I’m sure that’s true, but if the statue is indoors, it doesn’t make a big difference. The key thing is that students who don’t work at that history center won’t have to walk past a statue of white supremacy every day on their way to and from class.
True
NC GOP has already proven they have no problems cutting UNC funding for a political reason. So what’s to stop them this time? Only a veto by Gov. Cooper I guess and next year the veto should hold up.
I genuinely think, given the state’s power structures, that threatening UNC’s general funding would be perceived very differently from defunding specific programs. The latter is bad enough, but the former would piss off some powerful Republican constituencies.
I bet the GOP thinks they can get more votes bashing UNC than supporting it. As I said above a lot of GOP NC folks in rural areas think Chapel Hill is just full of left wing radicals.
Heard a UNC professor on the radio. She said they are going to try to use the Civil Rights Act to get rid of Sam. There is a clause in there about hostile environment at schools they will try to use to say Sam has to go outside of UNC campus.
separate building plan shot down now on to plan C
My plan C: recontextualize the statue. Show it toppled with student protesters standing atop it. Make it a monument, not to white supremacy, but to the modern civil rights movement and the destruction of white supremacy.
Don’t think modifying the statue will fly either. I don’t know the whole details of the state law but it probably does not allow for modifying it.
They could try to put up another statue nearby and if private donors pay for it I don’t think anybody could veto that.
I think the law is ambiguous–a recontextualization wasn’t imagined by the lawmakers. Certainly it’d make for a fun court fight :).
here is the law:
A monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission.”
That seems pretty clear that adding to it would be altering it. Don’t see how any court would rule otherwise.
The vagueness is about how it could be moved for public safety and what that means.
Install it at the bottom of a lake. Problem solved.
The problem is, that ship has sailed: the statue has already been altered. The question is what is required now that the alteration has taken place.
There’s another section:
That seems to rule out placing it in a museum location.
However, the law is, as I say, sloppy. Given that the statue may not be altered, when it was toppled, the law seems to forbid restoring it to its original condition: that would requiring altering it from its current condition.
Thus my proposal to leave it toppled, only with folks shown engaging in the toppling. which seems to me to establish similar honor, just to people who deserve the honor.
I know it’s a stretch, but it’s a poorly written law in favor of white supremacy, and I think it’s worth pushing the law as far as it’ll go.
I don’t think putting it back to what it was originally is considered an alteration, that’s a really big stretch to say that. That would be a big loophole - anyone could destroy a monument and say “well ,it cannot be altered so leave it be” That would defeat the whole purpose of the law . BTW I am not in favor of the law just making a point here.
“Democrats at that time…” What a ridiculous assertion. As if the Democrats cleansed themselves of racism.
Give me a citation of all the prominent Democrats who switched parties. The Democrats own the KKK.
They didn’t have to, they just died. The Dems and the GOp switched sides about 1964. But Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin, Jr. all switched Dem to GOP. Thurmond died in 2003. Lester Maddox,George Wallace, etc- all dead. Wallace started his own party, actually.
If the Democrats are so racist, how come we get the overwhelming majority of black votes in every election?
How many people in the KKK do you think consider themselves Democrats? You can answer with absolute numbers, or a percentage of the whole.
The law was not intended to thwart vandals, it was intended to thwart the lawfully-addressed will of local folks wanting to move past white supremacy. Yeah, vandalism does do an end-run around the law, just as the law does an end-run around local democratic government. Too bad the law is poorly written.
What are you even trying to say here? This looks like the dumbest of partisan nonsense.
Holy crap that’s a good one! Can Democrats pull the plug on it do you think? Can Democrats shut it down? Or do you think all of the not Democratic KKK members might not go along with the idea?
You can recontextualize it without even touching it. Just put up pictures of lynchings next to it, along with a copy of the dedication speech, and some commentary about how our ancestors used to believe this crap but we know better now.