Letters to the Editor: 02.05.98
No Comparison
East Hampton
January 31, 1998
Dear Helen:
Queen Catherine is a site-specific work of art, a personification which rises above an individual person from a particular country. My intent was for her to represent every woman. I struggled for six years to develop a face that would have multiracial features, a face that could speak to everyone. Black, white, Latino, Native American, etc. And for those who have seen her at the foundry (including black newscasters and reporters) she does.
Catherine was one of those people who had the strength to resist political trends. She went against slavery, even left money in her will to free slaves, "the little boys and girls first," she said, "then the women, they have more need." She was tolerant and kind, an early abolitionist. She was a hero! . . . a survivor!
Protests against Catherine were started by a group called CEMOTAP (the Committee to Eliminate Media Offense to African People). Al Sharpton spearheaded it when he ran for Mayor but then got pulled away by the Tawana Brawley case. Louis Farrakhan's people were then brought in. The vast majority of the protesters are angry separatists who have refused to see the statue, hear any historic information about her, or engage in any dialogue. They make it clear that their intent is to destroy.
Catherine has been referred to by this group as a slave mistress, a black swastika, Eva Braun, and Adolf Eichmann. As the artist, I find myself in the middle of this horrible mess and watch with dismay as my sculpture is being distorted and misrepresented.
A clear glass sphere she holds in her extended hand, representing a clean slate, a new vision for the new millennium, has been called "the bloody head of a slave."
As far as "plunking a six-story-tall sculpture" of anyone on the East Hampton village green, the whole idea is absurd. I wonder why it was even mentioned. Catherine is 35 feet tall and will rise to a height of five stories on her base.
She is to be positioned on swamp land on the Queens side of the East River in an industrial area. There will eventually be a 60-story hotel and office buildings surrounding her. How can you possibly compare that to the East Hampton green?
The borough of Queens was named after her and Queens is about ethnicity, it has the largest number of ethnic groups of any borough. This statue could eventually accomplish what it was meant to do. That is, be a symbol of harmony and function as a global object . . . an honest gift from the people of one country to another.
The Portuguese are shocked and upset. Should they be pitted against the blacks? Catherine's mother was Spanish, will there be trouble with the Hispanics? She was Catholic, should this be a problem for other denominations? There are enough forces of negativity and hatred. Are we to pick apart everyone, even the good people, if they are born in the "wrong" time or to the "wrong nationality?"
To me, art has always been something that can heal, something that knows no boundaries. It exists apart from profane time, and goes far beyond politics. One of the great things about it is its ability to stimulate thought and provoke ideas, but it mustn't be destroyed in the process. Both art and artists must be protected. To quote John Lennon in his great song . . . "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."
AUDREY FLACK
What Motive?
New York City
January 31, 1998
Dear Helen,
Reading your editorial "Poor Catherine" (Jan. 1), I was wondering what your motive was in coming to the support of Claire Shulmann's rejection of placing Audrey Flack's sculpture of Queen Catherine of Portugal in the borough of Queens.
I see this editorial as an attack on one of our great East Hampton artists, Audrey Flack. Ms. Flack has spent many years creating her sculpture of Queen Catherine, a multiracial symbol of feminine generosity and beauty.
It is a magnificent work of art. Its presence in Queens would be a statement about the multiethnic origins of New York City, while bringing both beauty and culture to the borough of Queens.
Why would you then be against it? There is no evidence of Queen Catherine having been involved in the slave trade. Just the opposite: To quote your editorial, "She left money in her will to buy slaves' freedom." Why then do you not support our own Audrey Flack? You know that placing this sculpture on private ground would mean its burial.
YEHUDA NIR, M.D.
Get With It!
Amagansett
January 31, 1998
To The Editor:
Now that the public has demonstrated that they are thrilled that their President is so sexually virile, it leads to a serious question. It seems that all the sexual scandals all involve Democrats - Gary Hart, Dick Morris, Cisneros, Clinton, etc.
Why can't the Republicans have a sex scandal? No one has accused the Republicans of raging sexual desire - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Gingrich. Are they all sexual wimps?
Let's have some Republican sex scandals to even things up. Come on, Republicans, get with it!
HOWARD PURCELL
Must Disagree
Springs
January 29, 1998
To The Editor,
While I hate to disagree with my old friend Silvia Tennenbaum, I must do so in connection with her letter to you in which she attacks Congressman Michael P. Forbes. Representative Forbes, as someone involved in congressional oversight of the Smithsonian Institution, was instrumental in the cancellation of a program spotlighting the 50th anniversary of the modern State of Israel.
The reason for the cancellation was quite clear. The program was devised by an organization with a one-sided political agenda, the so-called New Israel Fund. This organization is distinctly antagonistic to the elected Government of Israel, and helps to support legal defense for suspected terrorists.
Even if one agrees with this organization, one might give pause to the idea that a government-supported institution such as the Smithsonian should co-sponsor a program with a highly politicized agenda. This is clearly not an issue of a constitutional right to free speech. The New Israel Fund is free to present its views to the public without governmental interference, but it should not expect Federal co-sponsorship.
Indeed, Forbes should be commended for efforts to prevent the use of a public cultural institution for political purposes.
Ms. Tennenbaum wants to give us the impression that the New Israel Fund's program was going to be objective and balanced. She cites the participation of The New York Tines columnist Thomas Friedman. While she calls his credentials "impeccable," anyone who reads his work regularly knows how one-sided he is.
