Who would have thought that decades later, public monuments would be all the rage, inciting passion and interest that arguably never existed before, not even when these works of art were unveiled to the public in most cases, well over a century ago.
It all started in the spring of 2017 when the mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landreau ordered four monuments to Confederate leaders including Robert E. Lee be removed from public display in his city. In a move eerily similar to an event that took place several years earlier here in Chicago, Landreau had the statues removed in the dead of night, so as to create as little attention as possible.
In explaining his motivations, Landreau delivered an eloquent speech where he asked his fellow white residents of The Crescent City to put themselves in the shoes of their fellow citizens who happened to be black. How, he asked them, would you explain to your children why your city is honoring the legacies of men who fought for the denial of basic human rights to their your ancestors?
You'll find a link to Landreau's speech in my post titled Monumental Headaches. I finished up that post by warning that the removal of statues in New Orleans might open a Pandora's box of sorts, and advocated there not be a national mandate to determine which statues be removed and which not, but rather, using the example of Monument Boulevard in Richmond, (which at the time was considering ways of putting their Confederate statues in context rather than removing them), leave that decision up to individual communities as to how to deal with this controversial issue.
Unfortunately given subsequent events, the ship of context might have sailed.
That post inspired subsequent posts where I looked at several monuments in Chicago which could potentially create a stir, inspiring demands for their removal.
I started out with a two part post, You're Not Likely to Find the Likes of These Folks Down South, part one dealing with three famous Chicago monuments to Union Civil War generals, all of them controversial in one way or other.
Part two, The Likes of These Folks: Honest Abe, deals with the Chicago monuments to perhaps the most divisive president in history, present company excluded.
Moving Statues Around is a piece I wrote about the how the removal of controversial monuments is not at all a new issue.
In Should They Stay or Should They Go? I wrote about two controversial Chicago monuments that at the time I wrote the piece, were being considered as serious candidates for removal. As of this writing today, forgotten for the time being, they are still in place.
Last October, I wrote a piece called Revisionist History which starts out by mentioning one of the three statues that were actually removed from their pedestals last week.
The removal of three Chicago public monuments dedicated to Christopher Columbus in the past week has certainly stirred up a ruckus. The writing had been on the wall for a good number of years as far as the legacy of the alleged "discoverer of America" much of which is chronicled in my "Revisionist History" piece. Suffice it to say that when Mayor Landreau set the wheels in motion three years ago as far as evaluating public monuments, in these parts Columbus's name was mentioned as a candidate for the heave-ho from the get-go.
As is my custom, I'm going to refrain from making a definitive call on this one, as both sides have valid points. Columbus's legacy is indeed a difficult one, and I am all in favor of a rigorous examination into his deeds, mis, or otherwise. But even if we conclude that at least by our contemporary standards, the bad outweighs the good, is this alone a valid reason to remove the statues for good?
What we forget is that most public monuments in this country were not erected by the state, but rather by private individuals or groups who raised the money to commission these objects and petitioned their municipal government to find an appropriate place to display them. And in many of the cases in Chicago at least, the benefactors of these works represent the plethora of ethnic groups who make up this city, and their gifts serve as monuments to those groups.
The Norwegian community for example commissioned the Leif Erikson statue in Humboldt Park. In that same park which I am intimately familiar, the Polish community commissioned the great equestrian monument to Tadeusz Kosciuszko (which was moved to Solidarity Drive in the 1970s), and the German community commissioned two statues, one to the park's namesake, Alexander von Humboldt, and the other to publisher Fritz Reuter.
In other parts of the city you'll find monuments in the form of statues honoring the Czech/Slovak community and two of their own, Karel Havlicek and Tomas Masaryk, the Swedish Community honoring Carl von Linne, the African American Community honoring Black WWI veterans, the Great Northern Migration, Gwendolyn Brooks and Martin Luther King, and the Philippene community honoring Dr. Jose Rizal. This list only scratches the surface.
Other monuments honoring the ethnic groups who make up this city take on other forms such as the two massive Puerto Rican Flags spanning Division Street, also in Humboldt Park, the ceremonial arch welcoming visitors to the Mexican community of Little Village, and a similar arch spanning Wentworth Avenue in Chicago's Chinatown.
Chicago's LBGTQ community is honored by posts with the rainbow theme lining North Halsted Avenue and Chicago's Indigenous American community is honored by several public works created by Native American artists along the lakefront and elsewhere.
In that same vein of symbols of local ethnic pride, starting in 1892, Chicago's Italian community commissioned no less than three monuments to one of their favorite sons, Columbus, or if you prefer, Cristoforo Colombo. All three were removed in the span of a little over one week.
I think it's safe to assume that all of these groups mentioned above would be deeply troubled and hurt if any of the monuments representing them would be taken down by the city, in the middle of the night no less. The Italian community of Chicago is certainly no exception.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
The statues were not destroyed nor permanently removed from their pedestals. The Mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot's decision was based upon the attention the Columbus statues were getting from demonstrators who wanted to pull them down, and the Federal Government who is devoting seemingly limitless resources in preventing them from doing so. Caught in the middle, Lightfoot has made it clear that the decision to remove the three likenesses of Columbus was made out of prudence, in order to prevent violence leading to injury and the possible loss of life to both demonstrators and to law enforcement officials. To a much lesser extent, removing the monuments may also be justified in terms of protecting the monuments themselves.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
Some argued that by removing the statues, the city is giving in to the demands of mob rule and is setting a dangerous precedent for the future. "What will be next" is the mantra heard most frequently from the save the statues at all costs crowd.
If these were normal times, I'd probably side with the leave the statues up crowd, at least until a proper dialog could be convened with all parties who have something worthwhile to say about this, especially the one group who has every right to be aggrieved by the statues' presence, the Native American community.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
These are far from normal times.
It would be easy to pin the blame for the recent social unrest we've been experiencing as the president has, on the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of former members of the Minneapolis Police Department. But Mr. Floyd's murder was only one of countless atrocities where un-armed persons of color were killed by the police. What made this different was the video that showed virtually every moment of the tragedy, from a healthy Mr. Floyd being apprehended on the suspicion of committing a petty crime, until he was unconscious under the choke-hold of his murderer, then taken away from the scene by paramedics. He died shortly thereafter. One might be tempted to use the metaphor of the "straw that broke the camel's back" as far as public's reaction to the case was concerned. But this was no straw, the brutality of the murder rates a much harsher metaphor, perhaps a boulder or stick of dynamite.
But the righteous indignation over the dozens of similar recent atrocities, the hundreds or thousands that have taken place against people of color over the last several years, and the uncountable ones that have occurred in this country's history, all sparked by the murder of George Floyd, has had the impact of an atomic bomb as far as this country is concerned.
Add to that the resurgence of overt racism that has been enabled by a president whose sole purpose has been to divide this country in the deepest and most profound way, all for the purpose of gaining personal power.
Add to that the acts of a sociopath in the White House who as a show of force in order to make up for his own weakness and incompetence, sends a pretend federal army of military wannabies (because the real army refused to do it) into American cities to terrorize American citizens who are exercising their right to protest.
Add to that the fact that we're in the midst of a pandemic, which beyond the human tragedy it has wrought, has shaken the resources of government to its core.
No my friends, these are not normal times.
People in this country have every right to be pissed off. The monuments to Columbus at least to some, represent over five hundred years of genocide, slavery, oppression, degradation, broken promises and heartache.
I get that.
I also get the urge to in the words of the late John Lewis, go out and get into some "good trouble."
But personally I think going after statues is a foolish waste of time. First of all, I think attacking statues is playing right into the president's hands. He would give ANYTHING to have the excuse to send his pretend army to Chicago to bust some heads, for no reason other than to make some people think he's a tough guy. That would even earn him some votes from people who are disgusted by liberal people breaking stuff. We can get all snooty and blame those folks for caring more about statues than people, which seems to be true. But tell me this, what does knocking down these things and genuinely pissing off a significant community in this city accomplish? Is that really the good, useful trouble Congressman Lewis had in mind?
I don't think so.
If equal rights, social justice and the general welfare of human beings are truly your concern, and you're really interested in making a difference, get involved. Get involved in the numerous not-for-profit institutions whose mission is to promote fair housing, or equal employment opportunity, or prison reform, or helping to bring peace to communities paralyzed by violence. Get involved in a distribution center that provides food to the needy and shelter to the homeless. If politics is your thing, get involved in voter registration drives. Make your voice heard that you will not accept voter disenfranchisement. If you are particularly interested in art, work with groups who are involved with telling the stories of the countless communities who are not yet represented by public art in the city.
There is a mountain of worthwhile organizations working for the betterment of our community that could use your time, talent and treasure. These activities may not produce the same adrenaline rush as toppling statues or street fights with a pretend army, but in the end, the cause will be much better served, as will your health.
Maybe one day the Columbus statues will be returned when cooler heads prevail, or maybe they won't. Maybe as has been suggested, Chicago's Italian community will find other, less controversial heroes to commemorate. Chicago already has a monument to the unifier of Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi. I might suggest a monument to the composer Giuseppe Verdi, Better yet, there could be monuments to one or more of the significant Italian women in history such as mathematician Maria Gaetana Agnesi, statesman Virginia Oldoini, educator Maria Montessori, or Chicago's own Frances Xavier Cabrini, a bona fide saint!
True these folks may not have the star power of a Cristoforo Columbo, but neither do they have the baggage.
My guess is that Mayor Lightfoot has bigger fish to fry than the fate of the statues in this city. I applaud her removing the Columbus monuments for the simple reason that it diffused what was already a very dangerous situation, and it could have saved at least a few lives. If you feel adamant that she should have left the statues up considering that risk, perhaps you might want to question your own priorities.
I would also guess that the Indigenous community has bigger fish to fry than worrying about statues as well. Maybe we can learn a lesson from this.
That is, remember to keep your eyes on the prize.
,
No comments:
Post a Comment