Tag: statues

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. 

bookmark_borderPolitically correct bullies vote to remove Lee statue from Antietam

Posted on by Marissa

In yet another step in their quest to make the world as bad a place as possible, the politically correct bullies are senselessly attempting to get rid of the statue of Robert E. Lee on the Antietam battlefield in Maryland. The House of Representatives recently voted in favor of Resolution 970, which calls for the removal of the magnificent statue.

“It was commissioned with the explicit intent of honoring the Confederacy and glorifies the Confederacy — its leaders, the cause of slavery and open rebellion against the United States,” said Rep. Anthony Brown. “It’s also historically inaccurate. The monument depicts Gen. Lee riding up to the battlefield on horseback while evidence shows that the general actually traveled to a different part of the battlefield in an ambulance due to a broken wrist… Instead of teaching us the dark lessons of our history, this statue sanitizes the actions of men who fought a war to keep black Americans in chains. There is no reason why any of our nation’s public spaces should have monuments celebrating those who betrayed their country.” Brown also called Lee a “brutal slave owner” and called the institution of slavery “savage.” 

“I cannot find a single case of any other country on earth where monuments and memorials are put up to honor the generals of enemy forces in a civil war, or any other war,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin. “There’s something freakishly unusual about this practice.” He also called the Confederacy “neither noble nor heroic.”

Let’s go over these arguments:

First of all, the Confederacy was both noble and heroic. The fact that a statue honors and glorifies the Confederacy is a good thing, because the Confederacy deserves to be honored and glorified. This is because the Confederacy was in open rebellion against the United States. Contrary to what Representatives Brown and Raskin argue, rebelling against a government is a good thing, not a bad thing. The Confederacy was fighting to form an independent country, which is exactly what the colonies were doing during the Revolutionary War. If you believe the Confederacy was in the wrong, then in order to be logically consistent, you must also believe that America was in the wrong during the Revolutionary War and the British Empire in the right. 

To address Brown’s point about slavery, yes it is true that slavery was part of what the Confederacy was fighting for. It was one of the reasons why the southern states chose to secede from the United States. But the Confederacy’s primary cause was not slavery but secession itself. To treat the Confederacy as synonymous with slavery is to ignore the fact that the Confederates were fighting for their independence, while the Union side was fighting to force other people to remain part of the country against their will. Anyone who truly values liberty and opposes authoritarianism would believe, as I do, that the Confederate cause overall was morally better and more honorable than the Union cause.

As for Brown’s claim that slavery was savage, perhaps that is true, but in my opinion not as savage as the despicable acts of destruction and vandalism that have been perpetrated against statues across the country and world by those with similar ideologies to Representatives Brown and Raskin. Additionally, although Lee was a slave owner, he was not brutal as Brown claims. He inherited a farm with numerous slaves and was relatively kind as slave owners go, freeing the slaves once the debts of the estate were settled. 

It also bears mentioning that the argument that Confederate generals were bad because they fought for slavery somewhat contradicts the argument that Confederate generals were bad because they “betrayed their country” and “waged open rebellion against the United States.” Those who make the first argument criticize members of the Confederacy because they (allegedly) trampled on the rights of the underdog by forcing people to endure slavery. Those who make the second argument criticize members of the Confederacy because they were the underdog, fighting back against a federal government that was trampling on them. These arguments are inconsistent: is trampling on the underdog bad, or is it actually good, as is presumed by the second argument? I have noticed numerous instances lately in which people, including Brown and Raskin, make both arguments in the same speech, completely ignoring the fact that they are contradicting themselves. 

As for Raskin’s argument that America is the only country to erect monuments to enemy generals, that might be correct. This practice may indeed be unusual. But that has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. In my opinion, allowing the losing side of a war to be honored is not only good, but to do anything else would be morally reprehensible. As I explained above, the Union side was wrong and the Confederate side right. Therefore, the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy absolutely deserve to be honored with monuments and memorials. The Confederacy deserved to win the war; in fact the southern states deserved to be allowed to exist as an independent country without the United States even waging war against them. Given that the United States unjustly won a war that it didn’t even have a moral right to wage, the absolute least that the U.S. could do would be to allow the losing side to erect monuments to their leaders and soldiers. To take away the right to commemorate the Confederate dead, as politically correct bullies are doing across the country, is to compound horrific injustice with even more injustice. It is beyond despicable.

