I was recently on campus to bury my father. I led an entourage of family to see Fr. Corby's Gettysburg statue (in front of demolishing Corby Hall) and the memorial (next to the Admin building) to the USS Maine complete with a shell from the battleship. Both are gone.
So, where did they go?

near the sidewalks that go towards the old Library/ Architecture building.

Jenkins went on to announce that, in place of the Columbus murals, the University has commissioned new murals, which depict the origins of the New World in a more modern, non-offensive way.

“The Columbus murals will be replaced by new ones depicting ‘Incident II’, the population of the New World 75 million years ago by Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.”

Jenkins went on to describe separate artistic pieces that will bring to life the transport of billions of aliens to earth in a DC-8, their arrangement around active volcanoes, and their slaughter by hydrogen bomb.

“The Administration feels that these colorful, action-filled visuals – volcanoes spewing, bombs exploding, aliens perishing – will more than compensate for their lack of historical factual basis”, said Jenkins. “More importantly, Notre Dame cannot imagine any ethnic or religious group that could take offense to such a display.”

It's anti eye-talian descrimination. Columbus day is a day of Italian pride.

Maybe the could be replaced by murals that tell stories of Kelly vanquishing of ACC and Big Ten opponents.

Can you imagine the hoorah that would start?

After careful thought and meditation I think I understand what is going to happen. The murals will be covered, but the good Father said they could be viewed on special occasions.

My guess is the special occasions will be home football weekends when older alumni will be allowed to purchase tickets for the exclusive, premium Main Building Tour where they will be allowed to view the murals from behind velvet rope. Audio tour headsets will be provided for a small donation.

Nothing soothes guilt like donating money.

When are they going to do something about it? The settlers look Methodist.

But Rev. Jenkins' logic does not hold up. He says that the fact that Columbus "discovery" was a catastrophe for the Native Americans is what necessitates reconsidering the murals. However, there is nothing unique about Columbus role in that catastrophe. If ol' Chris had knelt before the Taino peoples, renounced Catholicism and pledged allegiance to whatever gods they worshiped, nothing would have changed.
By Rev. Jenkins' logic, everyone who spread the settlement, including iconic missionaries like Father Sorin, are just as responsible.
If his point is Columbus' story has good and bad sides, I would ask who's doesn't.

Which is what Father Sorin helped do for the Midwest. However, for today's liberal, that is considered as bad as enslavement and mutilating the natives.
On the dark side, the Age of Discovery was difficult for the Natives. On the bright side, they received the Catholic faith. That is belittled today but was considered very important by those, like Columbus and Sorin, who had faith in our Lord. It's odd that Father Jenkins, as a Catholic, did not emphasize this, within it's historical context. Notre Dame exists today because, those with a strong faith and belief in God, decided to share the good news with others.

always willing to see some actual evidence of these things. Until then, Columbus and his Castilian masters stand unchallenged until the 20th century.

which, of course, will get lost. Your thoughtful analysis below is appreciated.

He certainly didn't suggest any questionable behavior on the part of Fr. Sorin or other missionaries. However, it's hard to contend that their mere presence didn't have some impact on the future of the natives, including the spread of possible ailments/disease and displacement. Frankly, it's hard to know what the overall impact was for each missionary, but you can't say it didn't matter.

Who, himself, engaged in the exploitation of indigenous Americans.

The problem with the murals was clearly spelled out in Jenkins’ statement. They depict him as a benevolent hero. That is a whitewashing of history and ND is correct to not want to be a party to it.

If one accepts removing the "whitewashing of history" as a desirable goal, then there is an awful lot to do, and it is almost certain that no matter who you are, there is some "whitewashed" history that you want to keep around.

Hiw far back would you like to go back and leave uncorrected? Should we simply ignore and bury all of the harm that was done by the United States and her citizens because it makes us feel better?

I have no problem keeping such history around, but framing it in the context of what actually occurred. That’s what ND is attempting to do with this compromise. The murals are being preserved, and made available for study in the proper context, while the covering makes clear that they are not a celebration of Columbus’ actions.

Personally, I think they walked a fine line pretty well.

As an example, should today's (1/21) activities focus on MLK's sexist and homophobic beliefs? I forgot where I read it this morning, but some columnist said that he certainly would have been banned from hosting the Oscars now and would probably have had students protesting if he was teaching classes today.

For me, the idea that people from the past did not exhibit modern standards of decency should be self evident. If there are people on the ND campus who do not understand that, then it suggests a far deeper problem that needs to be immediately addressed.

...offended when he walks through the main building of his honorary alma mater.

