Is Marquette "Culturally Insensitive?"

[The Sultan]

After about 5 minutes of gooling, it appears the sculptor of the potentially problematic Marquette statue was probably very well intentioned in his depiction of the Native American guide. His biographic website says he was inspired by Native American culture and spent time with various tribes, even creating a sculpture of a Navajo chief in New Mexico. The Smithsonian says he wanted to help rehabilitate the image of Native Americans through his work.

If the imagery depicted in the Marquette statue is seen as offensive, I would hope that an understanding of the sculptor would change some minds.

https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244

I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

[skianth16]

I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

I think it should. If any of the offense taken assumes negative intent, that needs to be reconsidered. If someone is offended because they're reading something into the sculpture that isn't there, why should that be the viewpoint that we listen to?

From what I can find about the sculptor, he dedicated part of his life to better understanding native people and their customs. He then shared that with others through art. If someone doesn't understand his background and takes offense to his work, I would say that view comes from a lack of understanding. Context matters. Understanding the artist's background needs to be a part of the discussion about this statue.

[The Sultan]

I think it should. If any of the offense taken assumes negative intent, that needs to be reconsidered. If someone is offended because they're reading something into the sculpture that isn't there, why should that be the viewpoint that we listen to?

From what I can find about the sculptor, he dedicated part of his life to better understanding native people and their customs. He then shared that with others through art. If someone doesn't understand his background and takes offense to his work, I would say that view comes from a lack of understanding. Context matters. Understanding the artist's background needs to be a part of the discussion about this statue.

The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

[skianth16]

The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

Here's another way to think about it - the key reason this might be deemed problematic is because it was created by a non-native artist. Do you think this would be up for debate if the artist was Native American? Or if a Native American commissioned the sculpture? Wouldn't the background and intent of the artist / commissioner matter then?

[Galway Eagle]

Where was all the 'dont erase history' and sanctimonious defense of the thought process behind why the art was put up when you were talking about the Assata Shakur mural?

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47617.0

You don't care about not erasing history, you don't care about the thought process of the times, or heritage, or anything about that. Bottom line is that the news you watch got you riled up with talking points and you'll defend confederate monuments to the end now.

[MU82]

What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

That pretty much covers it.

Smuggles gonna Smuggles.

[MUBurrow]

If we focus too much on what we don't know for fear that someday in the future our views may be considered ignorant, we can overlook a lot of things worth celebrating in the here and now. And just because a person or a scene may not represent 100% of what we want them to, I don't think that means we can't lift up the positive pieces. Lincoln is a great example of this. We know more about him now, and his history is more complicated and uglier than most knew years ago. But does that mean we can't honor his accomplishments? I would say no. Dialogue about his flaws is perfectly fair, even encouraged, but I don't see that erasing the good things he did.

This is fair. Part of what makes those discussions so hard is that there are so many interrelated considerations when putting a statue up of someone, not the least of which is that it will probably be up for a long long time.  The subject himself/herself, the way he or she is depicted, and whether he or she is depicted with other persons and how they are represented are all huge factors.  The devil is in the details for the point at which the social benefit of memorializing someone that way outweighs the drawbacks.

[Heisenberg]

Can you point to where the Mayor of Chicago has asked if Father Marquette was too racist? I don't think the discussion has anything to do with Father Marquette or his legacy, I think it's about how native peoples are depicted in the statue with Father Marquette.

Of course if this is true, our alma mater would not be in danger of having to change its name.

Yes, in the first post. The Mayor appointed a commission, meaning they speak for her, to look at potentially insensitive statues and have a public discussion about them.  That commission flag about 50 statues (over 500 in Chicago) five were of Lincoln and three were of Father Marquette.

Again, no decision was made, they just want to talk about them.

One of them was this one



and this one



I understand MUburrow's point about how the third statue is viewed with "today's eyes." But that is purely an emotional reaction without any historical context.

skianth16 had a wonderful find showing the sculptor's true intention is not at all consistent with a uninform emotional response.

If, repeat if, Chicago decides to remove all three Marquette statues, it is a decision, like many in this area of statue removal, born of ignorance.  It will probably come down to "White Jesuit Priest must be a racist ... take it down."  Just like Lincoln and Columbus were racists (I still need these explained.)

And if they are removed this decision will not end here.  I believe this will lead to MU deciding, having a discussion, about the name of the school.  It will not be for several/many years, but it will come.

[Heisenberg]

What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

What I learned today was the Wokes were instructed that the only reason we have confederate statues is the entire South was brutal racists for over a century and they were purposely erected to send hate and intimidation to minorities.  There can be no other possible explanation for them, and anyone that attempts an alternate explanation is also a brutal racist.  You can tar everyone with one brush.

So, when presented with an alternate explanation about the reason we have confederate statues, they reject it outright.  Fluffy just told you that why the statue went up, or what its intention was is irrelevant.  It might be the most closed-minded post in the history of MUscoop.

I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

Fluffy, and the rest of the circle jerk, are good 21-century Wokes. All you need is to let them look at the picture for three seconds, have an emotional reaction and the decision is made.  Please don't complicate their judgment was other opinions and facts (besides Fluffy does not know the difference between an opinion and a fact).

And if you were unsure that Fluffy thinks all decisions about history must be made on pure emotional, based on the current values demanded by one side of the political spectrum, and in a vacuum of ignorance ...

The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

[21Jumpstreet]

Take them all down (war heroes, war "heroes", athletes, priests, etc.). They are unnecessary and serve only a small part of any population. Put a figurine on the mantel rather than a towering bronze in the central square.

Maybe keep Neil Armstrong, but I'm sure he did something nefarious, too. I kid, probably my youthful pride of attending the great Neil Armstrong Elementary.

I'm enjoying the back and forth, perhaps it's another discussion on just slightly the wrong piece? I don't know, I'm probably unique in my apathy towards the need for statues. And, I'm not a fan of keeping something up that offends someone else. I get it, that means no public statues or monuments. Perfect.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes, in the first post. The Mayor appointed a commission, meaning they speak for her, to look at potentially insensitive statues and have a public discussion about them.  That commission flag about 50 statues (over 500 in Chicago) five were of Lincoln and three were of Father Marquette.

Again, no decision was made, they just want to talk about them.

One of them was this one



and this one



I understand MUburrow's point about how the third statue is viewed with "today's eyes." But that is purely an emotional reaction without any historical context.

skianth16 had a wonderful find showing the sculptor's true intention is not at all consistent with a uninform emotional response.

If, repeat if, Chicago decides to remove all three Marquette statues, it is a decision, like many in this area of statue removal, born of ignorance.  It will probably come down to "White Jesuit Priest must be a racist ... take it down."  Just like Lincoln and Columbus were racists (I still need these explained.)

And if they are removed this decision will not end here.  I believe this will lead to MU deciding, having a discussion, about the name of the school.  It will not be for several/many years, but it will come.

Got it, so you've got nothing that says the mayor of Chicago said Father Marquette is too racist. You just made something up.

Father Marquette isn't the percieved potential problem in these statues. The depiction of native peoples with him is the percieved potential problem. Even if it is decided to make alterations,  it would have zero impact on the name of our alma mater.

[The Sultan]

Fluffy, and the rest of the circle jerk, are good 21-century Wokes. All you need is to let them look at the picture for three seconds, have an emotional reaction and the decision is made.  Please don't complicate their judgment was other opinions and facts (besides Fluffy does not know the difference between an opinion and a fact).

And if you were unsure that Fluffy thinks all decisions about history must be made on pure emotional, based on the current values demanded by one side of the political spectrum, and in a vacuum of ignorance ...

Heisey, up above you asked me a series of questions that I answered.  So instead of going head on with me and debating those, you have decided to engage in labelling, goalpost shifting and strawman arguments.

Such an intellectual lightweight.  Amazing you even got past Logic 101 at MU.

[The Sultan]

If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

Here's another way to think about it - the key reason this might be deemed problematic is because it was created by a non-native artist. Do you think this would be up for debate if the artist was Native American? Or if a Native American commissioned the sculpture? Wouldn't the background and intent of the artist / commissioner matter then?

Regarding your first paragraph, that essentially is exactly what art is.  Art evokes emotions of all sorts, and public art memorializing historic figures is going to do the same thing.  That's not judging a book by the cover - it's judging the book as a whole.  You are advocating for judging the book based on the intent of the author.

And regarding your second paragraph, I don't think it matters what the cultural background of the artist is.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think the artist had bad intent when crafting the image, but the image can be viewed quite differently through the lens of history.

[4everwarriors]

To answer the op's question...no, hey?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So, when presented with an alternate explanation about the reason we have confederate statues, they reject it outright.

I have an equally accurate alternative explanation that the moon is made of cheese. Don't be so closed-minded as to reject it!

Also, we need to keep statues of traitors to the country NOW because otherwise it will cause a second civil war 150 years ago.

