By David Swanson
A case can be made that just about any public statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, is the worst one. The much lamented
statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are not alone in their offensiveness. Determining a winner in a contest
for the worst monument in Charlottesville is not nearly as important, I think, as removing any of the lot of them from
our central public spaces and installing them in a museum. I’m grateful to everyone who has advocated for the removal of
any of these monstrosities and support those efforts 1000%, as I have written about often.
But let me suggest at least that a bit more awareness be focused on “George Rogers Clark, Conqueror of the Northwest.”
This massive sculpture was put up in the 1920s, just like the statues of Lee and Jackson (and the one of Meriwether
Lewis and William Clark). It was paid for by the same racist gazillionaire who paid for the statues of Lee and Jackson
(and the one of Lewis and Clark). It involved the same level of democratic decision making by the people of
Charlottesville, namely none. It, too, depicts a white man on a horse, dressed for war. It, too, would remain a war
monument, and therefore protected by state law, completely independent of whether we should decide we dislike it.
But, there are differences from the statues of Lee and Jackson. In this case, Clark has a couple of other men with guns
behind him, and he’s reaching back for a gun. There are three Native Americans in front of him. The UVA student
newspaper celebrated the statue when it was first created as “explaining the futility of resistance.” The base of the
sculpture calls Clark the “Conqueror of the Northwest.” The Northwest means the general area of today’s Illinois.
Conquering means basically genocide. One of the three Native Americans appears to be carrying an infant.
I don’t want to diminish the horror tied to the monuments to the Civil War or the War on Vietnam or World War I or any
of Charlottesville’s monumental paeans to mass murder, but only this particular artistic perversion openly depicts
deadly violence against civilians with unalloyed pride and sadism. Robert E. Lee could be riding in a parade for all
anyone can tell from his monument. Not Clark. He is depicted engaged in what he explicitly advocated for and acted upon:
the indiscriminate murder of Native Americans in pursuit of their elimination.
George Rogers Clark himself said that he would have liked to “see the whole race of Indians extirpated” and that he
would “never spare Man woman or child of them on whom he could lay his hands.” Clark wrote a statement to the various
Indian nations in which he threatened “Your Women & Children given to the Dogs to eat.” While some might object even to a less graphic monument to this murderer, one in
which he stood or rode alone, Charlottesville doesn’t have one of those. It has a monument to genocide, shamelessly
depicting genocide.
Charlottesville also has monuments to Thomas Jefferson, who, as Governor of Virginia, sent Clark west to attack Native
Americans, writing that the goal “should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes or Illinois river.”
Clark killed the captured and destroyed the crops of those he was sent by Jefferson to exterminate. Clark later
unsuccessfully proposed further military expeditions to Virginia Governor Benjamin Harrison in order to demonstrate
“that we are always able to crush them at pleasure.”
Clark was considered a hero because his beliefs and actions were widely accepted or supported. His bit part was played
in a broad and long-lasting genocidal assault on the native peoples of this continent. Every assertion about and quote
of Clark above is documented in a new book from Yale University Press called Surviving Genocide by Jeffrey Ostler. Ostler shows that U.S. officials developed the policy that “wars of extermination” were “not only
necessary, but ethical and legal.” Causes of decline among Native peoples included direct killing, other traumatizing
violence prominently including rape, the burning of towns and crops, forcible deportation, and the intentional and
non-intentional spreading of diseases and of alcoholism to weakened populations. Ostler writes that the most recent
scholarship finds the devastation caused by European diseases resulted less from Native Americans’ lack of immunity, and
more from the weakness and starvation created by the violent destruction of their homes.
In George Rogers Clark’s day, John Heckewelder noted that frontiersmen had adopted “the doctrine . . . that the Indians
were the Canaanites, who by God’s commandment were to be destroyed.” In our day, we make Clark’s monument central to our
public life in Charlottesville, where it greets those arriving from downtown to the campus of the University of
Virginia.
##
--
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate.