San Francisco Civic Center monuments
disfigured by an ugly scar
By Miguel Pérez
In the heart of San Francisco’s Civic Center, where government buildings surround a huge rectangular plaza, two monuments give Hispanics reasons for pride. I felt that way when I got there. But I would have felt much better, had it not been for one ugly scar. First, in an area called "United Nations Plaza," you see an impressive equestrian statue of South American liberator Simon Bolivar, and the coat of arms of the countries he liberated. All good, I thought. Bolivar is honored with statues in several major American cities with large immigrant populations from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. Bolivar was their libertador! |
|
|
But as I walked toward the city's "Pioneer Monument," on the other side of the plaza, I found that a portion of that memorial has been removed, and that only its pedestal remains, showing visitors that the part of history that has been censured is a statue that marked the Spanish "Early Days" of California.
"™Como fue?" I asked myself. "What is this?" The monument is a statuary centered by a 47-feet tall granite column that is lined with medallions and bronze bas-reliefs depicting several California periods of history and important pioneers, rightfully including some Hispanics – Father Junipero Serra, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, Gaspar de Portolá, Mariano Vallejo and José Castro. |
|
|
It was created by San Francisco sculptor Frank Happersberger and dedicated on November 29, 1894 as a "statuary emblematic of the significant epochs in California history, dating back to the missions' early settlement."
A statue of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom and war, stands on top of the column, alongside a California grizzly bear. This was meant to represent "Eureka," the spirit of California. At its base, there are statues of two female figures allegorically representing Commerce and Agriculture. But it also had two statues representing important periods of California history, and only one remains! |
|
|
The remaining statue, called "In 49," depicts the gold-seeking prospectors who flocked to California in 1849 during the California Gold Rush. The missing statue depicted "Three figures of the Early Days." According to a plaque still left there, "A Native American, a missionary, and a vaquero, (cowboy) represent the three cultures of early California."
At least that's what they did until that statue was removed by the city in September of 2018. |
|
|
After getting approval by several city boards allegedly responsible for the "preservation" of art and historic monuments, and several lawsuits and appeals, the city finally caved to years of political pressure from Native Americans who found it offensive. The city's Board of Supervisors confirmed the censorship and buried the "Early Days" statue in a storage facility. Some politicians even expressed pride for what they had done, demonstrating their immense ignorance.
When you get there now, the "Early Days" statue is unapologetically missing. There is no explanation for the huge scar that has been left there. |
|
|
Frankly, after I looked for an old photo of the statue they removed, I can understand why some Native Americans would find it annoying, since it depicted an Indian in a subservient position, compared to the other two figures in the statue.
Their fight had been a long one – decades! Even back in 1991, when the entire monument was moved one block to make room for a new public library, Native American protestors wanted the “Early Days” statue removed. They said it was dehumanizing and even factually inaccurate, because it depicted Plains Indians, instead of the Ohlone natives of the San Francisco Bay area. |
|
|
In multiple public hearings, they charged that the statue was racist, that it glorified the subjugation of Native Americans, and that it perpetuated historically inaccurate, negative stereotypes about them.
But even if this was all true, in all this time, especially since the statue was removed in 2018, the city couldn't find a more historically accurate replacement? They couldn't find another way to depict "the three cultures of early California"? Really? Otherwise, if city officials wanted to altogether erase the "Early Days," from history, why didn't they also remove the pedestal? Don't they see that it adds insult to injury? So, they didn't just want to erase history, did they? It's much worse. They wanted us to remember the Spanish history they are willing to erase! I supposed it makes them feel politically correct! I get it. They want to be responsive to their Native American constituents. But their Hispanic constituents, in a city with a Spanish name and so much Spanish history, do they matter? |
|
|
According to the latest population statistics, there are 133,226 Hispanics in San Francisco, 16.4 percent of the population, and 5,524 Native Americans, 0.8 percent of the population.
Like in other cities where white politicians have been swayed to remove Hispanic monuments by a small but loud minority of Native Americans, the San Francisco protesters were once sarcastically described as “too few to fill a comic book.” Needless to say, the debate was heated. Nevertheless, I believe Native Americans should be heard, and their wishes should be respected, as long as you don’t disrespect Hispanics in the process! Leaving only a pedestal to represent the “Early Days” is beyond disrespectful! |
|
|
Over the years, opponents of the statue's removal have claimed that it violated the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that these left-wing maneuvers to suppress historic monuments are no different than the right-wing extremists banning books nowadays.
It's true. When extreme liberals and conservatives try to erase history, those of us in the middle should be very concerned. I am! Yet, what I found even more irritating is seeing that a similar sculpture to the statue that was removed, a bronze bas-relief depicting a subservient Indian, and just as potentially offensive to Native Americans, is still there! The only difference is that, instead of Hispanics, the people standing over an Indian are white colonists. (See photo). Could this be because white San Francisco politicians refuse to see their own ancestors' mistreatment of the Indians? Could this be the kind of racism they claim to be protecting us from? Ironically, the same plaque that recognizes the figures who represent "the three cultures of early California," also notes that "the most dramatic decline of the Native population occurred in the years following the discovery of gold in 1848." Oops! But wasn't that long after the Spanish were gone from California? And aren't those the same gold miners who drove the Indians out of their lands and are still part of the Pioneer Monument? Go figure! When does hypocrisy get a monument? ps. Not far from here, Spanish Franciscan missionaries ran a hospital to care for sick and dying Native Americans. At the risk of dispelling some myths, we're going there next! |
Removed statue, depicting a subservient Indian
Remaining bronze bas-relief depicting a subservient Indian. Is there a difference?
|
|
|