Because that's where angry replies ranting about book burnings, Obama's honorary degree, and the Church's pedophilia scandal belong.

This story doesn’t belong there.

Church scandal doesn’t belong on the PBR either quite honestly. There isn’t currently a pro Church pedophilia political party.

has died down with renderings of current Notre Dame honorary degree holders, including such figures as the most pro-abortion president in US history and a cardinal who was later suspended from public ministry by the Holy Father.

priests wearing the skins of humans as they sacrificed captives to the Flayed God or photos of the archaeological remains of the 200ft tall 'towers of skulls' the Aztecs used to throw shade at their defeated enemies.

All that bucolic, harmony-with-each-other hunter gatherer stuff from before Columbus.

weather patterns, conference agendas, memorandums, policies and procedures, protocols, etc. etc.

In the middle cafeteria section? I vaguely remember them as a kid. It looked like a Native American village extracting rubber from rubber trees, and a second one I forget. Did they survive the 1998 renovation?

given that he never actually landed in the United States.

As for the paintings, I think this is a decent solution.

It's possible that they are appropriate for appreciation and study, just not for decoration in that particular place.

black or white on this issue. I may not entirely agree with the University’s decision, but this threads the needle of historical preservation and architectural integrity quite well. I seriously doubt that ND will be destroying these murals in the foreseeable future.

Why now? Did we just learn about Columbus? What is next? Should we apply this type of standard to everyone? If so, the people who claim to only like or support people who in their eyes are untouchable, need to get ready to accept that standard.

Why now? Maybe they finally had someone suggest a workable alternative to removing them, maybe they just finally got a round to doing something - I seriously doubt that 2019 has anything to do with it. If you think this is a new issue, you’ve not been paying attention.

I simply do not understand this rush to be "woke" and "enlightened" in this day. It's like the politician who for years supported one side of an issue, but has "evolved" and now supports the other side of the issue.

The University has acknowledged the ‘problem’ of the murals for a long time.

The whole movement of being "woke" is destroying everything that does not fit within a narrow point of view. The people who claim to be tolerant and open minded are not tolerant or open minded. Again, why now if they have acknowledged an issue long ago? The article mentions one person who is in favor of this, saying this is a good first step. Well, what is the next step, and what is the last step?

..that is, what would be judged appropriate for a building housing the history department might not be appropriate for a visitor center or under the dome?

I think you're trying to pigeonhole the folks who made this decision into your view of a group of people who may be rather different.

If the murals have been a topic of discussion for years, a decision should have been done long ago. It just smacks of poor leadership.

AND unfairly selective!

..between those notions which the captain was attempting to highlight.

..that they're immoveable. An oil painting could be moved to a less prominent place.

compromise considering the situation. And it’s hardly a knee-jerk, spur of the moment decision - I know well that it’s been debated at the Presidential level for almost 20 years. ND doesn’t act quickly very often.

and they get to keep the baby and the bathwater. They could have just covered them without the fanfare, but they wouldn't get any points that way.

..without an explanation? I think you're trying too hard here.

the administration was being cowardly by quietly concealing the murals in the hope that nobody would notice?

There is that slippery slope matter of what's next. Can book banning/burning be far behind?

I guess in my opinion ND should have left them available for viewing from a purely educational/historical standpoint. After all, ND is a CSC-run university founded on the tenet of education. It's not like they accompanied Spanish conquistadors on their trek across the Americas on missions of terror or anything.

They aren't destroyed (so we are a long way from burning books).

Moreover, the University has pledged that they will be available for viewing and study in a different location on campus.

This is about as far from destroying and trying to remove them entirely as we can get, while still not displaying them in the entrance to the Main Building.

Who is harmed by covering up the murals?

Something like, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

There are a lot of MAGA hats running around out there, after all.

mostly in grade school?

The murals aren't being destroyed or removed.

...and study in a different context. Or did I read incorrectly?

This one has always been interesting to me.


I'll be honest, I stopped noticing the murals long ago. They just blend into the background for me.

That's not to diminish those who view them as 1) offensive or 2) historically important.

It's just sort of like the Mona Lisa for me. You see them, and it's sort of like, that's what's causing all the fuss (and I know they are much larger than the Mona Lisa, but I just don't see why this has become a huge deal to so many within the ND community). There are so many other points of interest within the building that draw my eye and attention. That said, I think they threaded the needle very well on this one.

I never put much thought into the murals since they were pointed out to me on my first visit to ND, to be honest.

That's probably natural for a suburban white kid who was taught the Columbus story that left out all of the less savory details.

It's not hard for me to imagine a different perspective for someone with Native American ancestry, though, in light of what I have learned since. I empathize (I am a bleeding-heart liberal after all).

