In light of the removal of public monuments in New Orleans, would anyone care to share their home country's practices on removing , retaining, and discussing controversial historic monuments ?
Curious to know what public opinion, practice and policy have been on controversial public sculpture in different contexts. It's a touchy topic out there, but i think ol' archinect is a good place to discuss.
My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
As a history buff, and an American Civil war buff, I think it's moronic. Given the age of most of the monuments, they were a portion of history, along with the people they represented. Squares and streets are named after monuments. While the names of such things change over time, it's not an immediate thing. The places will still be known for whatever was there by the people most familiar with the location.
All anyone is doing is spending taxpayer dollars removing things so they temporarily get a few pats on the back.
Anyone remember the huge push to rename all the high school mascots that had Indian related names? No one ever followed it through, it cost schools systems quite a bit of money when they were forced to change, and in the end, tons of schools didn't change. We wasted time until the next fad came around and then dropped it like it never happened.
The destruction of cultural heritage has occurred throughout time. You would think a 'enlightened' nation wouldn't do it... but... there we have it. At least we didn't just destroy them which is what usually happens across the world going back through the ages. Modern examples also include ISIL's destruction of all sorts of artifacts, temples, etc.
Now you might look up Muzeon Park in Russia... I think it saved a lot of the USSR statues, etc. from destruction and now displays them.
History is ugly. To hide that reality is to sanitize those ugly truths. Displaying that ugliness, even if seen by some as not-ugliness is a foolish and troubling trend.
Sneaky.. that is the creation of new stuff. The US equivalent would be banning the sale and creation of confederate flags... We haven't done that yet which I find surprising.
And I've got to back senjohn on this one... I do not see those statues or the flag as endorsing slavery or wistfully wishing it's return. Based on my own family history I see it as a point in time in the US where the south no longer felt represented by its northern controlled government and rebelled.
That is something that shouldn't be forgotten. There are large swaths of the population increasingly feeling they aren't represented by the government which is heavily influenced by urban issues, culture, and media which is also based in 'big cities'.
the confederate army was a bunch of racists terrorist that wanted to overthrow the united states government. not all that different from isis or whatever other racist army which attacked america you want to compare to.
pretend like the racist bit isn't at the core of what you believe all you want, you're still supporting a terrorist army that got it's ass kicked by decent patriotic americans who loved their country.
Jun 1, 17 9:04 pm ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
Secession could have happened without war. Technically, it did. Shots were fired at Sumter after the Union refused to withdraw troops from a southern post. Instead, Lincoln made moves that made it seem like they intended to reinforce and resupply the fort. This resulted in the south firing, and giving him an excuse to go to war.
Oh, and Lincoln wasn't overly concerned about slaves. From a letter to Horace Greeley:
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
How about washington, jefferson and all the other pre-civil war slave owners? They get a pass? When are we taking down the obelisk? What about Lincoln who said blacks should not be equal to whites, should not marry whites and should not vote. When are we tearing down his bastion to inequality and "hate".
Obviously the Russian monuments are nascent examples of brutalism, borrowed from the German Atlantik Wall fortifications design no less. How's that for irony?
When I see comments like these, I'm reminded how white this profession is, how your pain, and your slight is the only thing that matters, and how fucking happy I am that those confederate racists lost that horrible war.
Fuck them, and fuck everyone that thinks that the losing racists have a right to anything but the heel of my size twelve boots.
Jun 2, 17 1:02 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
You're correct, it was a horrible war. But it wasn't all about racists. It's quite obvious that the victory in the war didn't sway opinions about race.
Jun 2, 17 7:54 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
And apparently my other message went away. And I don't feel like typing it all again. Long story short: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
Racists are going to be racists. Regardless of their location or the monuments that are around them.
This movement has nothing to do with limiting racism. Likewise, the opposition is not entirely about being white. It is a bunch of people wanting to be able to pat themselves on the back and show it to the people who support them. The entire thing is a reflection of a society that jumps from one thing to the next, for a brief moment of satisfaction. I'm sure there is a video of a cat and dog, waiting in the wings on facebook, that would be far less costly to spread.
Jun 2, 17 8:03 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Let me be clear, the Civil War was about slavery, pure and simple.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
First, to suggest otherwise is so far beyond the pale, that we can't even begin to have a discussion.
Second, those traitors, yes traitors, lost; we don't memorialize traitors.
Jun 2, 17 9:04 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Third, you mistake me for some idiot? You think I believe that racists only live in the south? Stop. Grow the hell up.
