Charlottesville ,Virginia remains hollowed ground for incivility these days.
"We implore white accomplices to leverage the relative safety of white privilege to take preemptive action, to join the long-standing struggle against white supremacy" (Dr. Jalane Schmidt, University of Virginia)
Charlottessville, Va appears poised to enter an era of historical denial and revisionism as the city attacks or as local activists term it "reckon" its past. The attacks on history and those seeking to remove history from the public square are the very same people claiming to be honoring history. In fact, they are doing nothing of the sort.
Home to one of the most prestigious collegiate institutions in the nation, the University of Virginia , Charlottesville is rich with founding history tied to Thomas Jefferson but now over the past few years it is a city making a name for itself as a home for "historical resistance".
Recently, prominent activists both in Virginia and nationally have used Charlottesville as an incubator of hate. One in which they test not only the will of local and state government officials but also the will of the "People". They claim that history belongs to everyone yet in their own myopic view of society and justice feel as though their modern humanist version of Virginia history must be the only one on display and any other is no longer fitting shall be removed from both the public square and history all together.
Kali Holloway (@KaliHollowayftw), Director of the Make It Right Project which is a national campaign dedicated to taking down Confederate monuments throughout the country published an article recently in the "Daily Beast" concerning the legal climate that has ensued in Charlottesville post 2017. Lawsuits ranging from protecting and preserving Confederate monuments like Monument Fund v. Charlottesville to defamation suits like Tayloe v. C'ville Holdings. Activists and the ACLU like to label such lawsuits as SLAPP suits or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The former lawsuit stems from the City Council decision to remove Confederate monuments from their existing locations.
Monument locations often are donated to cities and localities by private individuals and institutions for the purposes of creating green space, parks or simply to honor the historical legacy of local, regional or national figures. The plaintiff in the latter lawsuit, Edward Tayloe II has been a prominent opponent to the City removing any existing monuments from the public space and furthermore has supported the City erecting new monuments or memorials to better reflect other aspects of history where gaps may exist in the public square.
Holloway characterizes Edward Tayloe's lawsuit in an very telling manner illuminating "Tayloe employed a strategy once frequently used by the those of means to silence critics that's seen a resurgence in recent years". It is clear that Holloway in this instance does not see a courtroom to be a logical means of remedy upon which an individual should pursue should they believe they have been wrongly defamed. Rather it is apparent given the losses sustained inside the courthouse over the monument issue thus far, activists and organizers like Holloway would rather have these matters discussed openly in the public arena where fact and truth are often muddled by inflammatory rhetoric.
As articulate and passionate as she may be, Holloway makes little attempt to hide her bias in the matter in her piece and furthers the same positions of those named in the defamation suit as a means of insinuating that Virginians who descend from the "First Families of Virginia" who wish to preserve history, protect monuments and memorials are somehow tied to family "racial" history and stated "First Families of Virginia" is "a euphemistic way of saying white, rich, socially prominent before the American Revolution and -through the Civil War- slaveholding".
The "First Families of Virginia" or as many historians call them "Second Sons" are comprised of families such as Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Fitzhugh, Fairfax, Randolph, Berkeley, Bland, Warren and Warner. I wonder of if Ms. Holloway is willing to investigate which leading Virginia officials today descend from such families.
Could Senator Mark Warner (D) be related somehow to the Warner Family and if so than does that somehow impune his standing, his reputation or make him a slavery apologist? Or could Elizabeth Warren in some way be related somehow to the Warren Family another First Family of Virginia. Will activists continue efforts to remove other monuments and memorials to these families or remove their legacies such as Berkeley Plantation, Richard Bland College, Randolph Macon College, Monticello, Washington & Lee University, James Madison University, George Washington University on the grounds of identity politics? Must we change all the school and place names?
The City of Charlottessville has attempted for the last two years to do everything in its power to remove history. Thus far it has been unsuccessful. Whereas the City managed to tarp its monuments with a black tarp to prevent Virginians and tourists from seeing the monuments for a time the tarps ultimately have come down. The City still challenges its own history and seeks to revise it in a manner of sensitive social progressive advocacy. Its activists both in the public square and the local media with contributors like Molly Cronger have attempted to shape the dialogue along racial grounds now for two years. They have done so it appears with the complicit support of current officials on the City Council and former ones like Wes Bellamy.
Wes Bellamy, former Vice Mayor of Charlottessville, thats right Vice Mayor is well known for his racist anti-white tweets directed at both men and women. Bellamy (@ViceMayorWesB) tweeted "I don't like white people so I hate white snow", "I hate seeing white people in Orangeburg", "Funniest thing about being down South is seeing little white men and the look on their face when they have to look up to you" or "White women=Devil RT".
