Review of Memorials
The North Carolina Capitol Memorial Study Committee has been charged by the North Carolina Historical Commission with assessing the collection of current plaques and monuments at the State Capitol and grounds.
Without disturbing the existing memorials at the Capitol, the North Carolina Historical Commission would like to diversify them to address the underrepresentation of American Indians, African Americans, and women.
We seek your input on how to proceed. In addition to this blog, we have planned a series of public hearings in Asheville, Raleigh, and Greenville, on February 15, 18, and 22, all at 7 PM. More details can be found in this press release:
Anyone wishing to speak at one of the hearings can register by clicking on the “About” page and responding by blog, indicating which hearing they plan to attend. Time permitting, anyone who registers that evening will be heard but priority will go toward those who have preregistered.
This task is important and we welcome you to attend and to share your ideas. If you cannot attend any of the three meetings, you may elect to share your thoughts by posting to this blog by clicking on the “About” section and entering your comments.
Thank you for your contributions to this process.
February 10, 2010 at 2:17 am
I would like to make a nomination of an African American North Carolinian whom I believe is the perfect person to be immortalized with a statue on the State Capitol grounds. That person is Hiram Rhodes Revels, the nation’s first African American Senator. He was born in Fayetteville and lived in North Carolina through his teenage years. The first African American statue belongs to the first African American U.S. Senator.
February 14, 2010 at 11:14 am
The entire idea of this commission is faulty. The state should not seek “diversity” of it’s monuments simply fot diversitys sake. Monuments are to mean something. Monuments should be placed to promote the remeberance of important historical events or very important people, not to promote an agenda, fade or political concept such as “diversity”. The premise that this commission is working from can be seen to be flawed in that it views any ethnic minoritys as being under represented. All ethnic groups in North Carolina are at least represented by one monumnet at the capital, the Confederate monument. All ethnic groups sent members to support the Confederacy therefore that monument represents ALL ethnic groups of the state. If other events or people warrant a monument fine, but do not place monuments for the misguided political concept of “diversity”.
February 14, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Our Old Capitol grounds are sacred and any additional memorials should be very carefully selected. Only those North Carolinians who have honorably served, defended, and led the Old North State and its republican form of government should be eligible for such a great honor.
As it stands, there is no underrepresentation of any group as those now honored could have come from any racial, gender or ethnic identity. There was no ideology of diversity or race guiding our legislators in the past, only merit and honorable service.
To merely “diversify” the grounds with the suggested groups is baldly racist, sexist, and classically Marxist, the last being in conflict with the republican virtues of our Constitution. Outstanding merit and honorable service to this State, regardless of color, race or sex, will tell North Carolinians who to so honor.
To simply scatter plaques and statues only on the basis of modern identity groups will make a mockery of our historic values and the leaders already honored. To do this would bring true meaning to to the saying that “when everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
February 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Adding diversity for the sake of diversity is misguided. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. addressed this issue in his book, The Disuniting of America:
No one in the nineteenth century thought more carefully about representative government that John Stuart Mill. The two elements that defined a nation, as Mill saw it, were the desire on the part of the inhabitants to be governed together and the “common sympathy” instilled by shared history, values, and language. “Free institutions,” he wrote, “are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representive government, cannot exist. . . . It is in general a necessary condition of free institutions that the boundaries of government should coincide in the main with those of nationalities.”
Later Schlesinger adds:
The militants of ethnicity contend that a main objective of public education should be the protection, strengthening, celebration, and perpetuation of ethnic origins and identities. Separatism, however, nourishes prejudices, magnifies differences, and stirs antagonisms. The consequent increase in ethnic and racial conflict lies behind the hullabaloo over “multiculturalism” and “political correctness,” over the iniquities of the “Eurocentric” curriculum, and over the notion that history and literature should be taught not as intellectual disciplines but as therapies whose function is to raise minority self-esteem.
Watching ethnic conflict tear one nation after another apart, one cannot look with complacency at proposals to divide the United States into distinct and immutable ethnic and racial communities, each taught to cherish its own apartness from the rest. One wonders: Will the center hold? or will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?
February 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Please do not move or remove any existing plaques or monuments. I am Scot and Cherokee and honour my Confederate ancestors and do not honour the momentary American views of socialism with its French view of Marxist equality. Do not disturb things Confederate in any manor. Please oppose all things communist in the Democrat Party.
February 15, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Thank you for your post. Please keep in mind that there are no plans to remove any existing memorials, plaques or statues from the grounds or Capitol building.
February 15, 2010 at 12:14 am
It’s fine the way it is, so please leave it alone.
February 15, 2010 at 1:53 am
The monuments on the State House grounds already represent significant events in North Carolina’s history and need neither additional monuments nor any change or removal of current ones.
February 15, 2010 at 5:03 am
I find myself confused. There appear to be two conflicting ideas at work. Perhaps this is what Orwell meant by doublethink? On the one hand women and minorities were brutally shut out of leadership in the State of North Carolina. But now hand we need to commemorate those women and minorities who have shown themselves leaders for the State.
February 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The memorials at the capitol are good, they represent history that has been and is still significant. Please do not remove these, nor add to them, if updates need to be done, please do them elsewhere– in Raleigh.
February 16, 2010 at 12:28 am
Doing a whole package of changes at once is what looks suspiciously like a move to placate minority discontent rather than to recognize genuine achievement. The monuments now on the grounds were placed there after being considered on the basis of individual merit. I am opposed to adding monuments wholesale for the purpose of enhancing the self esteem of ethnic or other groups.
February 17, 2010 at 3:25 am
The memorial monuments that are in place at this time all represent North Carolina history.I in no way see what the addition of more monuments will add to our state history. And I also am in favor of leaving up all the monuments that are now in place.To take any one monument down would be sacrilege to the men and women of all races which fought for this state in all wars.Especially monuments for the the Confederate States of America all our history and heritage need preserving.
.
February 17, 2010 at 10:33 pm
As a native Tarheel, I would like to say first and foremost, I would prefer the Commission not to alter, move or change any existing monument on the State Capitol grounds. The existing monuments have stood the test of time.
Secondly, I would suggest the Commission would not “try to diversify” the monuments on the Capitol grounds for the sake of being “politically correct.” If someone, whether they be white, black, native American, male or female, is worthy of this honor, then solicit private funds only to erect a monument in his/her memory. If they are deemed worthy of a monument on the State Capitol grounds, then the public, corporations excluded, should be able to donate to such and finance the monument completely. No tax payer monies should be used for such.
February 28, 2010 at 8:27 am
One of the purposes for consideration of new monuments is to show the diversity of our state which, at present, is not evident on the capitol grounds. At this stage it is, for the most part, a celebration of the Confederacy, or of white males. The suggestion is that women, Blacks, and first Americans be represented in some way. I support this endeavor because of the children that visit the old capitol. Children should be able to see persons like themselves as a part of the affirmation of their own self-worth. I would like to suggest that the members of the Commission consult with someone knowledgeable in regard to the history of Hispanics in North Carolina and consider memorializing this important segment of our population as part of the project.
March 19, 2010 at 10:21 am
I would like to see a monument that reflects all the thinigs that North Carolina has excelled in and would represent what makes a North Carolina proud to call their home state. It should reflect what created our many citizens of North Carolina and is still important to them in such things as Education, Cultural activities and a vast history of many “peoples”. I would like to see a mirage and meshing of all races that represents these accomplishments in one very good piece of work with representation of all of these many “persons” equally represented. I have not listed all the areas of exception by our dear North Carolina and others definitely shold be added since we have excelled in many
April 13, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I urge caution and restraint here. I am Raleigh-born and bred and I see two issues here. One is cost in these times of economic troubles. The other is making rash changes to historic landmarks. We should be VERY selective in any additional monuments and not just for the sake of diversity. I favor leaving things as they are.
April 19, 2010 at 12:08 am
This strikes me as a bad idea. Selecting a subject merely to meet a quota is simply degrading. Now that it has been raised, a monument to, say, the sit-in movement (a good idea, btw) would be denigrated as inauthentic, the result of bureaucratic correctness. Worse, if your commission doesn’t fulfill its quota, any an attempt to commemorate a white male (say, Daniel Boone — another good idea) would be rejected on the basis of his race.
Bad all the way round.
May 6, 2010 at 12:27 am
Its not about quota, its about commemorating those who made significant contributions to this state and beyond. Some of these comments are degrading as to suggest this is for political correctness and would be deemed less authentic if minorities were to be recognized. There are other ways of tainting your own image as opposed to a splash of color being added to the equation. Get over yourself and your unwarrented fears.
JAMES H. HARRIS needs to be recognized.