Jun 2, 17 9:07 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
In an oversimplified form, yes, it was. I have had this argument over and over. It becomes rather tiring because people with limited understandings of the subject don't tend to change their viewpoints. But that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is about the representation of historic events. It is about allowing suspect symbols to remain, or not, and why. To this day, the civil war serves as a teaching moment in the history of the US. It teaches about racial divide, about societal divides, and political divides. Tactics used by the military, on both sides, are still studied today. Taking down a bunch of statues doesn't contribute to that continued study or preservation of historical moment. While their initial erection may have occurred under suspect motive, they have new purpose. And perhaps the tearing down of some of the more suspect ones is that teaching moment. But a blanket approach is silly at best.
Jun 2, 17 9:12 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
"Oversimplified" What are you talking about? I give the statement, from the Secession Convention, and you are saying that "oversimplifies" the matter? Stop.
But, I'll play along, as I have already, and will do, yet again. You state it teaches, it's a teaching moment. I am telling you, that statues and monuments to the glory of figures responsible for the rape, murder, and selling of people, black people, is morally repugnant. The teaching moment here, is the one that the Mayor of New Orleans laid down; that we can teach history, without deifying, we can recognize and acknowledge the pain, still felt to this day, and teach history, we can tear down these profiles of hate, placed on pedestals, and still teach history. We teach history, where history is taught; museums and schools.
Jun 2, 17 9:27 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
We are not going to agree. And the route of this particular discussion does little to continue the original topic. Opinions are just that. Every single discussion I have seen on this topic tends to go this way. There is one person who gets upset. Throws out the word racist and proceeds to throw a fit. I would much rather see the original topic addressed.
Jun 2, 17 9:32 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
And we get another weird double post because f the weird feature where hitting enter posts instead of actually having a post button.
The soul of our beloved City is deeply rooted in a history that has evolved over thousands of years; rooted in a diverse people who have been here together every step of the way — for both good and for ill. It is a history that holds in its heart the stories of Native Americans — the Choctaw, Houma Nation, the Chitimacha. Of Hernando De Soto, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, the Acadians, the Islenos, the enslaved people from Senegambia, Free People of Colorix, the Haitians, the Germans, both the empires of France and Spain. The Italians, the Irish, the Cubans, the south and central Americans, the Vietnamese and so many more.
You see — New Orleans is truly a city of many nations, a melting pot, a bubbling caldron of many cultures. There is no other place quite like it in the world that so eloquently exemplifies the uniquely American motto: e pluribus unum — out of many we are one. But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were bought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture. America was the place where nearly 4000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp. So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.
And it immediately begs the questions, why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans. So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission. There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it.
For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth. As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History & Culture, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.” So today I want to speak about why we chose to remove these four monuments to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but also how and why this process can move us towards healing and understanding of each other. So, let’s start with the facts.
The historic record is clear, the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity. First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.
After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city. Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears... I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago — we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and a more perfect union.
Last year, President Barack Obama echoed these sentiments about the need to contextualize and remember all our history. He recalled a piece of stone, a slave auction block engraved with a marker commemorating a single moment in 1830 when Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay stood and spoke from it. President Obama said, “Consider what this artifact tells us about history... on a stone where day after day for years, men and women... bound and bought and sold and bid like cattle on a stone worn down by the tragedy of over a thousand bare feet. For a long time the only thing we considered important, the singular thing we once chose to commemorate as history with a plaque were the unmemorable speeches of two powerful men.”
A piece of stone — one stone. Both stories were history. One story told. One story forgotten or maybe even purposefully ignored. As clear as it is for me today... for a long time, even though I grew up in one of New Orleans’ most diverse neighborhoods, even with my family’s long proud history of fighting for civil rights... I must have passed by those monuments a million times without giving them a second thought. So I am not judging anybody, I am not judging people. We all take our own journey on race.
I just hope people listen like I did when my dear friend Wynton Marsalis helped me see the truth. He asked me to think about all the people who have left New Orleans because of our exclusionary attitudes. Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it? Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too? We all know the answer to these very simple questions. When you look into this child’s eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can’t walk away from this truth.
And I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing and this is what that looks like. So relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, this is not about blame or retaliation. This is not a naïve quest to solve all our problems at once.
This is however about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile and most importantly, choose a better future for ourselves making straight what has been crooked and making right what was wrong. Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with discord, with division and yes with violence.
To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in our most prominent places of honor is an inaccurate recitation of our full past. It is an affront to our present, and it is a bad prescription for our future. History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. The Civil War is over, and the Confederacy lost and we are better for it. Surely we are far enough removed from this dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong.
And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African Americans — or anyone else — to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statues of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanity seems perverse and absurd. Centuries old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place. Here is the essential truth. We are better together than we are apart.
