advertisement

SSN on Facebook
SSN on Twitter
SSN on YouTube
RSS Feed

7 Comments
Columns

Statuary Brawl

October 30, 2017 - 7:00am

Latest to the vandals goes Teddy Roosevelt, whose bronze likeness astride a horse in front of New York's American Museum of Natural History recently received a splash of red paint upon its base.

"Now the statue is bleeding," proudly pronounced a group of protesters in claiming credit for the makeover. "We did not make it bleed. It is bloody at its very foundation."

One wonders whether these poseurs know anything at all about the man they've targeted. The 26th president gave us national parks, industrial regulation and environmental conservationism, among other things. He was also the author of over 40 books, some of which chronicle his expeditions and safaris that provided some of the basis for the natural history housed in the museum where he and his trusty steed keep vigil.

Also, he died almost 100 years ago (1919). When are these self-important moderns going to get over themselves?

The New York vandalism, which isn't directly connected to the recent flurry of protests against Confederate statues, is merely the most recent episode in a protest that gained traction in 2016 by the same groups that also want to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day. What apparently triggered the freelance artists were two other figures -- an indigenous American and an African -- flanking Roosevelt's horse.

The jury is still out about what to do about the statue. Nothing would be a rational option, if a panel created by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio can handle some heat. Roosevelt may not be a civil rights icon like Rev. Martin Luther King, but he was hardly the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, either. Indeed, in 1905, Roosevelt gave a speech at the New York Republican Party Club that paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln and addressed racial inequality, which Roosevelt said he aimed to change. That this radical social transformation didn't occur within his time or tenure doesn't affirm in itself that he was racist.

In the speech, he did abysmally refer to whites as a "forward race." But the focus of his address was to echo Lincoln in calling strongly for the raising of minorities' status, which Roosevelt correctly said would benefit the entire country.

And what about the two non-whites in the statue? Let's take a look.

First, both men are walking in a proud, dignified manner, suggesting a parade in which the Rough Rider is accompanied by individuals who were part of his life experience. Second, we have to ask, what was the context of the time? Without the historical backdrop, criticism -- of politics, art or literature -- is meaningless.

In 1901, when this Harvard-educated, wealthy, progressive, worldly Republican New Yorker became president, was he enslaving Indians and blacks? No. Was he hunting extensively in the American West and later in Africa? Yes. Quite a lot. Given this record, is it not possible that the other two figures represent his guides or scouts on his American West hunts and African safaris?

The statue, created as a historical representation of the man and erected to honor his contributions to our knowledge of natural history, may be offensive to a few, but by what imperative are their feelings to be considered superior to the broader citizenry's right to not see public property harmed, defaced or splattered with paint -- or some facsimile thereof?

Vandalism, contrary to the group's claim that they're performing "public art," is the artless tantrum of a childish, self-absorbed mind. Defeating a block of stone or bronze hardly requires courage or, obviously, intellect.

Why not come up with something, I don't know, classier?

Make an argument. Present facts. Bring passion but keep a cool head. One could argue, for example, that the protests against Confederate statues are substantively different from the objections to Roosevelt's monument. Given that most Civil War statues in the South were erected during the civil rights movement, inarguably, they memorialize not Southern courage but Jim Crow, a cowardly, despicable period of state-sponsored terrorism against blacks who had the audacity to insist upon equality under the law.

There. Put that on your plaque, if you care so much about history.

Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, who hated the idea of memorials to the war, would likely be happy for his statues to settle in a statuary hall. As for Roosevelt, one only wishes the swashbuckling warrior-president could dismount for a few minutes and teach his vandals some manners. I'm guessing, but I suspect his two companions would lend him a hand.

Kathleen Parker's email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.

(c) 2017, Washington Post Writers Group

Comments

Erasing History is Marxism. "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, and its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was." - Milan Kundera

Who ARE these "people" who keep wanting to tear down Historic Statues? Do they have ANY clue that the Statues are there, so we do NOT forget the past? Go ahead, mindless idiots - you don't CARE about "History" -- you would rather make the SAME MISTAKES that have been made all over again. Where has THINKING gone?

ALL "monument vandalism" IS IN FACT "directly connected"; but YOU wouldn't be aware, or able to perceive of that because of "the bubble you live in" Kathleen. Rest assured though, they ARE coming for you and yours also, in an ever accelerated manner... Next stop: the Washngton Post "spin factory" I would venture to suppose, or any other of the 'carbon copies' on the "spin" business... ("Hands up - Don't shoot"!!!) Remember THAT manufactured "spin" Kathleen?!?...Really caught on in the newsrooms, didn't it Kathleen?

In a mere matter of a few years, these idiots seek to undue all of the good Dr. King spent his life working for...

"Dumb and Dumber" - that's America's under 30 crowd.....brought to you by decades by the National Teacher's Union, and their "agenda" - weak parenting and the lack of a Draft for military service for both men and women. Go figure!

You are the one with the "agenda" as you say. Let's look at the facts Einstein. At the heart of the "teacher's union mov't" as you say, ten years ago, the U.S. was 9th in Education, not the best, but clearly within striking distance. Since that time, there has been significant politicizing of the school system, i.e. standardized testing, school grading, teacher bonuses, charter schools, private school scholarships, etc., etc., etc. How has all the political influence benefitted us? None, we dropped to 21st in Education, and still falling. Who's #1, Finland, how? no standardized testing, no school grades, no charter schools, very few private schools and most importantly, no political involvement whatsoever, other than to fund a high quality education, which is their only civic duty and responsibility. Imagine that Chair Force expert?

....like I said: Dumb and Dumber......you should go to that 'Safe Zone" now.

Add new comment

columns
advertisement

Opinion Poll

Do you think Jack Latvala will be found innocent?
Older pollsResults

Chatterbox

Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement