Some Perspective on the Monument Debate

Native American viewpoint: John Low

Monuments are not innocent. We have to understand the role of monuments and other commemorative sites and activities in developing a shared narrative of the past, present and future.

They can contribute to a collective memory that all too quickly becomes accepted as truth. The Chicago Monuments Project presents the opportunity to reconsider our monuments and memorials and assess whether they fairly represent the histories and peoples of Chicago.

Decades of settlers cemented their memories of American Indians into statues that reflect a celebration of conquest and nostalgia for a mythical past.

There is a profound story embedded in monuments and memorials created by non-Natives for non-Natives; they reflect a pathos, guilt and nostalgia for the disappearing – and now “safe” – Indian. Such memorials represent a victory celebration over “the first peoples.”

They began to appear with gathering frequency after 1890, the time of the assumed subjugation of the remaining Indian peoples within the boundaries of the Nation. When they no longer perceived American Indians as a threat, white Americans were free to embrace Indians as part of our collective national heritage and to memorialize and mythologize the story of their defeat….part of our historical past, rather than as participants in modern life. This view represented an affirmation of the “vanishing Indian” trope and an expectation of Indian assimilation.

American Indians were rarely consulted on what memorials they might appreciate. After all, these monuments were really not for the Natives, but for the grandchildren of the immigrant-settlers, a kind of apologia in stone. Monuments that purported to honor the local Indians often reflected a darker message and imagination, celebrating the white settlers’ achievements in defeating American Indians rather than the achievements or worth of the Indians themselves.

It is a rare occurrence when both Natives and non- Natives can share a commemorative space that acknowledges the difficulties and complexities of early contact between the two. That is indeed the opportunity before us in Chicago today.

John N. Low, Ph.D., is a Chicago Monuments Project Advisory Committee member, associate professor at Ohio State University, director of Newark Earthworks Center and a citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi.

Columbus Counterpoint: Sergio Giangrande

I believe that we cannot rewrite history. Removing monuments leads to a lack of acknowledgement and forgetting history.

Where are the monuments to American Indians, African Americans, American women and many more heroes? These monuments should be added. Monuments should not be removed.

As a leader in the Italian American community, I represent thousands of individuals who feel the same. I vehemently oppose the removal of any of the Christopher Columbus statues, as well as the monument to the milestone in aviation by Italo Balbo.

The Arrigo Park Columbus statue was made in Italy by sculptor Moses Ezekiel for the 1893 Columbian Exposition Chicago World’s Fair. The Grant Park Columbus statue was built for the 1933 Century of Progress Chicago World’s Fair. Chicago’s Italian American community donated a considerable amount to see the monuments realized.

The Italo Balbo monument was a special gift from Italy to commemorate Italo Balbo’s transatlantic flight from Rome [to the 1933 World’s Fair]… a column from Ostia, a city of ancient Rome. This column is over 2,000 years old. Even the mere suggestion of risking damage to it by taking it down is ridiculous.

Another huge effect of the committee’s actions is the precedence. What will happen to monuments of other icons or particular ethnic groups?

Many Italian Americans proudly celebrate Columbus’ positive effects, such as the expansion of the world as we know it. I am strongly in favor of monuments to individuals, even though they may have imperfections.

As you look around this city and others, we can find controversial persons and subjects and disagreements. But think of the dialogue that has ensued…the increased awareness and respect to all the groups as a result.

Growing up as an Italian American, the traditions that surround the Columbus and Balbo monuments were very important. These are traditions I want my children to understand and to hopefully one day pass on to my grandchildren, along with other Italian American families. We have a chance to truly make history here. Let us make it. Not erase it.

Sergio Giangrande is a Chicago Monuments Project Advisory Committee member and former president of the Joint Civic Committee of Italian Americans.

Vendor A. Allen on 'the Defense' bas-relief

There’s a lot of violence going on in “Defense,” the depiction of the bloody battle of Fort Dearborn during the War of 1812 on the DuSable Michigan Avenue Bridge. Basically, the Americans had obtained the strategically important land at the junction of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan from the Potawatomi Indians and built the fort there — at about the site of this monument.

But after the Revolutionary War, as whites moved into the area, the Indians saw their ancestral lands slipping way, and so they sided with the British for “Round 2,” the War of 1812. When the British and Native troops captured Fort Mackinac, the American territorial commander ordered the evacuation of Fort Dearborn. The fort’s inhabitants were about two miles on their journey to Fort Wayne in this scene.

Captain William Wells, in the foreground, was escorting them. Wells was an Indian scout, having been taken captive by Miami Indians when he was 12 and raised in their tribe. He later entered the U.S. Army and became an Indian agent to the friendly Miami tribes in this area. According to the Smithsonian Institution’s waymarking website, Wells was actually dressed as an Indian, with face painted black in anticipation of death, but in this bas relief, he is dressed as an Army officer, with the long sword aiming to brutally kill the Indian in front of him, who is obviously trying to defend himself with a knife. The Indian behind that Indian seems to be gesturing, “Don’t worry, I got your back. After he kills you, I will kill him,” which is essentially what happened.

There’s also another Indian lying between Captain Wells' feet, either wounded or dead, and a lady with child, seemingly trying to flee, while someone with a knife is either trying to hinder or help. Nevertheless, this is a brutal scene. The only thing calm about this bas relief is the lady across the top. She is watching like an angel, who sits high and looks low. She seems to be an innocent bystander who is the only one who can tell the whole story of what really happened, sort of like a fly on the wall, or like Santa Claus, who knows who’s been good and who’s been bad.

In my opinion, only the angel knows what happened. From the gist of the picture, it looks very violent and demeaning to the Indian nation. It seems to advocate for the white man as the hero, or dominant, which was not the case, because he was killed. It should be removed because of controversy in the sculpture and the real story. It’s not necessary to display such violence.

Vendor William Plowman on the 'Illinois centennial monument'

I don't see anything wrong with the Illinois Centennial Monument. Since my stepfather, Kenny Mason, is a Cherokee, I wanted to get his take on this. He didn't see anything wrong with the Illinois Centennial Monument. I also asked my mother, Wanda Mason (not a native American), how she felt about it, and she didn't see anything wrong with it either.

In recent years, we've changed the names of sports teams. We got rid of the emblem for the Cleveland Indians because it was allegedly racist. We even changed the name of the team from the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Guardians. The Washington Redskins are now the Washington Commanders. The Illinois Fighting Illini no longer have their mascot, Chief Illiniwek, for the same reason that the Cleveland Indians got rid of their emblem.

I can see where a team name like Redskins could be construed as racist, but I'm not seeing how the other things I just mentioned are racist or offensive in any other ways.

In conclusion, I would like to say that what we really should do is ask the native Americans if these things are offensive to them. If they are offensive to the native Americans, then yes, we should get rid of those things, but if they're not offensive, we don't have to get rid of them. I'll say the same thing for things that might be construed as offensive to other groups, as well.