All this from an elected official tasked with representing an entire City regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and not just the citizens who voted for him.
Of course the activists accusing supporters of the Confederate monuments of racism have little problem ignoring such tweets by Bellamy or his past offensive and incendiary comments while on the City Council which have no place in official meetings but this is the kind of "leadership" Charlottessville has had to endure the last few years.
It has become clear that any association with those seeking to protect, preserve or maintain the status quo (legal or otherwise) shall be condemned as racists or bigots. Over the course of the last year, local media reporters, contributors like Molly Cronger and University of Virginia professors Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Assistant Professor of Public Policy Sally Hudson of the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy have interjected into the civil discourse in rather alarming ways for employees of a Commonwealth of Virginia public institution receiving funding from Richmond via Virginia tax payers. Schmidt is also aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.
Recently, Molly Cronger , a co chair of the Charlottesville Chapter of Democratic Socialists was removed as a contributor of C'ville Weekly for perceived assertions she made regarding C'ville Police Sergeant Logan Woodzell and his alluded association with groups that Cronger deemed racist.
In fact, it has merely been a continuation of the debate centered around the Civil War monuments located in Charlottesville for a century or more that Cronger has determined as offensive to the community at large that ultimately resulted in the city covering the monuments with black tarps in the face of legal challenges. Many citizens opposed not only the tarping of monuments but also their removal advocated by Progressive Socialist activists and City Council.
Sally Hudson (D) coincidentally has been very vocal in her position at the University of Virginia and having won the Democrat Primary for the 57th District of the House of Delegates in the General Assembly in Richmond following the retirement of Delegate David Toscano (D). Hudson is unopposed in the 57th which comprises Charlottesville City and parts of Albemarle County and will join dozens of other Progressives in the House of Delegates that seek to re visit the law that protects war memorials and monuments throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Whereas the State law protecting monuments shall be removed, localities would be able to circumvent recent court rulings preventing localities like Charlottesville , Arlington, Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia from removing, dismantling or relocating monuments that leaders deem offensive.
There have been some other legal measures pursued as a result of Charlottesville's public position regarding the monuments that have called into question the actions taken by the likes of Molly Cronger, Jalane Schmidt and the C'ville Holdings, LLC. These actions were taken in deference to individuals whom oppose the city policy and the activist positions and advocacy against the monuments remaining within the community.
The Progressives consider these suits to be SLAPP suits or in their view; threats. In the case of Molly Cronger, the implication was that she insinuated by the association of a public photograph that Officer Logan Woodzell of the C'ville Police Department was a racist. The published contribution made in the C'ville Weekly by Molly Cronger regarding her opposition to the promotion of Sergeant Woodzell resulted in both her and the paper being advised that they both would be sued over the contribution and insinuation.
Molly Cronger's comments on the promotion of the officer publicly were perceived in a manner to disparage both the officer and C'ville Police Department procedures. Cronger stated:
"These actions show not only poor judgment, but a disregard for the concerns of a community that had alerted police months before the rally and shared background on the hate groups planning to attend. The department’s desire to simply paper over its past mistakes, shutting out the community, is its standard operating procedure"
Upon the determination of C'ville Weekly to part ways with Molly Cronger over the contribution, Cronger tweeted:
"Earlier this year, I had a short-lived opinion column covering city politics (a subject I am very passionate about!) in a local weekly paper. It quietly disappeared two months ago. My relationship with cville weekly came to an end after the attorney for the police benevolent society, representing an individual officer in this case, threatened to sue both me and the paper. Specifically, the cop’s lawyer claimed I had defamed her client" Logan Woodzell who was promoted by the C'ville Police" Cronger went on to further accuse the individual harmed by her insinuations published by the paper of "weaponizing" the legal process:
"I’m not surprised a police officer and a former prosecutor would try to weaponize the legal process to silence a critic. I am surprised that the paper reacted with such incredible cowardice. The threat itself was just that. A threat.
"Police Chief RaShall Brackney herself stated: “Law enforcement officials are frequently asked to pose with members of the public and these requests are accommodated here and throughout the world. The circumstances of this photo were explored, the promotion process was carefully vetted, and the Charlottesville Police Department is confident that Sergeant Woodzell will provide excellent service to the citizens of Charlottesville.
In other suits involving Charlottesville activists seeking the removal of Confederate monuments you have two individuals in the employ of the University of Virginia, a state funded university. It is unclear whether both Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Sally Hudson have acted inappropriately or not in the terms of their employment contracts with activism but both are center in the monument issue that has been festering in Charlottesville since 2017.
