deprived of this? That’s why it’s so important to have monuments representing a wide range of ideologies and values, as opposed to only the ideologies and values popular at the moment.

“The people who are vehemently opposed to these narratives are saying [the statues] represent a forced celebration of oppression and public funding of a narrative of oppression,” Kim Morrison, a professor at San Francisco State University, said in the article. “The types of things we celebrate are war, colonialism, and the conquering of a land, and we don’t talk about the human loss that has gone along with that. It’s been the partial telling of a story and forcing large segments of communities that have been hurt by those particular monuments to believe that they should participate in celebrating things that have harmed their communities.” She also suggested that replacement artwork “celebrate diverse communities.” 

But this is only one viewpoint about what constitutes oppression. In my opinion, policies such as the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the progressive income tax, gun restrictions, and stay-at-home orders are far more oppressive than anything Columbus or Serra did. Why does Morrison’s idea of what is oppressive matter, while mine does not? I am forced to celebrate and to contribute to the funding of my oppression every single day. War, colonialism, and the conquering of lands are not the only things that inflict human loss. The everyday injustices, violations of liberty, and restrictions that prevent people from living their lives in the ways that they choose, these are far more harmful to human beings than acts of conquest by long-ago explorers and generals. Did Morrison ever consider how people who believe in medical freedom might feel about statues of Hubert Humphrey, who introduced the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, and Harry Truman, who signed it? Did she think about the hurt inflicted on the Confederate community by the existence of statues of Abraham Lincoln, who violated the First and Fourth Amendments in order to force the South to remain part of the United States against its will, or of William Tecumseh Sherman, who barbarically burned and destroyed farms, cities, and train tracks across the South in service of this same goal? Clearly, to her, only some of the people who are hurt by monuments matter, while others do not. 

As for the suggestion that art celebrate diverse communities… that was what was already being done before the Black Lives Matter movement began destroying everything in the world that does not conform to their ideology. By including statues of Columbus and Serra alongside those celebrating black and indigenous people, the world had a full, complete, and diverse telling of history. Destroying these statues took that away. Now, black and indigenous people’s narratives are the only ones remaining, the only ones allowed to be celebrated. That is truly a partial narrative. 

As a side note, the article characterizes the brutal and sickening destruction of the statue of Father Serra as an “act of civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience is the act of disobeying an unjust law as a form of protest. But the existence of a Serra statue is not unjust. It is actually the act of tearing it down that is unjust. These acts of destruction are neither attempts to make historical narratives more complete nor acts of civil disobedience. They are acts of bullying and intolerance whose purpose is to enforce conformity and eliminate true diversity.

bookmark_borderThere are no words…

Posted on by Marissa

Repugnant. Repulsive. Despicable. Sickening. Reprehensible. Disgusting. Disgraceful. Abhorrent. Evil. None of these words, or any words available in the English language or any other language for that matter, even come close to accurately describing the act depicted in this video:

Protesters smash Confederate statue in Portsmouth VA | Charlotte Observer

This took place during what is described as a “remove the stain” protest in Portsmouth, Virginia on June 10, 2020. Characterizing another group’s ideology and/or heritage as a “stain” is itself the very essence of bigotry and intolerance, which says a lot about this despicable movement and the people who support it. 

The act depicted in the video is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life. I nearly threw up upon watching it. How someone could do this to an innocent statue, that did nothing wrong, that was bothering no one, and that was painstakingly sculpted by a talented artist, is utterly incomprehensible. It is beyond dismaying that so many people, and society as a whole, unquestioningly support and embrace a movement whose members do this. Nothing justifies this. I don’t care if your ancestors were kept as slaves in the most brutal conditions imaginable; I don’t care if every member of your family was murdered by cops; I don’t care how much discrimination you’ve experienced in your life; nothing makes it okay to do this. Nothing. 

The video of what happened to George Floyd is nowhere near being even a tenth as horrible as this. If you added together all the incidents of people being killed by cops from the very beginning of this country through today, it wouldn’t come anywhere close to the awfulness and brutality of what was done to this statue. There is no punishment that is even close to being commensurate with this crime. The death penalty is not harsh enough. Any person who participated in this act of destruction, cheered for it, or expressed support for it in any way, is a bully, an authoritarian, and a bigot who deserves a slow, torturous death. There is no place for actions like this anywhere on this earth, and I am ashamed to live in a country where actions like this are allowed to happen. I condemn this in the strongest possible terms. 

bookmark_borderFurther thoughts on Madison County monument

Posted on by Marissa

I’ve been reading more about the Confederate monument in Madison County, Alabama and the events that led to it being removed and the Attorney General suing the county. What I’ve read solidifies my opinion that the county was wrong to remove the statue and deserves to be sued. 

