Charlottesville said in a news release that the equestrian statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee as well as a nearby one of Confederate Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson will be removed Saturday. Designated public viewing areas for the removals will be established in both parks where the statues are located, the news release said. — PBS
The city had been planning to take at least the Lee statue down since 2016, which in part prompted the deadly 2017 white supremacist Unite the Right rally. A number of laws and local ordinances had put the removal in question before a court ruling earlier this year ultimately cleared the way.
The statues were removed on Saturday after a last-minute announcement by the city. NPR has more on the planned removals herer.
47 Comments
They also removed two statues of Lewis and Clark and his party. The statues included Sacagawea, the 16 year-old Indian girl who acted as a scout for the expedition, and other frontiersmen and Indian figures as well. The city council of Charlottesville is in a race to see who can become the most woke. I think they are winning.
For context: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/01/784005881/in-virginia-sacagawea-gets-her-own-statue
Basically NPR says that because some people view the statue Sacagawea differently than other people view the statue of Sacagawea it must be taken down. Brilliant.
NPR is reporting on an event. They're not "saying" anything. You seem to be conflating journalism with opinion.
"City leaders in Charlottesville, Va., will remove a statue of Lewis and Clark because their guide, Sacagawea, is portrayed as weak. " That is an opinion. \
duplicate removed
They're also putting up a new statue. The controversy here seems performative, at best.
Look at the statue. She is not depicted as a scout. She is shown as cowering behind 2 heroic figures. It is not an opinion. It is an observable fact of the work in question.
I think she is doing what scouts do, look for signs of animals or people along a trail. Others have come to the same conclusion. Why are you right and we are wrong? The mayor of Charlottesville wants to have a new Lewis and Clark memorial, with Sacagawea, but with without Lewis and without Clark.
You seem very triggered on this, not sure why there's such a desperation to die on this hill...
I am not dying on any hill. Sacagawea was celebrated at the time and is celebrated today. I am just sick and tired of woke people, like the NPR employee who wrote the article and the Charlottesville mayor, trying to make grievances out of thin air.
Lewis and Clark don't look like they are in need of a scout. Your analysis belies the body language and demeanor of the group of figures as a whole. I guess one sees what one wants to see.
trying to make grievances out of thin air
oh the irony. you're most likely better off directing your attention elsewhere rather than repeatedly commenting about statues on an architecture website.
btw, free advice, but this is what happens when you conflate statues with history.
I did not list the article on this 'architectural website'. I simply commented on how other statues were also taken down in Charlottesville. I'll take a pass on your free advice.
https://twitter.com/CAMcGrady/...
The depiction of Sacagawea with Lewis in Clark at the end of West Main is of a woman literally cowering behind one of the colonizers. Certainly not depicted as the hero or scout you are alluding to (more on that later).
The second statue near the Corner and UVa hospital complex does not include Sacagawea at all. Instead, it depicts a confrontation between Clark indigenous peoples, soldiers behind with rifles at the ready. The base read "George Rogers Clark, Conqueror of the Northwest."
With respect to the history and legacy of Sacagawea, there indeed has been recent talk. The updates reflect that she was kidnapped, sold to a fur trader, and (likely) raped before her "husband" agreed to be on the expedition being led by Lewis and Clark with the explicit agreement that his wife (Sacagawea ) be included. Bottom line is that the hero building omits the events leading up to her role as a savior to the expedition (which arguably would now be called Stockholm Syndrome).
Added, both monuments were installed before the RE Lee statue but were part of a larger campaign of using Confederate and other heroic figures to mark/claim/control public space (Starr Hill) and control narratives (ref: conqueror of the northwest). Historian Dell Upton has a great piece on this and there are walking tours in Charlottesville that discuss the specific histories of the downtown memorials.
Aside- the green space (hardly a park) surrounding Clark memorial is largely a dead space. In part, because it wasn't programmed- the only seating was at the base (control anyone?), in part because it was in front of rail lines to the hospital physical plant, but also in part because no one wanted to be seen sitting under the statue and text, "conquered."
You could not be more wrong. The Clark statue is in a small, green leafy park and was stunning to behold. I have visited on foot several times and always made a point of driving by when in Charlottesville. The statue of Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea is very near a complicated and dangerous six lane intersection and would be actually dangerous to visit.