I think ND did a good job here.

Why it's offensive.

And I think it's just because I didn't focus on it, but it was never the focal point of my eyes when going in that entrance.

I always found the mosaic on the floor more visually interesting, and then once you get to the rotunda, there is a ton of stuff to look at.

That's why I think this really is the best outcome.

Now, if they paint over or permanently remove the murals, that won't go over well (although it may be necessary, because I have no doubts the admin building will once again need work down the road). But I'll worry about that when it happens.

Were destroyed by the Taliban. We are doing the same thing with monuments all across the country.

Simply in fashion. Burning books is next.
Nothing to see here.

of a monument to a Confederate general erected long after the war in a transparent attempt to reaffirm white supremacy and put black people in their place? Why does preserving these monuments necessarily mean leaving them in public places traditionally associated with figures deemed worthy of honor and respect?

At Gettysburg.

It was nothing more than a political statement pointed directly at the 21st century.

and who he asked for, and what had happened to the man he asked for. And what that man did after the war. And who actually put up the monument.

" in a tansparent attempt to reaffirm white supremacy and put black people in their place?"

You found a counter-example. I guess that means you win.

The statue you cite was built in 1993. Most confederate statues were dedicated between 1890 and 1930.

A coded attempt to tell the black people of Gettysburg that they were inferior? No other sentiment could be involved?

In tribute to an incident where a mortally wounded Confederate general, asking for a man who was a close family friend (and a Union general), who had himself been grievously wounded earlier in the battle. In any event, Armistead was a Free Mason and a Union officer, also a Mason, recognized Armistead.

I do not know of a Freemason who would want anything but Brotherly Love.

Both Armistead and Hancock were Freemasons.

..the one you mention and one to Armistead alone.

He found the least objectionable monument to a Confederate soldier (one which depicts a dying Confederate general being comforted by a Union soldier) and used it to counter my statement that these memorials were largely meant to reinforce white supremacy. The statue he references, which is not even strictly a Confederate memorial, was built in 1993 whereas the majority of the statues that have garnered controversy, like Silent Sam, where built between 1890 and 1930.

While I am a Freemason and have seen the Friend to Friend Monument, I was first thinking of the open scroll near the Angle with this inscription:

Brigadier General
Lewis A. Armistead, C.S.A.
fell here
July 3, 1863

It was erected in 1887.

Wasn't the land ND currently sits owned originally by the Potawatomi, and ceded to the US in the Treaty of St. Joseph?

If so, there's something that rings a bit hollow to this statement when it laments how Columbus's arrival led to the mistreatment of Native Americans when ND eventually benefitted from that mistreatment.

Anything is possible

So the we can now focus on the absurd.

Let’s remove any symbol of America anywhere. Hell, the very name America is offensive in suggesting Amerigo Vespucci “discovered” the “New World.” And it wasn’t just Columbus who devastated the native populations. And we were the first country to use a nuclear weapon.

Then again, we should also remove any murals/symbols/names of buildings, etc., celebrating any Native American tribe that committed atrocities against other tribes to build and expand their cultures. That would, of course, be most of them.

We should immediately work on removing anything that celebrates Chinese culture. Lord knows how much of their success was built around war and destruction of other cultures, to say nothing of their policies that have promoted abortion, hostility to religion, etc.

Bottom line, removing a mural celebrating the killing of natives is one thing. Removing references to Columbus because some people were hurt by his accomplishments opens up a big can of worms.

Are you worried that he will lower the flag on South quad?

Give me a break.

You are overreacting

If you don’t understand what I wrote, which you obviously don’t, perhaps ask a question rather than just post “oh boy” and then your own misinterpretation. I was addressing the rationale used by Jenkins. Read it, and then reread my post.

"It will be possible to display the murals on occasion."

If the murals are wrong, they should be destroyed, no?

a wink and a nod to Parks and Rec. But I like the idea of high-quality reproduction in a place that welcomes discussion of tricky or ugly topics. Much better than a knee jerk safe space type response.

The slippery slope arguments below are preposterous.

Won't be long before we start erasing those aspects of History which are offensive to .... well, anyone who wants to take offense.

How long before someone somewhere decides to be offended by public displays of Catholicism and demands action. No more Mary on the Dome?

How long before Father Sorin is a target for having planted this university smack dab in the middle of native american indigenous territory. Darn missionaries. Messing up with local indigenous minds and culture. No more University of .... what?

How long before someone gets tired of the "Fighting Irish" meme and decides it is offensive.

This is political correctness gone totally over the top.