Another counterpoint to Raskin’s argument is that in most wars, both countries continue to exist after the war. It makes sense that each country would honor only its own generals, because generals from other countries would be honored in those countries. But in the Civil War, one of the warring nations was completely obliterated as an independent entity. It’s not possible to put statues of Confederate generals in their own country, because the Union’s victory in the Civil War means that what used to be the Confederacy is now part of the United States. According to Raskin’s logic, the generals of the losing side in any war for independence do not deserve to be memorialized at all. This is stomping on the underdog and is, for the reasons explained above, beyond despicable.

As for Brown’s point about historical accuracy, it is true that Lee traveled in an ambulance for most of his time at Antietam, as opposed to riding on horseback. His horse, Traveller, had gotten scared by something and bolted while Lee was holding his bridle, causing Lee to fall and break his arm. I don’t really get the argument that because of that, Lee should not be allowed to have a statue at Antietam. I suppose technically the statue of him on horseback, without any visible injury to his arm, is not perfectly historically accurate. But the fact that Lee was injured during a random accident with his horse doesn’t make him any less of a brilliant general or honorable man. It doesn’t make him any less deserving of a statue, and it is mean-spirited to use this as a reason to get rid of Lee’s monument.

What is particularly reprehensible about Resolution 970 is the fact that the statue being targeted is located on a battlefield. The whole purpose of a battlefield is to commemorate history, specifically the battle that took place there. And if a battle took place, there were necessarily two sides, each fighting bravely for what they believed was right. To argue that only one side in a battle should be honored is bigoted, intolerant, cruel, and mean-spirited. When the politically correct bullies first began to demand the removal of statues, they focused on those monuments located on city streets. Move the statues to more appropriate places such as museums and battlefields, they demanded. But now statues on battlefields are under attack as well, demonstrating that the bullies’ quest to strip away everything beautiful, good, magnificent, and glorious from the world knows no bounds. Every excuse for a human being who voted in favor of this resolution is a bigoted, mindless coward who deserves to burn in Hell for all eternity. 

bookmark_borderA day that will live in infamy

Posted on by Marissa

Disgusting. Disgraceful. Despicable. Dishonorable. Repugnant. Reprehensible. Heartbreaking. Dismaying. Sickening. Awful. Horrific. There are no words strong enough to fully describe this:

Virginia Military Institute removing Confederate statue (nbc12.com)

Yet another beautiful piece of the world senselessly destroyed. Bit by bit, everything that makes life worth living is being taken away. What makes this instance particularly awful is that when the politically correct bullies began destroying everything good in the world this spring and summer, VMI’s leaders stated that they had thought carefully about the issue and made the decision not to remove the Stonewall Jackson statue. For them to reverse themselves is cowardly and treasonous. 

The Virginia Flaggers got it right when they described this as a day that will live in infamy.

At least someone is fighting back.

bookmark_borderSome good news from the election

Posted on by Marissa

The news from the election is not looking good, but there is at least one positive development arising from Tuesday’s vote. Or to be more specific, six positive developments. In Virginia, six counties held votes on whether or not to remove Confederate monuments. In all of these counties, residents voted not to remove the statues. 

The margins of victory are as follows:

  • Charles City County – 55% to 45%
  • Halifax County – 60% to 30%
  • Franklin County – 70% to 30%
  • Lunenburg County – 71% to 29%
  • Warren County – 76% to 24%
  • Tazwell County – 87% to 13%

According to the Virginia Mercury, the votes are not binding, but county leaders have said that they will respect the will of the voters. Full results can be found here. 