He definitely could be more wrong. He could be ignoring the forest to argue about one tree.
looks like a great place for you to let your dog do its business ... not much else. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0334727,-78.4985122,3a,75y,237.53h,89.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2CVa7HbZJjtY3bwawGPwow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That "leafy" green park was a stand of pines, across the street from a hotel that eventually went independent, a strip of restaurants, and plan 9 records before it moved.
That leafy, green, park looks leafy and green to me. Across the street directly in front of the statue is an outdoor sidewalk café. That side of the street is tree-lined also. What, exactly, were you expecting?
Jesus, what a hideous statue. Colonization hero worship. Good riddance.
You are correct, there's far more pedestrian traffic on the north side of the street because that is the side the Corner is on. The south side is vague, that "park", and awkward access to the hospital complex. So far less pedestrian traffic on that side of the street.
But- what about the base? You haven't addressed that...
I think conquer could easily mean he successfully finished the commission Jefferson gave him. Did he bring back hordes of Indians to parade through the streets of Charlottesville like a Roman general with a conquered enemy?
One could easily say that pigeons don't deficate on it they are merely marking their territory and calling it their home.
Argue the semantics, not the ideas. Good tactic.
Not sure what the definition of taking control of a place or a people or both has to do with Roman generals, but I'll agree. Jefferson's goal was to take control of places and by association, the people to benefit westward expansion - colonialism.
By this logic, any time a group of people invaded neighboring land and settled it would be a form of colonialism ,therefore the whole of human history, on every continent, is the result of colonialism. Not saying it was a good thing, but it was how civilizations grew or died. Today the preferred method is called immigration.
Yes civilization has generally progressed to the point where we can universally agree certain things are bad, and we generally don't do those things anymore.
I think the people being colonized have always understood it as a bad thing. Right now, the Eastern Chinese are 'colonizing' the western part of China, Russia is colonizing Ukraine, and there are some calling for the reconquista of the southwestern states. People move by force or by choice. Just wait till refugees from global warming pick up steam. We'll have to make peace with a lot more mixing.
Who is "we" in your statement of "we'll have to make peace with a lot more mixing" ???
I think most people who aren't xenophobic or racist have already made that peace ... some of us a long time ago or it was never really something that wasn't peaceful.
I have no idea what your point is, Thayer.
Just that the current preoccupation with "colonization" should be looked at in the context of the movement of people throughout history. As bad as colonization was/is, we also need to also look at its results as something new and even beautiful.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of colonization which included:
Richard Rodriguez is an old NPR reporter who's spoken eloquently about the blending of cultures that have come from the colonization of the America's from a positive point of view. Aboriginal, European, African and now Asian and other people coming together as a new world. It's very exciting to see what will come from such a stew!
Positive side effects do not excuse malicious intent. To say nothing of how these perceived positive side effects have manifested, or not, in reality.
What some would call "the American ideal" is certainly good and something worth aspiring toward. But in order to continue to aspire toward it it's crucial to first acknowledge that we haven't achieved it yet.
"I think the people being colonized have always understood it as a bad thing."
Because it was. do as you're told and you'll be the better for it (subtext we'll let live, although you may not thrive). more importantly- they didn't understand it as a bad thing, they experienced it as trauma. Using words like the beautiful - especially in the context of landscapes- perpetuates this given that it is based on a narrow representation of place based on European/English class and capital based ideas of property and ownership.
Sure rape is bad, but that kid of yours is a great human so, you know, get the fuck over it.
I know it's a bit too much to ask everyone to hold these opposing views at the same time, but it needs to be said for those who can. Btw, can you explain this in plain English?
"European/English class and capital based ideas of property and ownership."
1. Invading a sovereign nation.
2. Overwhelming it militarily.
3. Enslaving it's people.
4. Plundering its natural resources.
5. Theft of its cultural artifacts.
To name just a few.
while I don’t particularly like memorializing people as Heros in public spaces, I also don’t believe that anyone is really hurt or saddened by the presence of this statues. Fake rage for a fake revolution that’s most about raising ones own public status. Imagine a movie starting Nicholas Cage who plays a woke time travelers, who took woke math and couldn’t get the physics right to build real time machine, so he instead just virtue signals about artifacts of the past. He ignores present atrocities abroad of course because that would actually require real action. How much would that movie suck?
I would respect naked vandals who topple these in the night…but can’t get behind the people making a public stink about statues.
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.