I am disgusted with this decision.

I sent an email to the Sori. Society contact saying I thought a less incendiary title would have been better. He said he would pass it on to the professors doing the presentation. I am sure they will ignore it.

You can’t understand history without understanding the context. The murals are beautiful art that depicts 19th century view of Columbus.

People of European decent who are upset about what their ancestors did 400 or 500 years ago should go back to Europe.

We got where we are today by what our ancestors did. Some was good and some was bad. On the whole the US has had a very good effect on the world.

On pedestals. We don't need to be confronted in our day to day life by Columbus to learn about his contributions to the development of America, warts and all.

Northern ones and managed to hold off a materially overwhelming northern invasion for four years.

Should have been hanged.

also typically erected at a time when the white population was orchestrating a resistance to civil rights progress for African Americans. But yeah, let's honor the Lost Cause. It is amusing that people still defend this ignorant shit in 2019...

Someone in another century painted his likeness and story on a significant building wall. Somehow 100+ years later young children need to be sheltered from it, so their lives are not somehow ruined. We can only talk about it if its hidden. We can't "confront" our history. Yet, the same guy who puts his signature on this decision told us all we had to have an active dialogue and listen to those who believe in abortion rights, and we had to consider their opinions, and let them be seen/heard on campus.

I see a disconnect here.

Columbus isn't confronting anyone...it's just decorations in the most iconic building on campus. So Fr. John decided to redecorate. It's an aesthetic choice then.

Fine. I can live with that outcome too.

That completely changes the topic at hand. That doesn't settle anything. That hides from the story. You used the word confront. Read the definition of the word. It implies controversy. Columbus is not being controversial. He neither asked to be painted nor discussed. Yet, hiding him is a sad attempt to hide history, instead of deal with it. Why did we invite Obama to campus and then "dialogue" on his abortion stance? Wasn't that because ND is a place for ideas and discussion? So, why not use the mural to discuss? Why run and hide?

That can't be presented elsewhere?

The murals are a glorification of Columbus. They do in fact confronted anyone visiting the second floor of the main building. They sure as shit arent passive.

I agree 100% with the decision by ND here, but I don’t think they confront people that much.

I walked in and out of there plenty of times. Sometimes I noticed them, most of the time I didn’t.

I don’t think they are that in your face.

I don’t have a problem with this, but it still feels disingenuous while we have child molesters with honorary degrees.

Hasn't the mural issue been brewing for years?

I dare say it was (and should still be) way down the list of issues to address.

Luigi Gregori doesn't make them money. He should have licensed his artwork with Fathead like this beauty. They're quick to jump down any old tailgate cornhole of political correctness as long as it doesn't upset their revenue streams, eh?

• Click here for link at https://www.fanatics.com/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_Fathead_G

Then we'll know they're truly "woke".

What is the reasoned counterargument?

I'm not saying there isn't one. I just cannot think of any.

And those whose minds are unable to differentiate between the morals of the 1400s and our morals today are not people the University should be catering to.

But isn't it more a practice of today's morals, rather than catering to the minds that are unable to differentiate between today's morals and those of the 1400s?

Or is it an expression of one's personal preferences or politics?

Certainly every reasonable person can agree that Columbus's treatment of the native population was amoral using today's standards. But not every reasonable person would choose to be offended by the painting.

...in some cases even cherished".

Of course, that was in defense of bringing a pro-abortion President to receive an honorary degree at commencement.

I wonder why only certain "differences" need to be acknowledged and cherished in plain view of the entire world while others need to be hidden from public view as dialogue obviously cannot be facilitated in that regard.

It's odd isn't it. Rampant disease and abortion both cause mass deaths in the New World, but only one deserves respectful understanding and dialogue.

What's the defense of leaving the murals there? That there is a difference of opinion as to whether they lack sensitivity to the consequences of Columbus' actions and legacy?

I had no intention of making this about Jenkins, but rather this particular decision.

I do not know how art historians regard them.

If they are significant art, I see the argument for their display. Particularly as the message says they cannot be relocated.

If they are just old and a tradition, I don’t mind covering them.

Personally, I couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. But I have no eye for art.

perspective. I personally think that they’re fairly well done for the genre (essenially late 19th century American Catholic ecclesiastical art), but there’s not a lot of historical significance to them.

I can go either way with the University’s decision.

..when Florida State visits Notre Dame stadium.

ND appears to be preserving their value as art, including viewability within the proper context, while removing the traditional aspect of being casually viewable on a walk through that Admin building.

Was this supposed to be a joint announcement regarding Theodore McCarrick's degree?

I wish Atticus were still here.