Both Schmidt and Hudson are strong supporters of the movement to remove all Confederate monuments as a matter of public policy and have been quoted regularly. Schmidt, a UVA Religious Studies Professor, was quoted as stating that those individuals (citizens) that supported the law suit to prevent the removal of the Confederate monuments could be characterized by:
“You’ve got the bow tie, upscale people tied to the League of the South people who want to secede and are slavery apologists,”.
Again the insinuation being that if you are a citizen of Virginia or any other southern State for that matter and support the preservation of Confederate Monuments than you must be a "slavery apologist". Code for "racist". This is further supported it would seem by Kali Holloway's article in the "Daily Beast" with her reference to "First Families of Virginia".
The complete mischaracterization in this manner completely denies that fact that Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson never owned slaves. In fact, the Presbyterian minister like Virginia Governor John Letcher at the time of the Civil War were adamantly opposed to slavery. All of the Jackson and Letcher manuscipts point to this fact. There are countless works in the University of Virginia Library that support this fact that clearly Professor Schmidt in her activism has chosen to either deny or simply just not bother to read.
Furthermore, Dr. Jalane Schmidt went on to further assert accusations directed at the Tayloe family in response to the lawsuit brought against her stating:
“For generations this family has been roiling the lives of black people, and this is what [plaintiff Tayloe] chooses to pursue.”
Dr. Schmidt has gone to great lengths to link Edward Tayloe II to his ancestry in her condemnation of his families history. Are we all now to be linked to the actions of former generations? Even those as far back as the 17th century? Do we really believe attempting to link individuals today to actions undertaken so long ago is ethical? While it may prove to be politically expedient, there is certainly a line clearly in this instance that has been crossed regardless of whether it is defamation or not. Is this really the optic that the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia wish to advance for the university?
The notion that speech is "free" is always one of great debate. Of course in instances like this, speech are never "free" and often comes at a great cost to all those involved. Professors Schmidt and Hudson for example have brought undo and unnecessary blemishing upon the University of Virginia and its reputation. They are of course "free" to have their opinions and to be activists of public policy they support, but at the end of the day let us not try and convince ourselves that their speech is in truth "free".
Again the implication here is that Tayloe is somehow racist in his support for the preservation of the Confederate monuments of Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson and Robert E. Lee on historic "war memorial" legal grounds supported by statute but lost on the activists is also the fact that the Charles Keck statue has been determined to be one of the best examples of equestrian art in the United States.
There was a time in this country where Progressive supported the arts and thought that the arts should be protected no matter what as freedom of speech and expression. Those days are clearly gone but it is ironic that their "free speech" somehow being "stifled" has greater value and meaning than the "freedom of expression" by Charles Keck and the people who authorized his work over a century ago.
Professor Schmidt further stated that the Tayloe lawsuit "is also a disdainful attempt to stifle speech and prevent me from speaking out about matters of public concern. These types of claims, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, are designed to silence, censor and intimidate critics with the threat of costly litigation"
Dr. Schmidt characterizes the Tayloe family "historically" without providing any real substance to her view is very different than commenting publicly as a counter voice to the opinion of position of Tayloe. Schmidt further went on to state that:
"History belongs to everyone, not just scholars. Marginalized narratives of vulnerable groups of our community must be included in our collective story in order to inform our efforts to make changes in the present and to promote a more just and equitable future. First Amendment protections should not be stifled by lawsuits designed to make anyone fearful of the consequences of exercising their rights."
Dr. Schmidt here touches on an interesting point to consider. She states "history belongs to everyone" and yet her entire activism has been grounded in the determination that every Confederate monument must be removed. How does that set the example of inclusion? How does "history" destroyed belong to anyone? How does the removal of a statue in the public square contribute to history exactly?
It would seem in order to "promote a more just and equitable future"as Schmidt advocates, additional statues or monuments honoring Virginians should be the direction that the Charlottesville Council undertakes and not the destruction or removal of existing history. Has the City Council proposed any new monuments or memorials for the public square?
The fact remains that the activism in Charlottesville by the media via Molly Cronger and both Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Sally Hudson have little to do with history and everything to do with political narratives. Hudson has used the Confederate monument issue as a manufactured vehicle to elevate herself to the House of Delegates in Richmond.
Sally Hudson publicly stated the following regarding the monuments: #Confederate
"Let us take them down"
Its a cornerstone policy Hudson will take to Richmond as she will work to change the laws governing the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding war memorials and monuments upheld by the courts. If the law enacted to protect war memorials is removed by the General Assembly than the future of all monuments throughout the Commonwealth will be in the hands of localities and no longer be held under the protection of the Commonwealth.
