Leave them up? Or tear them down?
SAN DIEGO — As the recent decision by the American Museum of Natural History in New York City attests, to remove a statue of Theodore Roosevelt in the company of a Native American and an African American, we have entered a time of monumental decision making.
Roosevelt, the nation’s 26th President who built a legacy as a conservationist, is shown in the sculpture riding on horseback, whereas the Native American and African American are walking on either side of him, seemingly indicating positions of racial inferiority, according to the museum which has requested permission to remove the statue from the front of the museum.
Faced with calls to take down the monuments of generals who fought on the side of the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, and possibly to rename some of our Confederate-honoring military bases, many people are asking “Are we erasing our history?”
However, I don’t believe that is the real question facing us. History is ours to study on the Internet, in libraries, in books, in classes, in movies, and in discussions with our friends. The more germane question, in my opinion, is “Who in our history should we put up on a pedestal?”
“Who,” in other words, “should we look up to?”
“Who, by virtue of their being commemorated with a large public statue, or by having their pictures placed on our currency and our postage stamps, are we holding up to our children as paragons of virtue, whose lives should be emulated?”
“Who best represent our American ideals?”
Placed in that context, we can see that some people may be more fitting role models than others. When we read history, we can learn the nuances. We might say that this person made a fine contribution in one field, but that contribution was overshadowed by his or her demerits in another field.
Let’s take a San Diego example: Charles Lindbergh. San Diegans used to be very proud of Lindbergh. After all, he was the pilot who made the very first solo flight across the Atlantic. His plane, The Spirit of St. Louis, was built right here in San Diego. So, it just seemed natural that Lindbergh’s name was chosen for San Diego’s airport: Lindbergh Field.
However, if you visit the airport today, Lindbergh has been de-emphasized. Today, the sign on Harbor Drive tells you that you are about to enter San Diego International Airport. A large mural that once dominated the approach to the airport from downtown that featured a portrait of Lindbergh has been taken down.
Why? Because notwithstanding his true place in aeronautical history, Lindbergh also was a Nazi sympathizer, who allied himself with Adolf Hitler, an enemy of the United States responsible for the loss of untold American lives in addition to those Jews and other minorities brutally murdered by Hitler’s regime.
Do we want Lindbergh’s aeronautical accomplishments forgotten? No, it’s important for students of aeronautical history to know about him, about how he stripped every ounce of unnecessary weight out of his airplane, in order to make room for additional fuel tanks. On the other hand, do we want Lindbergh to be put up on the proverbial pedestal, so our children (okay, in my case, grandchildren) might someday think, “I want to be like him?” Well, certainly I don’t believe that we should so honor him.
As we address the question of monuments, it seems that a few clarifying rules might be in order.
First, there is no justification for anyone to destroy someone else’s property. That is a crime. If you don’t like someone who has been immortalized on a statue, you do not have the right to simply tear that statue down — unless you happen to own it. Private property owners can do what they want with their property. Do you no longer want a statue that your grandfather commissioned of Robert E. Lee on your privately-owned farm? Take it down. It’s yours.
Second, statues on public property belong to the people who live in the political jurisdiction where the statue is located. Their elected representatives have the right to determine whether the statue should stay or be taken down. Let us say that you are opposed to the statue of the Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo that stands overlooking the entrance to San Diego Bay at Cabrillo National Monument. For that matter, let us say that you don’t believe the park should be named for Cabrillo.
Why? Perhaps you feel that he is disqualified for such an honor because he was a key soldier for Hernan Cortes, the conquistador who brought down the Aztec Empire of Mexico. Furthermore, let us say that you believe the age of Spanish colonialism set people against people, culture against culture, civilization against civilization. While you have no objection to students learning about such history in their classrooms, you don’t want to enshrine it as a model for our society today. Let’s say that you simply don’t believe that Cabrillo should be atop that pedestal.
So what do you do? Cabrillo National Monument is operated by the National Parks Service, which is a branch of the United States government. Following the November election, we will have five local members of the House of Representatives to bring this matter to. You can tell them that you would like them to put in a bill to change the name of Cabrillo National Monument and to take down the statue of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. As in any political movement, you will seek to enlist the support of as many people as you can to persuade these representatives, as well as their colleagues in the House and the Senate, as well as in the White House, that renaming Cabrillo National Monument will make an important statement about the values that we hold dear. You organize, you militate, but you don’t destroy.
Recently, Father Junipero Serra, who founded the chain of 21 missions in California, was declared a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps, you are among those who believe that Father Serra was in the vanguard of a brutal movement that suppressed Native Americans in California, beating and enslaving indigenous peoples in an effort to replace their culture with the Spanish colonial culture. Recently protesters in Los Angeles toppled a statue of Father Serra in that city’s Father Serra Park. What they did was unlawful.
But suppose you agree that Father Serra is not a fitting role model for our children? What can you legally do? You can make public appeals to the Catholic Church to reconsider Father Serra’s record and to de-emphasize homages to him. You may not force the church to do so, because the property of the Catholic Church belongs to the Church, and others have no right to tell the Church what it must do on its own property. That is a matter best referred to the consciences of the church’s heirarchy.
On the other hand, governmental entities can be asked to reconsider their enshrining of Father Serra. Is it appropriate for a public high school in the San Diego Unified School District to be named for Serra if the allegations about his treatment of the indigenous people of California are true? How about the street named for Father Serra that runs through Mission Trails Regional Park? Should the City of San Diego be persuaded to change the name?
In short, whether at a local, state or national level, citizenry can have much to say about who we want to put on our pedestals — and who we would prefer be studied in the quiet of classrooms, or in the sanctity of museums.
Personally, I believe that debates will be exciting and educational over the propriety of different statues, if conducted with civility undergirded by the ideals of equality and mutual respect.
Politicians often like to appoint advisory commissions to wrestle with thorny issues and to give themselves time to decide which way they should vote. I look forward to such commissions being formed throughout the nation, with their learned findings submitted both to the public and the politicians for review and debate.
Some people will be tempted to believe that this is just a stalling tactic. However, I see it as a process for building national consensus on issues of moral consciousness. Illegally tearing down a statue invites other people to retaliate. Painstakingly utilizing the accepted political processes for discussion of public issues invites people to conciliate.
It’s not unnatural to ask what we should do with those statues once we remove them from their pedestals? What should we do with the street signs and celebratory markers that we have placed in public places, if the names are changed?
I believe they all should be preserved in private museums dedicated to understanding Americans’ shifts in conscience, and how those shifts later influenced the conduct of American society.
*
Donald H. Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
Thanks so much, Don Harrison, for a well-written and thought-provoking article.
From Roger H. Mandel
>
> Well written and thank you.
From Heather Z. Rothstain:
I read this article you wrote. As usual, it was very well written. Lots to think about and lots of changes. I just keeping thinking about how much of the art curriculum needs to change. I recently applied for a program that revolves mostly around Picasso, Monet, Calder, etc, mostly white men. Not sure if this program is going to get pulled from the OC schools but I’m sure they are going to have to add a lot more people of color to their register of artists. But then I start to think where does it end? And I start thinking and ask, “why then isn’t the Holocaust being taught more frequently in all schools? And there are plenty of anti-Semitic things out there that should be taken down as well? Why are teachers still celebrating Roald Dahl’s works in school since he was clearly an anti-Semitic author and did not hide it. At least they finally took down the VKC name at USC!” In any case, I agree that vandalizing artwork or statues is not the answer.