Indivisibility is our essence. Isn’t this the gift that the people of New Orleans have given to the world? We radiate beauty and grace in our food, in our music, in our architecture, in our joy of life, in our celebration of death; in everything that we do. We gave the world this funky thing called jazz, the most uniquely American art form that is developed across the ages from different cultures. Think about second lines, think about Mardi Gras, think about muffaletta, think about the Saints, gumbo, red beans and rice. By God, just think.
All we hold dear is created by throwing everything in the pot; creating, producing something better; everything a product of our historic diversity. We are proof that out of many we are one — and better for it! Out of many we are one — and we really do love it! And yet, we still seem to find so many excuses for not doing the right thing. Again, remember President Bush’s words, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”
We forget, we deny how much we really depend on each other, how much we need each other. We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinate in historical denial. We still find a way to say ‘wait’/not so fast, but like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “wait has almost always meant never.” We can’t wait any longer. We need to change. And we need to change now.
No more waiting. This is not just about statues, this is about our attitudes and behavior as well. If we take these statues down and don’t change to become a more open and inclusive society this would have all been in vain. While some have driven by these monuments every day and either revered their beauty or failed to see them at all, many of our neighbors and fellow Americans see them very clearly. Many are painfully aware of the long shadows their presence casts; not only literally but figuratively. And they clearly receive the message that the Confederacy and the cult of the lost cause intended to deliver.
Earlier this week, as the cult of the lost cause statue of P.G.T Beauregard came down, world renowned musician Terence Blanchard stood watch, his wife Robin and their two beautiful daughters at their side. Terence went to a high school on the edge of City Park named after one of America’s greatest heroes and patriots, John F. Kennedy. But to get there he had to pass by this monument to a man who fought to deny him his humanity.
He said, “I’ve never looked at them as a source of pride... it’s always made me feel as if they were put there by people who don’t respect us. This is something I never thought I’d see in my lifetime. It’s a sign that the world is changing.” Yes, Terence, it is and it is long overdue. Now is the time to send a new message to the next generation of New Orleanians who can follow in Terence and Robin’s remarkable footsteps.
A message about the future, about the next 300 years and beyond; let us not miss this opportunity New Orleans and let us help the rest of the country do the same. Because now is the time for choosing. Now is the time to actually make this the City we always should have been, had we gotten it right in the first place.
We should stop for a moment and ask ourselves — at this point in our history — after Katrina, after Rita, after Ike, after Gustav, after the national recession, after the BP oil catastrophe and after the tornado — if presented with the opportunity to build monuments that told our story or to curate these particular spaces... would these monuments be what we want the world to see? Is this really our story?
We have not erased history; we are becoming part of the city’s history by righting the wrong image these monuments represent and crafting a better, more complete future for all our children and for future generations. And unlike when these Confederate monuments were first erected as symbols of white supremacy, we now have a chance to create not only new symbols, but to do it together, as one people. In our blessed land we all come to the table of democracy as equals. We have to reaffirm our commitment to a future where each citizen is guaranteed the uniquely American gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is what really makes America great and today it is more important than ever to hold fast to these values and together say a self-evident truth that out of many we are one. That is why today we reclaim these spaces for the United States of America. Because we are one nation, not two; indivisible with liberty and justice for all... not some. We all are part of one nation, all pledging allegiance to one flag, the flag of the United States of America. And New Orleanians are in... all of the way. It is in this union and in this truth that real patriotism is rooted and flourishes. Instead of revering a 4-year brief historical aberration that was called the Confederacy we can celebrate all 300 years of our rich, diverse history as a place named New Orleans and set the tone for the next 300 years.
After decades of public debate, of anger, of anxiety, of anticipation, of humiliation and of frustration. After public hearings and approvals from three separate community led commissions. After two robust public hearings and a 6-1 vote by the duly elected New Orleans City Council. After review by 13 different federal and state judges. The full weight of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government has been brought to bear and the monuments in accordance with the law have been removed. So now is the time to come together and heal and focus on our larger task. Not only building new symbols, but making this city a beautiful manifestation of what is possible and what we as a people can become.
Let us remember what the once exiled, imprisoned and now universally loved Nelson Mandela and what he said after the fall of apartheid. “If the pain has often been unbearable and the revelations shocking to all of us, it is because they indeed bring us the beginnings of a common understanding of what happened and a steady restoration of the nation’s humanity.” So before we part let us again state the truth clearly.
The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered. As a community, we must recognize the significance of removing New Orleans’ Confederate monuments. It is our acknowledgment that now is the time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history.
Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause. Anything less would fall short of the immortal words of our greatest President Abraham Lincoln, who with an open heart and clarity of purpose calls on us today to unite as one people when he said: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds...to do all which may achieve and cherish — a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
So what value do statues of Lee have? He was a man who opposed secession, whose actions regarding slavery were very mixed, and who served as a symbol of reconciliation after the war. Are the statues art? They were certainly the work of some sculptor. How much art has been allowed to survive despite its connections to things of ill repute. To this day, statues of roman emperors are created. These weren't always great humanitarians. But, people make statues for preservation's sake and for art's sake. Do contributions of good outweigh connections with the bad?
Is it just easier to say "well, one side lost, move on."? Will there be future generations trying to rebuild monuments that were destroyed by the 'victors', like the Acropolis?
My personal opinion is that if there is a monument that is particularly offensive, perhaps based on its location within a certain community, then move it. Place it somewhere that gives it different meaning. If it is a duplicate, then it isn't necessary.
Jun 2, 17 9:53 am ·
·
Featured Comment
b3tadine[sutures]
My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
And now we're having a discussion that relates to the original topic. Based on that, is it then also reasonable to advocate for the removal of statues in DC? General Sherman (he absolutely devastated everything in his path on the march to the sea, regardless of military significance), DuPont memorial fountain, Grant memorial, James McPherson, Albert Pike, Meade, McClellan, Sheridan, Farragut, Logan, Thomas, Scott, Hancock, and Rawlins? Or do they get to stay because they (with the exception of Pike) were the good guys?
Jun 2, 17 10:24 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
The South lost. They were traitors.
Jun 2, 17 10:30 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
Didn't answer the question. General Logan supported fugitive slave laws and was very much in opposition to abolitionists prior to the war. Yet we have a monument to him. Does his good outweigh the bad?
Jun 2, 17 10:48 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Similarly Logan's transformation from a negrophobic state legislator to a radical Republican who championed the cause of African-Americans was authentic. Logan initially fought only to preserve the Union; however, as the war continued, he realized the need to attack slavery if only to weaken the Confederacy. His military service in the South familiarized him with some of the harsher aspects of slavery and undoubtedly influenced his opposition to slavery on moral as well as practical grounds. Indeed, his postwar advocacy of African-American civil rights suggests that Logan believed that whites and blacks shared a common humanity. Logan's advocacy of equality before the law and his devotion to the plight of African-Americans well into the 1880s provides ample evidence that his political conversion was sincere, making his career one the most remarkable tales of political transformations in United States history.
Jun 2, 17 11:12 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Robert E. Lee represented a traitorous rebellion, one that fought to maintain the primacy of bondage, rape and murder.
Jun 2, 17 11:14 am ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
Maybe so, but like Logan, there was transformation. Lee went on to be the president of a college and worked for reconciliation. Given that, would there be acceptance of Lee represented in that role? Pike's monument isn't as a General. Or is it just easy to say that Lee fought for the south. Nothing else can redeem him?
Jun 2, 17 11:51 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
Why should New Orleans stop with only the statues? Since most of the French Quarter was built with slave labor it should be demolished also. Just flatten that puppy. Back to a debris-filled swamp. Of course many slaves were highly prized for their carpentry and masonry skills and many were not slaves at all but Freemen who worked for money you might be destroying something it took minorities quite a bit of proud (paid) effort to achieve. Doesn't matter. Flatten that sucker. Nothing must stand in the way of feeling righteous and holier-than-thou.
Jun 2, 17 10:19 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
White tears. We got buckets for that.
Jun 2, 17 10:28 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Of course many slaves were highly prized for their carpentry and masonry skills and many were not slaves at all but Freemen who worked for money you might be destroying something it took minorities quite a bit of proud (paid) effort to achieve.
You're all over the place here, but one thing is certain, you "free-marketers" never give up, and your statement is so woefully inadequate, as to suggest these "Freemen" were equal partners in a reconstruction, and that they benefited from an equal, and just economy.
They still own slaves in some part of Africa, and 20-40 million slaves exist worldwide. Also, lets not forget the Barbary slave trade where Europeans where enslaved...None of this minimizes the horrors and brutality of American trans-Atlantic slavery, but to pretend slavery is unique to white people is stupid. Its a human evil that unfortunately still exists today. The artifacts of that unfortunate history should be part of the palimpsest of our cities. Its part of our architectural "memory" (see "the architecture of cities"). Id like to hear Eisenman on this subject. This is an area he would probably make alot of sense in.
public monuments - new orleans
In light of the removal of public monuments in New Orleans, would anyone care to share their home country's practices on removing , retaining, and discussing controversial historic monuments ?
Curious to know what public opinion, practice and policy have been on controversial public sculpture in different contexts. It's a touchy topic out there, but i think ol' archinect is a good place to discuss.
1 Featured Comment
My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
Horse's Mouth
All 20 Comments
As a history buff, and an American Civil war buff, I think it's moronic. Given the age of most of the monuments, they were a portion of history, along with the people they represented. Squares and streets are named after monuments. While the names of such things change over time, it's not an immediate thing. The places will still be known for whatever was there by the people most familiar with the location.
All anyone is doing is spending taxpayer dollars removing things so they temporarily get a few pats on the back.
Anyone remember the huge push to rename all the high school mascots that had Indian related names? No one ever followed it through, it cost schools systems quite a bit of money when they were forced to change, and in the end, tons of schools didn't change. We wasted time until the next fad came around and then dropped it like it never happened.
Can't see the forest for the trees, then?
Are you white?
Politically correct white wash. Leave the monuments and allow vandalism instead.
That would quite possibly (likely, I believe) devolve into violent altercations between vandals and racis... history lovers.
Cool
Better yet, put some security cams up and have a live feed on youtube.
These monuments will become effigies if they are left up. Someone will eventually destroy them.
The destruction of cultural heritage has occurred throughout time. You would think a 'enlightened' nation wouldn't do it... but... there we have it. At least we didn't just destroy them which is what usually happens across the world going back through the ages. Modern examples also include ISIL's destruction of all sorts of artifacts, temples, etc.
Now you might look up Muzeon Park in Russia... I think it saved a lot of the USSR statues, etc. from destruction and now displays them.
History is ugly. To hide that reality is to sanitize those ugly truths. Displaying that ugliness, even if seen by some as not-ugliness is a foolish and troubling trend.
*hiding not displaying...
nothing wrong with updating as values change
i believe they've set the statues aside -- they didn't destroy them
if they'd just destroyed them, that would have been a disservice to owning our history, good & bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Discuss.
Sneaky.. that is the creation of new stuff. The US equivalent would be banning the sale and creation of confederate flags... We haven't done that yet which I find surprising.
And I've got to back senjohn on this one... I do not see those statues or the flag as endorsing slavery or wistfully wishing it's return. Based on my own family history I see it as a point in time in the US where the south no longer felt represented by its northern controlled government and rebelled.
That is something that shouldn't be forgotten. There are large swaths of the population increasingly feeling they aren't represented by the government which is heavily influenced by urban issues, culture, and media which is also based in 'big cities'.
the confederate army was a bunch of racists terrorist that wanted to overthrow the united states government. not all that different from isis or whatever other racist army which attacked america you want to compare to.
pretend like the racist bit isn't at the core of what you believe all you want, you're still supporting a terrorist army that got it's ass kicked by decent patriotic americans who loved their country.
Secession could have happened without war. Technically, it did. Shots were fired at Sumter after the Union refused to withdraw troops from a southern post. Instead, Lincoln made moves that made it seem like they intended to reinforce and resupply the fort. This resulted in the south firing, and giving him an excuse to go to war.
Oh, and Lincoln wasn't overly concerned about slaves. From a letter to Horace Greeley:
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
How about washington, jefferson and all the other pre-civil war slave owners? They get a pass? When are we taking down the obelisk? What about Lincoln who said blacks should not be equal to whites, should not marry whites and should not vote. When are we tearing down his bastion to inequality and "hate".
Gets complicated, i guess...
Obviously the Russian monuments are nascent examples of brutalism, borrowed from the German Atlantik Wall fortifications design no less. How's that for irony?
When I see comments like these, I'm reminded how white this profession is, how your pain, and your slight is the only thing that matters, and how fucking happy I am that those confederate racists lost that horrible war.
Fuck them, and fuck everyone that thinks that the losing racists have a right to anything but the heel of my size twelve boots.
You're correct, it was a horrible war. But it wasn't all about racists. It's quite obvious that the victory in the war didn't sway opinions about race.
And apparently my other message went away. And I don't feel like typing it all again. Long story short: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
Racists are going to be racists. Regardless of their location or the monuments that are around them.
This movement has nothing to do with limiting racism. Likewise, the opposition is not entirely about being white. It is a bunch of people wanting to be able to pat themselves on the back and show it to the people who support them. The entire thing is a reflection of a society that jumps from one thing to the next, for a brief moment of satisfaction. I'm sure there is a video of a cat and dog, waiting in the wings on facebook, that would be far less costly to spread.
Let me be clear, the Civil War was about slavery, pure and simple.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
First, to suggest otherwise is so far beyond the pale, that we can't even begin to have a discussion.
Second, those traitors, yes traitors, lost; we don't memorialize traitors.
Third, you mistake me for some idiot? You think I believe that racists only live in the south? Stop. Grow the hell up.
