Indeed, it’s been covered by The Hook, the DP, the C-Ville and probably more. But, the only problem is NO ONE SHOWED a friggen picture where you could see Sacagawea. The issue is this:
Protestors say the Lewis and Clark statue depicts Sacagawea as subordinate because she is “cowering in the background.”
The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center says she is tracking.
What do you think? To me it looks like she is doing all the work which was probably an accurate representation. Picture is below [picture credits]:
Popularity: 3% [?]
Tagged as: Campaigns, Charlottesville, Gripes, Protests, Questions, Traditions
The most felicitous thing I read on Columbus Day sprang forth here:
Also: Columbus Day in the US is Thanksgiving in Canada. Fact.
Stanley, where on earth did that come from? Felicitous indeed!
“To me it looks like she was doing all the work.” Yes, women often do feel that way when they’re kneeling next to men.
lilith: there’s a link on the word “here” in that first comment. Good blog, that one.
I’m guessing that the blogger doesn’t buy into Jared Diamond’s theories on the inevitability of the failure of the indigenous people’s of North and South America in the “Civilization” war…
oy: I’m not sure that’s an entirely accurate drive-by summary of Diamond’s book. But you know what? I haven’t read it, so I’m talking completely ex recto here.
In any event, relevant to the post: I do think that statue’s offensive and counterhistorical. It should be replaced with one depicting Sacagawea saving their Eur-asses.
Diamond’s premise is pretty basic - civilizations are better “suited” to advancement based entirely on their access to domesticatable animals and crops, which seems based on having large lateral landmasses with a consistent climate. Eurasia had an inordinate amount of crops and animals that could be domesticed (compared to Africa and the Americas) so Eurasian people’s had an “unfair”, overwhelming advantage when it came to technology and conquest (not only because domesticity gave them ample extra time to advance technology, but living in close quarters with so many domesticated animals built up our immunities to the diseases that wiped out those we encountered (and why they didn’t have the same kinds of diseases “for” the Eurasians).
So, the theory that it was “Big Bad Europeans” that decimated the poor, harmonious “Native Americans” is simplistic at best. Given a few minor changes in geography, we might well be complaining about a statue of some poor subservient Irish girl leading a pair of Navaho warriors through the wilds of Brittany. Given the histories of the peoples of pre-Colombian America, there’s every reason to believe they’d have acted the same way the Europeans did, if given the opportunity.
In any case, very little offends me, except offensensitivty (word?)
Oops - oh, sorry, forgot why we’re here - WOOOHOOO! BEEEEEER TONIGHT AT SOUTH STREET BABY, YEAH!
the wilds of Brittany
After K-Fed, any mention of Brittany’s wilds make me shudder and think, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Seriously, though, I haven’t read the book, but your mention of it reminds me that I’ve been meaning to. So thanks for that, oy.
And as for the meetup, I cannot attend, but I’d like to say in advance that anything dijonbray says about me is likely a damned dirty lie.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a great book, and kind of like Harry Potter in that people make references to it from time to time and expect you to know what they’re talking about. That’s really the only reason I read it and was pleasantly surprised to learn stuff.
I think the one woman in one of the two pictures of the Hook’s article is flipping someone off. Is that the spirit of their protest, or a badly timed gesture?
Direct your anger at those who directly oppress you, and not the scapecoats that they create.
/tilts at windmills
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble, but colonial slavery was docile compared to ancient slavery. Not to mention ancient slavery included Caucasians enslaving Caucasians, which I am sure you will find plenty of people will vehemently deny because obviously only white folk subjugate non-white folk.
Shorter version of Ethan: “American Slavery: not that bad!”
I mean, seriously? No one’s arguing that slavery has only ever been white slavemaster/non-white slave.
When you go on tours to Monticello or Colonial Williamsburg, they are sure to drive home the point. You may notice that slaves are no longer called slaves, but rather “enslaved African Americans.” On a tour in Williamsburg, someone implied there existed only a black-white slave-master relationship. I was basically just writing a reply to the quote in your first post. The slave trade was horrendous, but it’s subjective as to whether it was the cruelest or most expansive when considering thousands of years of human history of slavery.
Ethan…Stanley has a case of white-guilt…he may not be white, so let’s call it liberal American-guilt. The facts that are taught about Columbus Day are in question and we can discuss and correct them, but let’s not jump off the roof with his felicitous commentary that started this discussion. Obviously, the historical context of your comments are accurate.
brilliant photography!
[…] (We have not qualified that statement, but it sure does seem like it.) […]