She also notes that invitations to the forum were sent to an Orthodox rabbi and two members of Prime Minister Netanyahu's political party, Likud. She fails to note that these invitations were extended after criticism had already erupted about the sponsorship (indeed some of the late invitees withdrew when they learned about the political bent of the sponsor).
Finally, I want to say that objecting to a one-sided politicization of a public institution is not, as Ms. Tennenbaum suggests, McCarthyism. In fact it was really rather nasty for her to suggest that Congressman Forbes heeled under to a few wealthy Jews in this matter. That smacks of another kind of "ism."
Sincerely,
CHARLES EVANS
Misrepresentation
New York City
February 2, 1998
Dear Editor:
Silvia Tennenbaum (Letters, Jan. 22) misrepresents the circumstances surrounding the recent controversy over the Smithsonian Institution co-sponsoring a program stacked with speakers who are harsh critics of Israel.
The issue was not free speech - as Ms. Tennenbaum erroneously claims - but whether it is appropriate for a Federally-funded American Government institution to sponsor a program attacking America's closest ally, Israel, under the guise of celebrating Israel's 50th anniversary.
The program that the Smithsonian was going to co-sponsor with the New Israel Fund was supposed to be a celebration of Israel's 50th birthday. It's an occasion for Americans to join with Israelis in celebrating the modern miracle of the rebirth of the Jewish State.
Israel has ingathered millions of persecuted Jews from the four corners of the earth and established a free and democratic society - in a part of the world best known for its barbarism and tyranny. America and Israel have always been close friends and allies, united by shared moral values and strategic interests.
When you celebrate someone's birthday, whether it is the birthday of a person or of a country, you invite the person's friends to acknowledge his achievements and accomplishments. You do not bring in his critics to attack the honoree at his own party.
It is shocking that at a celebration of Israel's 50th anniversary, the Smithsonian would co-sponsor a program with the New Israel Fund, a left-wing organization that finances groups within Israel that are hostile to the Israeli Government and sponsors harsh critics of Israel on speaking tours of the United States.
The very title of the program, "Israel at 50: Yesterday's Dreams, Today's Realities," implied that there is a clash between what Israel dreamed and how the reality turned out. The program notes stated that Israel must still meet "difficult challenges" in order "to fulfill its founders' vision of a nation based on the concepts of freedom, justice, and peace," wrongly suggesting that Israel is not fully committed to freedom, justice, and peace, when clearly it is. (In contrast to many of its Arab neighbors, who do not respect the principles of freedom, justice, and peace.)
The list of speakers chosen by the New Israel Fund was dominated by those who frequently attack Israel. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who was slated to deliver the keynote address, has been harshly criticizing Israel and its leaders - Labor as well as Likud - since the 1970s.
Friedman referred to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as "bloody-minded"; Friedman blasted then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres for striking back at Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon last year; Friedman once denounced Golda Meir for supposedly paying too much attention to the Holocaust (he charged that "instead of fighting against the 'Holocausting' of the Israeli psyche, [she] actually encouraged it, turning the Palestinians into the new Nazis."); and Friedman compared current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the leader of Russia's Communist Party.
In his book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem," Friedman even mocked Israel as "Yad Vashem with an air force."
The other speakers chosen by the New Israel Fund for the program at the Smithsonian included:
Israeli professor Ehud Zprinzak, who recently authored an op-ed in The Washington Post in which he blamed Israel for supposedly provoking the Hamas terrorist massacres of Israelis.
Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset. In an interview last year, Bishara was asked his opinion of Arab terrorists murdering Israeli soldiers. He replied that "in international law, and even in the morality since the European enlightenment, cases similar to the killing of Israeli soldiers by Palestinians were always justified. . . . I'm not going to condemn them." (Jerusalem Post, Feb. 28, 1997.)
To add insult to injury, Bishara recently laid a wreath of flowers on the grave of Islamic Jihad terrorist leader Fathi Shikaki, whose group was responsible for the 1995 murder of Brandeis University student Alisa Flatow. How many taxpayers - whether in East Hampton or elsewhere - want an American Government institution to host someone who glorifies the murderer of an American citizen?
Tom Segev, formerly editor of the radical-left wing Israeli magazine Koteret Raishit. Typical of Segev's extremist stands was his declaration that he supported dividing Hebron into physically separate Jewish and Arab sectors because "it can be used as a precedent for the arrangement of Jerusalem." (Ha'aretz, Oct. 9, 1996)
Yaron Ezrahi, whose recent book, "Rubber Bullets," portrays Israel as a society corrupted by militarization.
According to The New York Post, another speaker chosen by the New Israel Fund for the program was going to lecture on "Jerusalem: To Unify a Divided City" - when, in fact, Israel unified Jerusalem more than 30 years ago. Indeed, the United States Congress recently reaffirmed its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital.
When Congressman Michael P. Forbes and leading Jewish organizations protested the imbalance of the scheduled roster of speakers, the New Israel Fund hastily announced it would invite a few token representatives of other viewpoints. But the far-left speakers would still have dominated the program.
Israel - and all people of good will - have plenty to celebrate. The miraculous rebirth of the Jewish State just three years after Auschwitz . . . the return of Jews from lands of oppression to the land of Israel . . . the reunification of Jerusalem . . . Israel's scientific, cultural, and economic achievements . . . the enduring bonds of friendship between Israel and America.
That's what a celebration of Israel's 50th anniversary should be acknowledging. Fortunately, the Smithsonian, once alerted (by Congressman Forbes and others) to the New Israel Fund's bias, withdrew its sponsorship from the extremist program that the fund had organized. For that, the Smithsonian deserves our congratulations.
Sincerely,
MORTON A. KLEIN
National President
Zionist Organization of America