In an oversimplified form, yes, it was. I have had this argument over and over. It becomes rather tiring because people with limited understandings of the subject don't tend to change their viewpoints. But that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is about the representation of historic events. It is about allowing suspect symbols to remain, or not, and why. To this day, the civil war serves as a teaching moment in the history of the US. It teaches about racial divide, about societal divides, and political divides. Tactics used by the military, on both sides, are still studied today. Taking down a bunch of statues doesn't contribute to that continued study or preservation of historical moment. While their initial erection may have occurred under suspect motive, they have new purpose. And perhaps the tearing down of some of the more suspect ones is that teaching moment. But a blanket approach is silly at best.
"Oversimplified" What are you talking about? I give the statement, from the Secession Convention, and you are saying that "oversimplifies" the matter? Stop.
But, I'll play along, as I have already, and will do, yet again. You state it teaches, it's a teaching moment. I am telling you, that statues and monuments to the glory of figures responsible for the rape, murder, and selling of people, black people, is morally repugnant. The teaching moment here, is the one that the Mayor of New Orleans laid down; that we can teach history, without deifying, we can recognize and acknowledge the pain, still felt to this day, and teach history, we can tear down these profiles of hate, placed on pedestals, and still teach history. We teach history, where history is taught; museums and schools.
We are not going to agree. And the route of this particular discussion does little to continue the original topic. Opinions are just that. Every single discussion I have seen on this topic tends to go this way. There is one person who gets upset. Throws out the word racist and proceeds to throw a fit. I would much rather see the original topic addressed.
And we get another weird double post because f the weird feature where hitting enter posts instead of actually having a post button.
Southern Mythology
Courage
Thank you for coming.
The soul of our beloved City is deeply rooted in a history that has evolved over thousands of years; rooted in a diverse people who have been here together every step of the way — for both good and for ill. It is a history that holds in its heart the stories of Native Americans — the Choctaw, Houma Nation, the Chitimacha. Of Hernando De Soto, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, the Acadians, the Islenos, the enslaved people from Senegambia, Free People of Colorix, the Haitians, the Germans, both the empires of France and Spain. The Italians, the Irish, the Cubans, the south and central Americans, the Vietnamese and so many more.
You see — New Orleans is truly a city of many nations, a melting pot, a bubbling caldron of many cultures. There is no other place quite like it in the world that so eloquently exemplifies the uniquely American motto: e pluribus unum — out of many we are one. But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were bought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture. America was the place where nearly 4000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp. So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.
And it immediately begs the questions, why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans. So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission. There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it.
For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth. As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History & Culture, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.” So today I want to speak about why we chose to remove these four monuments to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but also how and why this process can move us towards healing and understanding of each other. So, let’s start with the facts.
The historic record is clear, the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity. First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.
After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city. Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears... I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago — we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and a more perfect union.
Last year, President Barack Obama echoed these sentiments about the need to contextualize and remember all our history. He recalled a piece of stone, a slave auction block engraved with a marker commemorating a single moment in 1830 when Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay stood and spoke from it. President Obama said, “Consider what this artifact tells us about history... on a stone where day after day for years, men and women... bound and bought and sold and bid like cattle on a stone worn down by the tragedy of over a thousand bare feet. For a long time the only thing we considered important, the singular thing we once chose to commemorate as history with a plaque were the unmemorable speeches of two powerful men.”
A piece of stone — one stone. Both stories were history. One story told. One story forgotten or maybe even purposefully ignored. As clear as it is for me today... for a long time, even though I grew up in one of New Orleans’ most diverse neighborhoods, even with my family’s long proud history of fighting for civil rights... I must have passed by those monuments a million times without giving them a second thought. So I am not judging anybody, I am not judging people. We all take our own journey on race.
I just hope people listen like I did when my dear friend Wynton Marsalis helped me see the truth. He asked me to think about all the people who have left New Orleans because of our exclusionary attitudes. Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it? Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too? We all know the answer to these very simple questions. When you look into this child’s eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can’t walk away from this truth.
And I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing and this is what that looks like. So relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, this is not about blame or retaliation. This is not a naïve quest to solve all our problems at once.
This is however about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile and most importantly, choose a better future for ourselves making straight what has been crooked and making right what was wrong. Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with discord, with division and yes with violence.
To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in our most prominent places of honor is an inaccurate recitation of our full past. It is an affront to our present, and it is a bad prescription for our future. History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. The Civil War is over, and the Confederacy lost and we are better for it. Surely we are far enough removed from this dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong.
And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African Americans — or anyone else — to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statues of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanity seems perverse and absurd. Centuries old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place. Here is the essential truth. We are better together than we are apart.