Still waiting your list of all the hateful things RGB said over her lifetime.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

I'm a big fan of the show How I Met Your Mother. The main character is an architect. In one of the early seasons, his boss, a very famous architect, is hired to design a skyscraper that will define the skyline of Spokane, WA. The famous architect designs a skyscraper with a rounded top, two spherical outcroppings at the base of the building, and plans for it to be constructed out of light pink limestone. In other words, he designed a skyscraper that looked like a penis. Problem was, for whatever reason, he couldn't see it even though everyone around him could. His intent, and what he truly believed he was doing, was to design the best possible skyscraper for this client. Of course, when the client sees the model he emphatically states "That's a penis" and when the architect explains his intent, the client makes another crack about it being a penis and starts to storm out.

This of course is an absurdist example from a fictional TV show, but the reality is, intent doesn't matter. People often make terrible mistakes and decisions despite the best of intentions, it doesn't mean that those mistakes and decision shouldn't be corrected. What matters is the impact that a person's actions have on others. If a significant population of reasonable people find the impact to be problematic, I think a change could be warranted. Now what defines a "significant population", "reasonable", and "problematic" are all open to debate.

The statue in question here, the open faced awe displayed on the native person's face does make me cringe a little, but on my personal scale of 0 to statue honoring Hitler, this one barely registers. I see the concern, but its not enough to warrant a change in my opinion. I just don't think the artist's intent matters in this case.

[skianth16]

Regarding your first paragraph, that essentially is exactly what art is.  Art evokes emotions of all sorts, and public art memorializing historic figures is going to do the same thing.  That's not judging a book by the cover - it's judging the book as a whole.  You are advocating for judging the book based on the intent of the author.

And regarding your second paragraph, I don't think it matters what the cultural background of the artist is.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think the artist had bad intent when crafting the image, but the image can be viewed quite differently through the lens of history.

What new lens could make this statue problematic?

The reality of the current situation is that a sculptor made a point to create works of art depicting Native Americans in attempt to highlight their part in American history and culture. This was driven by his respect for native cultures and people, which he gained from spending time with various tribes. Flash forward 100 years, and segments of our society - very likely including descendants of the very people being honored in these statues - view his work as offensive enough to need to be torn down. Oh the irony.

Plus, I would argue that a statue like the one of Marquette, Joliet, and their guide represents a lesser known piece of history, particularly the inclusion of a native guide. Tearing that one down really could have an impact on people learning about the role native people played in early exploration efforts. Marquette and Joliet have a university and city named after them; no one is forgetting them. What about their guide? What else honors his work? What happens to his legacy if that statue comes down?

[The Sultan]

What new lens could make this statue problematic?

The reality of the current situation is that a sculptor made a point to create works of art depicting Native Americans in attempt to highlight their part in American history and culture. This was driven by his respect for native cultures and people, which he gained from spending time with various tribes. Flash forward 100 years, and segments of our society - very likely including descendants of the very people being honored in these statues - view his work as offensive enough to need to be torn down. Oh the irony.

Exactly.  Depictions can evoke different thoughts and emotions at different times.  That's exactly my point.

Plus, I would argue that a statue like the one of Marquette, Joliet, and their guide represents a lesser known piece of history, particularly the inclusion of a native guide. Tearing that one down really could have an impact on people learning about the role native people played in early exploration efforts. Marquette and Joliet have a university and city named after them; no one is forgetting them. What about their guide? What else honors his work? What happens to his legacy if that statue comes down?

Apparently I didn't have to take history classes in school.  Apparently I never had to visit a museum.  I could have learned all I needed to know about historical figures by looking at their sculptures in a public park somewhere.

[skianth16]

This of course is an absurdist example from a fictional TV show, but the reality is, intent doesn't matter. People often make terrible mistakes and decisions despite the best of intentions, it doesn't mean that those mistakes and decision shouldn't be corrected. What matters is the impact that a person's actions have on others. If a significant population of reasonable people find the impact to be problematic, I think a change could be warranted. Now what defines a "significant population", "reasonable", and "problematic" are all open to debate.

The statue in question here, the open faced awe displayed on the native person's face does make me cringe a little, but on my personal scale of 0 to statue honoring Hitler, this one barely registers. I see the concern, but its not enough to warrant a change in my opinion. I just don't think the artist's intent matters in this case.

Good example. I get what you're saying. But there are still plenty of examples where intent does matter and does affect the interpretation of a situation. Think of all the heartwarming stories of the special needs football players who get to score a touchdown on senior day. If Coach A says to Coach B he'd like to score without Coach B's team playing defense, that would normally be an absurd request. But if the intent is to allow a young man with Down's Syndrome to have a chance to live out a dream, that totally changes the interpretation of the request. 

The reason I think intent and context matter here is that there seems to be some pretty negative assumptions built into the cause for offense. If those offended took time to learn about the artist's history and why he wanted to include the native guide in this statue, I do think it would change the interpretation for many.