A few random thoughts:

On August 5, 2020 the monument was vandalized with red paint. This alone is enough reason not to remove the statue. To vandalize any monument is unacceptable, and the absolute last thing that should be done in such a case is to reward the culprit by giving him/her what he/she wants. Leaving the statue in place and protecting it punishes the vandal; that is reason enough to make this the right course of action. 

Immediately after the vandalism, a bully named Rebecca Boggs was quoted by local news station WHNT as saying, “I’m a very strong supporter of removing a treasonous statue that doesn’t need to be there in the first place.” This statement is completely idiotic. How can a statue be “treasonous”? Confederate soldiers bravely fought to form an independent country. Anyone who calls them “traitors” or describes them as “treasonous” is an authoritarian and a bully who believes in mindless conformity and has no tolerance for diversity. 

City Council candidate John Meredith said of the vandalism, “Regardless of where you stand, you know that the current situation can’t continue. We got to sit down, both sides, and come up with a solution.” He is correct that the situation of all-out war against all things related to the Confederacy, as well as of relentless attacks on statues and monuments of all types, cannot continue. But why do people of both sides need to come up with a solution together? This is a situation in which one side – those who love the Confederacy and its monuments – has done nothing wrong. The other side – those who hate the Confederacy and hate all things and people that do not conform to today’s standards of political correctness – is attacking, insulting, brutalizing, and stomping on the first side for no justifiable reason. The solution to this situation is for the latter group to simply stop attacking, insulting, brutalizing, and stomping on the former. To solve the problem of Confederate statues being vandalized, people must stop vandalizing Confederate statues. It really is that simple.

Particularly disturbing is the fact that during a protest on July 30, someone held a sign that read, “Human Decency $25,000. We have a choice. Pay the fine! Move that racist statue.” This is a reference to the Memorial Preservation Act, the Alabama law that bans cities, towns, and counties from removing historical monuments and sets the penalty for doing so at $25,000. First, of all, the sign states that the statue is racist, which it is not. Additionally, the sign seems to imply that human decency requires removing the Confederate monument. But nothing could be further from the truth. Human decency actually requires protecting and preserving the monument. Removing a monument to the losing side of a war is bullying, it is intolerance, it is bigotry, and it is stomping on the underdog. It is the exact opposite of human decency. 

There is also a significant fairness issue presented by the idea of paying a $25,000 fine to have a Confederate statue removed. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for an immoral act of bullying, intolerance, bigotry, and stomping on the underdog? They shouldn’t. The fact that cities, towns, and counties can choose to simply pay the $25,000 to remove statues demonstrates that the penalty is not severe enough. Removing statues is never acceptable, and the penalty should be harsh enough to deter these immoral acts from ever happening. If a statue is removed, which should never be the case, then those who support the removal should pay 100% of the fine. Accurately determining which people support the removal and which do not would of course be tricky, because people will obviously have an incentive to lie to avoid sharing in the burden of the fine. But there should be at least some attempt made to ensure that only those people who advocate for and support the removal of statues are penalized, as opposed to innocent people who might be opposed to the removal. 

bookmark_borderAlabama Attorney General sues county for removing statue

Posted on by Marissa

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is standing up for Confederate monuments. He is suing Madison County, Alabama for removing a statue from its location in front of the county courthouse on October 23 and moving it to a nearby cemetery. The 24-foot tall monument featured a generic Confederate soldier and was inscribed with the words, “In memory of the heroes who fell in defence of the principles which gave birth to the confederate cause.” According to the lawsuit, the statue was erected in 1905, was destroyed in 1966, and a replica monument was installed to take its place in 1968. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here. 

Alabama has a law called the Memorial Preservation Act, which was passed in 2017. “No architecturally significant building, memorial building, memorial street, or monument which is located on public property and has been so situated for 40 or more years may be relocated, removed, altered, renamed, or otherwise disturbed,” the law states. The law covers any “statue, portrait, or marker intended at the time of dedication to be a permanent memorial to an event, a person, a group, a movement, or military service that is part of the history of the people or geography now comprising the State of Alabama.” The penalty for any person, government, or other entity that removes, relocates, renames, or alters a monument is $25,000, and Attorney General Marshall intends to make the Madison County Commission pay.