Indivisibility is our essence. Isn’t this the gift that the people of New Orleans have given to the world? We radiate beauty and grace in our food, in our music, in our architecture, in our joy of life, in our celebration of death; in everything that we do. We gave the world this funky thing called jazz, the most uniquely American art form that is developed across the ages from different cultures. Think about second lines, think about Mardi Gras, think about muffaletta, think about the Saints, gumbo, red beans and rice. By God, just think.
All we hold dear is created by throwing everything in the pot; creating, producing something better; everything a product of our historic diversity. We are proof that out of many we are one — and better for it! Out of many we are one — and we really do love it! And yet, we still seem to find so many excuses for not doing the right thing. Again, remember President Bush’s words, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”
We forget, we deny how much we really depend on each other, how much we need each other. We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinate in historical denial. We still find a way to say ‘wait’/not so fast, but like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “wait has almost always meant never.” We can’t wait any longer. We need to change. And we need to change now.
No more waiting. This is not just about statues, this is about our attitudes and behavior as well. If we take these statues down and don’t change to become a more open and inclusive society this would have all been in vain. While some have driven by these monuments every day and either revered their beauty or failed to see them at all, many of our neighbors and fellow Americans see them very clearly. Many are painfully aware of the long shadows their presence casts; not only literally but figuratively. And they clearly receive the message that the Confederacy and the cult of the lost cause intended to deliver.
Earlier this week, as the cult of the lost cause statue of P.G.T Beauregard came down, world renowned musician Terence Blanchard stood watch, his wife Robin and their two beautiful daughters at their side. Terence went to a high school on the edge of City Park named after one of America’s greatest heroes and patriots, John F. Kennedy. But to get there he had to pass by this monument to a man who fought to deny him his humanity.
He said, “I’ve never looked at them as a source of pride... it’s always made me feel as if they were put there by people who don’t respect us. This is something I never thought I’d see in my lifetime. It’s a sign that the world is changing.” Yes, Terence, it is and it is long overdue. Now is the time to send a new message to the next generation of New Orleanians who can follow in Terence and Robin’s remarkable footsteps.
A message about the future, about the next 300 years and beyond; let us not miss this opportunity New Orleans and let us help the rest of the country do the same. Because now is the time for choosing. Now is the time to actually make this the City we always should have been, had we gotten it right in the first place.
We should stop for a moment and ask ourselves — at this point in our history — after Katrina, after Rita, after Ike, after Gustav, after the national recession, after the BP oil catastrophe and after the tornado — if presented with the opportunity to build monuments that told our story or to curate these particular spaces... would these monuments be what we want the world to see? Is this really our story?
We have not erased history; we are becoming part of the city’s history by righting the wrong image these monuments represent and crafting a better, more complete future for all our children and for future generations. And unlike when these Confederate monuments were first erected as symbols of white supremacy, we now have a chance to create not only new symbols, but to do it together, as one people. In our blessed land we all come to the table of democracy as equals. We have to reaffirm our commitment to a future where each citizen is guaranteed the uniquely American gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is what really makes America great and today it is more important than ever to hold fast to these values and together say a self-evident truth that out of many we are one. That is why today we reclaim these spaces for the United States of America. Because we are one nation, not two; indivisible with liberty and justice for all... not some. We all are part of one nation, all pledging allegiance to one flag, the flag of the United States of America. And New Orleanians are in... all of the way. It is in this union and in this truth that real patriotism is rooted and flourishes. Instead of revering a 4-year brief historical aberration that was called the Confederacy we can celebrate all 300 years of our rich, diverse history as a place named New Orleans and set the tone for the next 300 years.
After decades of public debate, of anger, of anxiety, of anticipation, of humiliation and of frustration. After public hearings and approvals from three separate community led commissions. After two robust public hearings and a 6-1 vote by the duly elected New Orleans City Council. After review by 13 different federal and state judges. The full weight of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government has been brought to bear and the monuments in accordance with the law have been removed. So now is the time to come together and heal and focus on our larger task. Not only building new symbols, but making this city a beautiful manifestation of what is possible and what we as a people can become.
Let us remember what the once exiled, imprisoned and now universally loved Nelson Mandela and what he said after the fall of apartheid. “If the pain has often been unbearable and the revelations shocking to all of us, it is because they indeed bring us the beginnings of a common understanding of what happened and a steady restoration of the nation’s humanity.” So before we part let us again state the truth clearly.
The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered. As a community, we must recognize the significance of removing New Orleans’ Confederate monuments. It is our acknowledgment that now is the time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history.
Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause. Anything less would fall short of the immortal words of our greatest President Abraham Lincoln, who with an open heart and clarity of purpose calls on us today to unite as one people when he said: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds...to do all which may achieve and cherish — a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Thank you.