The reason why these votes took place to begin with is that earlier this year, the Virginia state legislature passed a law enabling county and local governments to remove Confederate statues. Prior to that, removing the monuments was not even an option. While I’m relieved that these six monuments – which are all located outside of courthouses – will be staying in place for the foreseeable future, I do not think that voters should have the power to get rid of them. It’s awesome and restores my faith in humanity that sizeable majorities voted to preserve these beautiful pieces of history. But it’s possible that some day in the future, if popular opinion changes, these statues could eventually be removed. That should not be a possibility. Something as important as preserving works of public art and treating rebel soldiers with the respect that they deserve should not be subject to majority rule. The voting results in these six counties are heartening indeed, but all statues across the world deserve a guarantee of protection no matter what the majority opinion happens to be.

bookmark_borderGood news and bad news on General Lee

Posted on by Marissa

Statue Robert E. Lee Richmond.JPG
Robert E. Lee Statue (photo by Martin Falbisoner via WikiMedia)

This past week a judge ruled that the state of Virginia can remove the huge, magnificent statue of General Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in Richmond. A group of homeowners sued to stop Governor Ralph Northam’s plan to take down the beautiful statue, but the judge dismissed their lawsuit. Lee is currently the last Confederate statue standing on Monument Ave; the city tragically removed the rest of the sculptures that gave the street its name earlier this year.

The fact that people actually exist who want this statue to be removed remains incomprehensible. This is another step in the disgraceful quest to strip the world of everything beautiful, magnificent, unique, artistic, and distinctive, to create a society of conformity and nothingness, and to trample on anyone who does not share the majority view. Do these individuals think that all food should be required to undergo a process that removes its taste and texture and turns it into gruel? Do they think that Walt Disney World should be razed so that the land can be turned into a giant parking lot? Do they think that all clothing should be banned and people required to spend their entire lives naked? I believe that these things are analogous to removing Confederate statues, and equally senseless and wrong.

Northam called the ruling “one step closer to a more inclusive, equitable, and honest Virginia,” and Attorney General Mark Herring described it as “one step closer to finally bringing down this relic of our racist past and moving forward as a diverse, inclusive, welcoming community.” Nothing could be further from the truth than these statements. First of all, the statue is not racist. Second, condemning and erasing all historical figures not deemed to be perfect according to the prevailing norms of 2020 is the exact opposite of inclusion and diversity. And third, completely disregarding the preferences of those who admire and cherish this statue is the exact opposite of being equitable. 

1890 Lee statue unveiling.jpg
Unveiling of the Robert E. Lee statue, May 29, 1890

The statue of Robert E. Lee that all these bullies find so horrible and offensive was sculpted in France by acclaimed artist Antonin Mercie, who was known as the “unrivaled master of the chisel.” It was commissioned in 1876 by the Lee Monument Association and was based on a painting by German-American artist Adalbert Vlock. Several bronze pieces were cast separately before being assembled. The completed statue was exhibited in Paris and then shipped to Richmond, where 10,000 people helped to pull it to its final location: a traffic circle at the intersection of Monument Avenue and Allen Avenue. The statue was finally unveiled on May 29, 1890. In 2007, the statue was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The figure of Lee stands 14 feet tall, and the entire statue, including the horse and the base, is 60 feet tall. Interestingly, the horse does not represent Lee’s faithful steed, Traveller, but instead is a generic horse with “ideal” proportions. 

How could someone think that the city of Richmond, the state of Virginia, or the world would be improved by removing this statue? The actions of the governor, attorney general, and presiding judge, as well as all those who support the ruling, demonstrate a complete disregard for General Lee, those who honor his memory, the artist and sculptor of the statue, and all those who worked to create it and bring it to Richmond. 

There is a tiny shred of good news, however: the judge stayed the ruling pending appeal. This means that Lee will remain standing until the plaintiffs’ appeal is heard, which will happen at some point next year. With Virginia’s gubernatorial election happening next November, there is a chance that the statue will remain in place until there is a new governor, who might possibly allow it to stay.