Marshall released a YouTube video in which he spoke about the illegal removal of monuments and the general tendency of elected officials to disregard the law when it is politically expedient to do so. Here is an excerpt: 

“In recent months, we have witnessed a number of elected officials take it upon themselves to tear down monuments and statues protected under Alabama law… First, any elected official who removes a historic monument or statue in violation of Alabama law has broken the law. He has not simply decided to ‘pay a fee’ so that he can lawfully have the monument or statue removed. He has committed an illegal act. Second, any elected official sworn into office by taking an oath to uphold the law, who then breaks a duly enacted and constitutional law, has violated that oath. Third, despite what some newspapers might have you believe, any elected official who disregards the duties of his office in this manner has done so not out of courage, but has done so out of fear. This should not be celebrated, for disregarding the law subverts our democratic system… I urge my fellow Alabamians to take note of those casting votes and spending their tax dollars to violate a law of this state. It is now a question of when not if these same leaders will cast aside yet another law—being guided only by the political winds of the moment.”

I love this message, particularly the part where Marshall points out that removing Confederate monuments is cowardly, not courageous. He also makes a great point that it is unfair to taxpayers for $25,000 of their money to be spent on illegally removing a beautiful historic monument. 

In these discouraging times where bullies have been disturbingly successful in their quest to stomp out everything good in the world in the name of political correctness, it is heartening that someone is standing up for what is right. All states need to have laws like Alabama’s Memorial Preservation Act to protect priceless works of public art against racist, intolerant mobs and the craven politicians who bow down to them. It would be even better if the fine were even higher than $25,000. Removing a Confederate statue is one of the most immoral acts a person or government could do; no penalty is too harsh for such a despicable act. Thank you, Attorney General Marshall, for defending magnificent statues that cannot defend themselves. 

bookmark_borderNortham to spend $11 million to ruin Richmond

Posted on by Marissa

After destroying everything that made Richmond, Virginia unique, beautiful, and good, Governor Ralph Northam is proposing to spend millions of dollars to create bland, homogeneous, meaningless new works of art. His proposed budget for 2021 includes $11 million to redesign Monument Avenue, which was until recently the location of five magnificent status of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson, Gen. Jeb Stuart, and Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury. (Lee is technically still standing but has been completely covered with graffiti and will be removed next year unless an appellate judge reverses the court decision allowing his removal.) Supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement brutally vandalized the beautiful statues over the summer, and Northam and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney took the side of the destructive mobs and ordered the statues removed. The budget also includes $9 million to develop a Slavery Heritage Site and $100,000 to build a Virginia Emancipation and Freedom Monument.

This article at Hyperallergic.com describes the plan as “funding public art that tells a more complete and inclusive story of American history.” National Geographic describes Northam’s vision as “inclusive art recognizing a diverse and challenging history… The long-term goal is to repurpose parts of Monument Avenue to better reflect Virginia’s and America’s diverse heritage… to elevate unheard voices and neglected histories.” In Northam’s words, “These investments will help Virginia tell the true story of our past and continue building an inclusive future. At a time when this Commonwealth and country are grappling with how to present a complete and more honest picture of our complex history, we must work to enhance public spaces that have long been neglected and shine light on previously untold stories.” And Alex Nyerges, director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Art, which is leading the effort to design new monuments, said, “It is about looking to the future, looking to a future that’s inclusive, that’s forward thinking, and there’s also an element of healing.”

Unfortunately, this plan is the exact opposite of how it is being described. A collection of public art that leaves out the Confederacy is by definition neither complete, nor inclusive, nor diverse. It is Confederate historical figures whose voices have traditionally been unheard and whose stories have been neglected. Removing their statues and replacing them with monuments to mainstream, moderate, non-controversial, bland, mundane people just makes their voices even more unheard and their stories even more neglected. Northam’s vision is to further marginalize those who are already marginalized and further elevate those who are already in the spotlight. Monument Avenue already did shine light on previously untold stories, and Northam and Stoney decided to wipe those stories out. Brutally inflicting further pain on those who are already hurting, in order to please those who already receive preferential treatment, is the exact opposite of healing. It is beyond sickening and beyond reprehensible that Northam, having destroyed Richmond’s diversity and beauty, is now spending $11 million of taxpayer money to replace these irreplaceable works of art with conformity and nothingness. If he truly cared about inclusion, diversity, healing, unheard voices, neglected histories, or untold stories, he would have ordered all of the beautiful Confederate monuments to be cleaned up, repaired, protected, and preserved for all time.