So what value do statues of Lee have? He was a man who opposed secession, whose actions regarding slavery were very mixed, and who served as a symbol of reconciliation after the war. Are the statues art? They were certainly the work of some sculptor. How much art has been allowed to survive despite its connections to things of ill repute. To this day, statues of roman emperors are created. These weren't always great humanitarians. But, people make statues for preservation's sake and for art's sake. Do contributions of good outweigh connections with the bad?
Is it just easier to say "well, one side lost, move on."? Will there be future generations trying to rebuild monuments that were destroyed by the 'victors', like the Acropolis?
My personal opinion is that if there is a monument that is particularly offensive, perhaps based on its location within a certain community, then move it. Place it somewhere that gives it different meaning. If it is a duplicate, then it isn't necessary.
My engagements will not permit me to be present, and I believe if there I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
Horse's Mouth
And now we're having a discussion that relates to the original topic. Based on that, is it then also reasonable to advocate for the removal of statues in DC? General Sherman (he absolutely devastated everything in his path on the march to the sea, regardless of military significance), DuPont memorial fountain, Grant memorial, James McPherson, Albert Pike, Meade, McClellan, Sheridan, Farragut, Logan, Thomas, Scott, Hancock, and Rawlins? Or do they get to stay because they (with the exception of Pike) were the good guys?
The South lost. They were traitors.
Didn't answer the question. General Logan supported fugitive slave laws and was very much in opposition to abolitionists prior to the war. Yet we have a monument to him. Does his good outweigh the bad?
Similarly Logan's transformation from a negrophobic state legislator to a radical Republican who championed the cause of African-Americans was authentic. Logan initially fought only to preserve the Union; however, as the war continued, he realized the need to attack slavery if only to weaken the Confederacy. His military service in the South familiarized him with some of the harsher aspects of slavery and undoubtedly influenced his opposition to slavery on moral as well as practical grounds. Indeed, his postwar advocacy of African-American civil rights suggests that Logan believed that whites and blacks shared a common humanity. Logan's advocacy of equality before the law and his devotion to the plight of African-Americans well into the 1880s provides ample evidence that his political conversion was sincere, making his career one the most remarkable tales of political transformations in United States history.
Robert E. Lee represented a traitorous rebellion, one that fought to maintain the primacy of bondage, rape and murder.
Maybe so, but like Logan, there was transformation. Lee went on to be the president of a college and worked for reconciliation. Given that, would there be acceptance of Lee represented in that role? Pike's monument isn't as a General. Or is it just easy to say that Lee fought for the south. Nothing else can redeem him?
I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
Why should New Orleans stop with only the statues? Since most of the French Quarter was built with slave labor it should be demolished also. Just flatten that puppy. Back to a debris-filled swamp. Of course many slaves were highly prized for their carpentry and masonry skills and many were not slaves at all but Freemen who worked for money you might be destroying something it took minorities quite a bit of proud (paid) effort to achieve. Doesn't matter. Flatten that sucker. Nothing must stand in the way of feeling righteous and holier-than-thou.
White tears. We got buckets for that.
Of course many slaves were highly prized for their carpentry and masonry skills and many were not slaves at all but Freemen who worked for money you might be destroying something it took minorities quite a bit of proud (paid) effort to achieve.
You're all over the place here, but one thing is certain, you "free-marketers" never give up, and your statement is so woefully inadequate, as to suggest these "Freemen" were equal partners in a reconstruction, and that they benefited from an equal, and just economy.
You need some better straw men, Volunteer.
Wynton Marsalis
Who is talking about "reconstruction"? I am referring to the building of New Orleans in the first place by many Freemen.
History
Educate yourself
http://lib.lsu.edu/sites/all/files/sc/fpoc/history.html
This isn't about houses, scarecrow.
Did you read it Sneaky? I found it interesting and honestly had no idea.
Wait... black people owned slaves?! In the US of A?!
Ah, yes. The most excellent "They did it as well so we shouldn't feel bad" defense. A favorite of 6-year-olds worldwide.
They still own slaves in some part of Africa, and 20-40 million slaves exist worldwide. Also, lets not forget the Barbary slave trade where Europeans where enslaved...None of this minimizes the horrors and brutality of American trans-Atlantic slavery, but to pretend slavery is unique to white people is stupid. Its a human evil that unfortunately still exists today. The artifacts of that unfortunate history should be part of the palimpsest of our cities. Its part of our architectural "memory" (see "the architecture of cities"). Id like to hear Eisenman on this subject. This is an area he would probably make alot of sense in.
It's for the children and the Prophet. Andy Jackson, you are next, because we (and only we) are righteous! Just ask us.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.