None of the individuals being sued have publicly condemned the recent defacing and vandalism of the monuments where "1619" was spray painted at the base of the monuments. The "1619" refers to the progressive movement of resistance to anything in United States history tied to its founding that resulted in the prolonging of institutional slavery and referencing the first date that slaves arrived in America.
Activist like Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Delegate candidate Sally Hudson refuse to address how the slaves arrived in America in 1619 and whom in fact sold such slaves into bondage long before they arrived at Jamestown and other ports in the New World. Instead, it has become politically expedient to use racial discourse and divide and inflame relations even further by using the Confederate Monuments as concrete to break their identity politic agenda against including there disdain for "First Family of Virginia" heritage.
The clear message seems to be if your white you are racist and if you descend from the "First Families of Virginia" or anyone from the colonial period in Virginia and seek to preserve history that somehow you are a "slavery apologist". Its like saying that if you support Holocaust museums and keeping that history shared that somehow you are a "holocaust denier". There appears to be a complicit nature to the vandalism as well given the lack of any real effort to determine the perpetrators and after countless incidents why the City refuse the place surveillance at monuments to protect them as well as keep the residual expenses in cleaning up the vandalism.
The impact of the SLAPP suits is unknown but stands to be an example of what may be the only recourse for citizens in the face of activists who clearly have little respect for the laws governing the Commonwealth but also respect for their fellow citizens. Disagreement on public policy or the advocacy of positions should never be cause or justification for asserting racism, bigotry or ancestral slavery apology.
Dr. Schmidt here touches on an interesting point to consider. She states "history belongs to everyone" and yet her entire activism has been grounded in the determination that every Confederate monument must be removed. How does that set the example of inclusion? How does "history" destroyed belong to anyone? How does the removal of a statue in the public square contribute to history exactly?
It would seem in order to "promote a more just and equitable future"as Schmidt advocates, additional statues or monuments honoring Virginians should be the direction that the Charlottesville Council undertakes and not the destruction or removal of existing history. Has the City Council proposed any new monuments or memorials for the public square?
The fact remains that the activism in Charlottesville by the media via Molly Cronger and both Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Sally Hudson have little to do with history and everything to do with political narratives. Hudson has used the Confederate monument issue as a manufactured vehicle to elevate herself to the House of Delegates in Richmond.
Sally Hudson publicly stated the following regarding the monuments: #Confederate
"Let us take them down"
Its a cornerstone policy Hudson will take to Richmond as she will work to change the laws governing the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding war memorials and monuments upheld by the courts. If the law enacted to protect war memorials is removed by the General Assembly than the future of all monuments throughout the Commonwealth will be in the hands of localities and no longer be held under the protection of the Commonwealth.
None of the individuals being sued have publicly condemned the recent defacing and vandalism of the monuments where "1619" was spray painted at the base of the monuments. The "1619" refers to the progressive movement of resistance to anything in United States history tied to its founding that resulted in the prolonging of institutional slavery and referencing the first date that slaves arrived in America.
Activist like Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Delegate candidate Sally Hudson refuse to address how the slaves arrived in America in 1619 and whom in fact sold such slaves into bondage long before they arrived at Jamestown and other ports in the New World. Instead, it has become politically expedient to use racial discourse and divide and inflame relations even further by using the Confederate Monuments as concrete to break their identity politic agenda against including there disdain for "First Family of Virginia" heritage.
The clear message seems to be if your white you are racist and if you descend from the "First Families of Virginia" or anyone from the colonial period in Virginia and seek to preserve history that somehow you are a "slavery apologist". Its like saying that if you support Holocaust museums and keeping that history shared that somehow you are a "holocaust denier". There appears to be a complicit nature to the vandalism as well given the lack of any real effort to determine the perpetrators and after countless incidents why the City refuse the place surveillance at monuments to protect them as well as keep the residual expenses in cleaning up the vandalism.
The impact of the SLAPP suits is unknown but stands to be an example of what may be the only recourse for citizens in the face of activists who clearly have little respect for the laws governing the Commonwealth but also respect for their fellow citizens. Disagreement on public policy or the advocacy of positions should never be cause or justification for asserting racism, bigotry or ancestral slavery apology.
#monuments #unitetheright #hatewatch #charlottesville #wesbellamy #slapp #antifa #punchanazi #saveamericanhistory #confederatemonuments #racist #blacklivesmatter
No comments:
Post a Comment