[skianth16]

Exactly.  Depictions can evoke different thoughts and emotions at different times.  That's exactly my point.


Apparently I didn't have to take history classes in school.  Apparently I never had to visit a museum.  I could have learned all I needed to know about historical figures by looking at their sculptures in a public park somewhere.

Do you view the statue as problematic or see why others might? Is there something you know now that would not have been known at the time that would warrant the removal of the statue?

There's really no explanation for why this statue is considered potentially problematic from Chicago. Once that's made clear, then a more detailed conversation can take place. And I'm still pretty convinced that any negative emotions would be eased by learning more about the artist. I've beat that dead horse enough now, so I won't continue to repeat myself.

As to your second paragraph - why do we bother to create statues at all then? You don't seem to place much value on them, but I think a lot of people do. Statues highlight unique people and events in history. They help draw attention to things we may overlook in a book or might forget about after we've moved on from a certain class. They keep history alive in a way. For all those reasons, I think we need to be mindful of the effects of removing statues depicting lesser known people/stories.

[MUBurrow]

To answer the op's question...no, hey?

+1. This is why Marquette's Jacques Marquette statue was modeled to look like a rugged superhero.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Good example. I get what you're saying. But there are still plenty of examples where intent does matter and does affect the interpretation of a situation. Think of all the heartwarming stories of the special needs football players who get to score a touchdown on senior day. If Coach A says to Coach B he'd like to score without Coach B's team playing defense, that would normally be an absurd request. But if the intent is to allow a young man with Down's Syndrome to have a chance to live out a dream, that totally changes the interpretation of the request. 

The reason I think intent and context matter here is that there seems to be some pretty negative assumptions built into the cause for offense. If those offended took time to learn about the artist's history and why he wanted to include the native guide in this statue, I do think it would change the interpretation for many.

I think there is a difference between intent and context.  The intent on this statue was likely very positive. The context is that it was made in era where the history learned in schools was whitewashed and Native Americans were often portrayed as savage heathens that were saved by white missionaries.  So a statue depicting a native person in open faced awe of a white missionary wouldn't have been seen as potentially problematic at the time. As our understanding of history and race relations grows, how that statue is perceived is likely to change, despite the positive intent of the artist.

All that being said, I repeat what I said earlier. On my personal scale, this one barely registers. Not enough to warrant removal or alteration in my opinion. I think a better way to address it is to add more to the plaque accompanying the statue to discuss the artist and why the artist might have chosen to depict the native person in the way that he did. That way the statue is documenting two pieces of history.

[Pakuni]

Do you view the statue as problematic or see why others might? Is there something you know now that would not have been known at the time that would warrant the removal of the statue?

There's really no explanation for why this statue is considered potentially problematic from Chicago. Once that's made clear, then a more detailed conversation can take place. And I'm still pretty convinced that any negative emotions would be eased by learning more about the artist. I've beat that dead horse enough now, so I won't continue to repeat myself.

The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

[skianth16]

I think there is a difference between intent and context.  The intent on this statue was likely very positive. The context is that it was made in era where the history learned in schools was whitewashed and Native Americans were often portrayed as savage heathens that were saved by white missionaries.  So a statue depicting a native person in open faced awe of a white missionary wouldn't have been seen as potentially problematic at the time. As our understanding of history and race relations grows, how that statue is perceived is likely to change, despite the positive intent of the artist.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.

Both great points. The artist's interpretation is definitely not the only one that matters; I fully agree with that. And TAMU, the expression of the native guide easily rub some people the wrong way. I see that too. 

I think where a lot of us are landing is that discussions are good and will lead to more understanding of all sides of the issue. What I would love to see as an outcome is something that can try to appease multiple parties. Maybe commission a new statue that specifically focuses on the contributions of the native people who worked alongside Marquette. Dig up some old records that better explain the original commission and the stories surrounding those depicted, and then add a plaque with some background. Include more context, steer the interpretation. I see all those things as much better outcomes that just tearing the statue down.

[The Sultan]

As to your second paragraph - why do we bother to create statues at all then? You don't seem to place much value on them, but I think a lot of people do. Statues highlight unique people and events in history. They help draw attention to things we may overlook in a book or might forget about after we've moved on from a certain class. They keep history alive in a way. For all those reasons, I think we need to be mindful of the effects of removing statues depicting lesser known people/stories.

To be fair, I actually don't see much value in statues at all.  They usually either vanity pieces meant to cement someone's place in history, or they fall into the "great man" theory of history where people place an inordinate amount of credit on one person's impact.

BTW, this has been a great back and forth.  Thanks.