Move to whitewash historical mural in San Francisco school

Two parts of the mural — African American slaves working on Washington’s Mount Vernon property and white men stepping over the body of a Native American — sparked protests nearly 50 years ago. Now, the entire 1936 mural is a step closer to being removed altogether after a 13-person committee recommended by a 10 to 1 vote with two abstentions to whitewash it (literally).

The explanation for the removal is that any depiction of brutal treatment of slaves or native Americans causes too much trauma:

“We come to these recommendations due to the continued historical and current trauma of Native Americans and African Americans with these depictions in the mural that glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc. . .It’s not a counter-narrative if [the mural] traumatizes students and community members.”

Ironically the mural was done as part of the federally funded arts program during the depression, and the artist was Victor Arnautoff, a Russian-American with ties to the Communist Party and who later retired to the Soviet Union. The artist’s intent was to criticize Washington and US history with slavery and treatment of Indians, not to glorify it.

Personally I find it weird that the federal government funded the mural to begin with. My suggested solution to the current controversy is to whitewash the “Life of Washington” mural and replace it with a “Life of Stalin” mural. Here are a few examples of scenes that could be included:

  1. Soviet labor camps in Siberia
  2. Man-made starvation
  3. Demolition of churches
  4. Ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe

For more examples see:

Unlike the existing mural, these scenes should not cause any controversy in San Francisco since they have nothing to do with traumas suffered by people of color. Instead, according to beliefs popular in San Francisco, any suffering portrayed in the replacement mural is clearly just retribution for white privilege and homophobic superstitions. If done right it may even provoke an angry response from Vladimir Putin, which is yet another bonus.

At last something to bring everyone to together!

Lib revisionists have been protesting the mural for over 50 years. So sad they can’t stand historical accuracy. White men with courage and ingenuity did what they had to do to build a mighty nation, and now all races partake in the peace and plenty that arose as a result. White men should be THANKED, not persecuted.

1 Like

There seems to be a weird contradictory response to the mural from many people in San Francisco.

It shows some of the dark side of American history, which define how many liberals view history. Logically they should support the mural. On the other hand, the depictions in the mural can provoke distress, which must be avoided at all costs according to many of the same people.

My observation is that the quickest way to get protection for the mural would be for groups from other parts of the country to support its removal because it makes Washington look bad.

I don’t get people who think a mural needs to be permanent.

Why are we upset about this?

The mural needs to be of Steph Curry and Kevin Durant.

1 Like

Who is upset?

If you really don’t care then why are you posting?

Update: San Francisco plans to spend $600,000 to paint over the mural of the life George Washington by Russian-born communist, Victor Arnautoff.

Cool. There is an certain irony that San Francisco will be spending this money to get rid of a mural that was funded by a New Deal arts program.

Inside of a high school is probably not the best place for it anyhow.