Anonymous Activists Just Painted The Stonewall Statues Brown For Miss Major

In an incredible interview between our trans editor Mey and the legendary black trans elder Miss Major, they discussed the way that Gay Liberation statues of white, cis people memorialized outside of Stonewall white- and cis-wash a movement led by black and brown queer and trans people. “Let’s get together a group of people to redo those god damn statues across from the original Stonewall. Let’s have the building at least claim who the people were that were there, not these white people that they had on in the plaque in there,” Miss Major told Mey. “Someone should smash those motherfuckers up and turn them into the white dust that they are and put a couple of statues of people of color and at least make one of them an overly obnoxious transgender woman 6’5′, three inch heels, blond/red hair, lashes, beads, feathers and put one of those fine white boys next to her, now that I can handle!”

In response, two anonymous activists revamped the statues so they would better reflect the individuals who put themselves on the line for the liberation of their communities at Stonewall and throughout the history of queer liberation movements. They painted the statues brown and dressed them in wigs and bright costumes. You can watch their video here.

IMG_5024

The activists are two queer and gender non-conforming women in their 20s, one white and one a Latina immigrant, living in Brooklyn. They saw Miss Major’s comments as a call to action and decided to respond. We were able to interview them via email on condition of maintaining their anonymity.

Why did you decide to paint and dress the statues?

Those sculptures are supposedly there to commemorate the Stonewall riots, but there isn’t a trace of the actual riots in them. They’re a slap across the face to the Black and Latina trans women who got whacked with batons and shoved into police vans, and still had the guts to continue to lead the fight for LGBTQ liberation. I mean, the people who modeled for the sculptures weren’t even at the riots! That’s just a straight-up insult. It’s also important to note that the Mildred Andrews Fund paid a (presumably) straight and cis white man $90,000 to depict gay people. It’s no wonder that the sculptures are so impassive and tone-deaf.

We painted them because Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, Miss Major, Storme DeLarverie and all the other Black and Brown people who led the movement deserve credit for their courage and strength. What we did was rectification, not vandalism. Those statues are bronze (brown) underneath the layer of white paint — the symbolism behind that is infuriating. I know that some people are going to be angry, but I’m not concerned with preserving bullshit art. I’m angry about the whitewashing of LGBTQ history.

What does Stonewall mean to you?

Stonewall and Compton’s Cafeteria Riot were breaking points. They were the moments when society’s most disenfranchised decided that enough was enough, and fought back. They were about subversion, not assimilation. Before its de-politicization, pride was about survival. Now it’s just a problem that obscures how bad things still are for LGBTQ people who aren’t white, middle-class and cisgender.

Why is it important to you to center trans people and people of color in conversations about queer and trans liberation?

We’ve got to keep talking about the 16 trans women have been murdered this year, and Black Lives Matter, and police brutality, and immigration. And the respectability politics have got to stop! It’s insane that gays booed Sylvia Rivera 42 years ago, and just did the same thing to Jennicet Gutiérrez a few months ago. Voices like hers are the ones that need to be amplified the most. It’s not liberation if it’s not intersectional.

Do you expect to face any negative consequences for this action?

We’re hoping to stay totally anonymous. There was a camera crew at Christopher Park shooting a short documentary about the riots, and they got some footage of us, but agreed to blur out our faces. If, however, our names do surface, we’re prepared to deal with the potential consequences. It’s better if we get arrested than if it happens to a trans woman who’d then be grouped with men and put in harm’s way.

Anything else you would like folks to know about the action?

To the people who’ll end up repainting the sculptures: brown and black lacquer exists. Think about what it means to repaint the statues white, and then stop.
To Miss Major: This is for you. Thank you.

Update from Miss Major:


Are you following us on Facebook?

Profile photo of Audrey

Audrey is a writer, a Texan and a sometimes-heretical Presbyterian. They write about bisexuality, gender, religion, politics, music and a whole lot of feelings at Autostraddle and wherever fine words are sold. They hope to adopt a dog some day. Follow Audrey on Twitter @audreywhitetx.

Audrey has written 102 articles for us.

87 Comments

  1. Thumb up 3

    Please log in to vote

    OH MY GOSH YES

    Those statues looked so pitiful and weird when I visited Stonewall last winter… these pictures give them a tiny dose of the grace and potency and color they could’ve had if maybe they put a trans or queer artist in charge of the project…

  2. Thumb up 7

    Please log in to vote

    It’s funny how the first place one of my friends goes is “I dunno, feels like blackface.”

    Sometimes, folks, there comes a time when ya need to step off the “I’m offended!” pain train and realize that nothing is ever going to be perfect.

    Could they have done something different? Sure! They could’ve cast a solid bronze statue and added it to the original display! Why the hell would they do that, though, when this is right there, and it’s actually a huge statement by quite literally reversing the white-washing of Stonewall and this project.

    This is absolutely amazing, and incredibly well done. I salute these folks!

    • Thumb up 17

      Please log in to vote

      Thank you! Unfortunately, we don’t have the skills or funds to cast sculptures of our own. We also couldn’t paint the entire statues brown because Christopher Park is a highly busy and visible area and we were worried about being arrested. It sucks that some people are correlating it to Black face (and we see why), but that’s decontextualizing what we did. Anyway, we hope that this gets the ball rolling and that we’ll soon see sculptures representing the people of color who led the riots.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Step off the pain train because nothing will ever be perfect, and yet you’re all applauding a couple of idiots for defacing original artwork that they disagree with? ISIS, much? This is truly disgusting. If they’re upset about this representation, they could voice that without being destructive. And yeah, it actually is not a stretch that this looks oddly like blackface. Whatever, it looks really bad. It’s like when that local lady tried to restore that priceless painting in Italy and destroyed it unintentionally. I can’t believe anyone would support this.

    • Thumb up 2

      Please log in to vote

      Blackface would be hilarious to the white ladies of Autostraddle. I personally don’t find it funny at all but then I’m not a spoilt middle class white queer so mileage will vary. Also the paternalistic way in which white women are dismissing the blackface angle is disgusting but par for the course. I’m sure if someone did something similarly insulting to bisexual women or overweight white women the comments wouldn’t be quite so supportive.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Why are you automatically deleting “white boys?” White boys were at Stonewall, too. Stonewall would not have happened without white boys, black boys, Hispanic boys, lesbians of all colors, trans people. So divisive and childish to delete comments with which you disagree, as it was to destroy art with which they disagree.

      • Thumb up 6

        Please log in to vote

        In here you can find, in almost every post, a discussion, debate or argument. But the key is “RESPECT”.

        As you can see in some comments below that don’t agree with this act, she’s not deleting things just because she doesn’t like them or doesn’t share her opinion.

        Deleting abusive and hateful comments is part of AS’ comment policy. And it’s a good policy if we take a look at what some places allow to post as comments.

          • Thumb up 3

            Please log in to vote

            Yes, I know, but I had to give it a try.

            The ISIS crap was appalling, but I did laughed a little with the confusion about the Ecce Homo, I just loved when people tries to criticized something but doesn’t check their facts (it was Spain, not Italy and that’s a well known fact)

  3. Thumb up 7

    Please log in to vote

    It’s a bald-faced lie to say that this was an act of rectification, not vandalism. It’s public art, not the personal property of these activists. If they think it’s “bullshit” too fucking bad. It doesn’t belong to them. The LGBT liberation movement doesn’t belong to them either. I’m sorry the trailer of a movie they haven’t seen focused on some white, middle-class, cisgender youth from Ohio. Hollywood doesn’t write history. Boo-fucking-hoo.

    The Gay Liberation memorial was commissioned in 1979, when the culture of America was decidedly different. The gay liberation movement was still in it’s infancy. Harvey Milk had just been shot the year before for daring the LGBT community to come out. The AIDS crisis was igniting. The Gay Liberation memorial was wasn’t unveiled to the public until 1992 because it was too controversial for New York fucking City. These activists have the luxury of looking at this memorial with disdain from 2015 in a post-Lawrence v. Texas, post-United States v. Windsor, and post-Obergefell v. Hodges world. We have lost a lot of L, G, B, and T heroes to get to where we are today.

    It is counterproductive to attack one part of the LGBT community for the promotion of another. While life may be easier for white, middle-class and cisgender LGBT, defacing public art doesn’t even attempt to solve the problems of trans women, Black Lives Matter, police brutality, or immigration. All queers are in constant danger; white, middle-class, cisgendered LGBT have been assaulted in Seattle, Philadelphia, and NYC recently. I could write a long, sad list. Stop pretending any of us are safe. Homophobia and transphobia are still rampant nationwide and worldwide. Republican presidential candidates want to rollback the gay rights movement in 2016. These two Brooklyn activists should consider their own privilege when compared to LGBT in the Middle East, Africa and Russia. Why the fuck are we cannibalizing ourselves?

    If these anonymous activists truly want to honor the contributions of Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, Miss Major, and Storme DeLarverie then they would rally the community to install another piece of public art, not to deface “bullshit” art. Raise money. Commission an artist. Advocate the city to install it. It would be a true tragedy if the our one memorial were removed completely because it was in danger of being destroyed. Creating fucking art, don’t destroy it.

    P fucking S — true civil disobedience is never anonymous.

  4. Thumb up 3

    Please log in to vote

    The statues defaced by the activists were the first ever public art depicting LGBT people. They aren’t white to represent white people. The artist, George Segal, used materials for making casts for broken limbs in all his sculpture. The symbolism in use of materials should be obvious. Other public art by Segal has commemorated the Holocaust and the Kent State shootings. It’s plainly obvious as well that the sculptures were meant to commemorate the Stonewall uprising, not depict it. Other movements — Black Lives Matter, post-modern feminism, Occupy — have managed to add to the struggles they inherited without attacking and tearing down those who struggled before them. Why these activists chose this action — based on such a poor understanding of the art itself, a 120 second movie trailer, one Internet video of Miss Major, and reams of Twitter-rage — shows how dangerous a little knowledge — in this case, very little — can be.

  5. Thumb up 2

    Please log in to vote

    I’m distantly related to the person who donated this artwork. I’ve always been proud that my family cared about gay activism, and donated a piece of art to commemorate this important event. It makes me kind of sad to see such vitriol directed at it. I get that the event should be depicted accurately, but I don’t see how defacing public art accomplishes this goal. There are lots of homophobic people and institutions to direct your anger at, why choose something that’s pro-LGBTQ, even if it’s in the wrong way? Anyway I always thought the white statues were just a neutral color, not meant to depict a particular race.

      • Thumb up 12

        Please log in to vote

        In fairness, while I’ve never liked the statues or felt they had squat to do with Stonewall, ALL of George Segal’s pieces from this era look this way… so it’s not like he specifically decided for them to be white as a comment on the riots. Segal’s holocaust memorial in San Francisco is similarly made up of a bunch of white colored figures and, as someone who had a lot of family members who were murdered in that series of events, I found it a horribly sterile, impersonal and distanced comment on what was personal brutality. Segal is an artist who was largely purchased by collectors/museums with large white, sterile-looking display rooms and I think it’s supposed to be a comment on the sterility those spaces or contrast with the dirt and complexity of the world around it. IMO, a terrible choice to commemorate the Stonewall riots, but he was a famous artist in the 60s-70s and it was a big deal at the time he agreed to do it. Living in New York in 1981, I recall a lot of snarky remarks about the statues even then (although probably more for aesthetic than political reasons).

  6. Thumb up 4

    Please log in to vote

    Public art is a tricky thing, because always reflects a selected part of history.

    I’m sure that in the US, just like also happens in my country, you have a bunch of statues dedicated to people that weren’t really “statue-worthy”. I’m not saying that this statues aren’t worthy, but a lot of time has passed since 1969 and 1979, when this statues were commissioned, we do have more knowledge about the Stonewall Riots. We can make an effort to reflect a more accurate version of history.

    And maybe some people don’t want to keep running from history or wait for history to catch all of us.

    Also, I’ve seen a bunch of comments about judging a movie from a 2 minutes trailer. In this case I have a question: Anybody remembers many movies that were totally different than the trailer? Besides those Six Sense kind of movies, with the surprise ending?

    And please, can we stop with that childish phrase “If you don’t like the… make your own movie, your own TV show, your own statue”? Just because somebody realizes that you exist it doesn’t mean you need get down on your knees and say thanks.

    As Space Mermaid said “The statues will be fine. That’s why they make them out of bronze.”

  7. Thumb up 14

    Please log in to vote

    What makes me feel uncomfortable with this is the fact that no actual black woman was involved in the re-painting of the statues. I feel like that would have made a big difference.

    My thoughts right now are “nice idea” and “you tried” but I can’t really get to liking it wholeheartedly.

    • Thumb up 9

      Please log in to vote

      I also have some mixed feelings about the action for a few reasons including yours, but I did want to point out that Sylvia Rivera, one of the two women depicted in this picture, is Latina, and so is one of the activists who painted the statues.

  8. Thumb up 7

    Please log in to vote

    I actually know little to nothing about Stonewall, and it didn’t occur to me to start learning until people starting commenting on the movie trailer. When I saw the trailer, I actually figured they were taking the fake protagonist surrounded by real characters approach (i.e., Titanic’s Jack and Rose we fictional but several other characters were based on real people). I don’t disagree with using a fictional protagonist in a film like that because it seems to work in a lot of historical fiction, but now that I’ve done a little bit of reading, it bothers me that they used a white guy and it bothers me even more that I never learned this stuff in school (high school or university).

  9. Thumb up 4

    Please log in to vote

    Apparently the modifications are already gone, so those worried about the statues being damaged can relax:
    https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2015/08/19/activists-paint-stonewall-memorial-statues-brown-in-honor-of-unsung-heroes/

    I want to thank you all for your comments! My first reaction was to get really excited, before considering the blackface aspect that others brought up. I wonder if the perception of the original statues influences perceptions of blackface — like, are they statues specifically of white people, painted brown (definitely blackface) or are they generally-human-shaped pieces of bronze painted white and then brown (not so clearcut)? Either way, I think we all would agree that painting the statues would not be a good long-term solution. We need some new, more representative statues! …And history books… and movies, etc. etc.

    • Thumb up 5

      Please log in to vote

      The issue of Blackface for me, and I can only speak for me not other brown people, is the aspect of de-humunization and mockery. I don’t give a fuck who or what is underneath. Whether it’s a costume for your dog or a statue of “generally-human-shaped pieces of bronze painted white and then brown”.

      Even without knowing the history of Blackface, seeing what is supposed to be an Brown person, depicted in such a clownish way brings back a childhood of feelings where I was told I wasn’t beautiful, or intelligent, or someone to be taken seriously as a candidate at a college interview (actually happened). I understand why that imagery was specifically chosen, it’s to put us in our place and remind us that we are ridiculous and not respectable or worthy. I hated the idea that those statues were up like that and I am so happy they’re back to normal.

      This is why I’m probably not as bothered by the white actor playing a light skin brown person in a serious way. Yes there are issues of not hiring Brown actors, but the disrespect isn’t there when makeup artists are actually making that person look a certain way. The actor isn’t mocking or belittling. Again, I am speaking for myself.

      • Thumb up 4

        Please log in to vote

        Jessie, I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate you sharing your POV on this even though it doesn’t necessarily fit with what everyone else says. As I have been trying to figure out how I feel about what happened, reading your comments has made me think of a lot of points that I never would have seen on my own 🙂

        Also, fuck whoever told you that you weren’t a good candidate for college. That is all.

  10. Thumb up 5

    Please log in to vote

    I love that some people are getting all up in arms about the fact that it was “vandalism.” Public art is (ideally) commissioned or created to make a statement about our society/people/etc. The art may not literally belong to the people, but that message/statement kind of does. Art is not sacred, and it is not crafted and displayed in a vacuum. The things that subsequently happen to public art pieces as they are exposed to a changing public are part of the evolution of the piece’s message/impact. The ‘vandalism’ becomes part of the history of the piece. It is art as well.

    And, I mean, it’s not like they splashed a bucket of paint across the Mona Lisa. The statues are easily returned to their former state.

    As to whether it’s ‘good’ or effective art, that’s up for debate. But at least it’s gotten us debating! The message and impact, the origins and ownership of those things, are all worth thinking and feeling about and hearing one another’s opinions on. Isn’t that what art is supposed to do?

  11. Thumb up 3

    Please log in to vote

    While not opposed to activism in any way, I will point out that these particular statues have been vandalized more than 40 times in the past by anti-gay activists. The message the people responsible wanted to get across may not be the one they want.

  12. Thumb up 3

    Please log in to vote

    People’s ‘omg blackface!’ response to this is so confusing to me. The thing that’s shocking and violent about blackface is that it’s an act of racism; the intention is racist. The mechanics are not the point, putting black pigment on a white face isn’t the point, it’s the racist intent behind it that matters. There was obviously no racism behind the actions of these activists.

    Like, if someone shoved me, but it was to get me out of the path of a moving train, then the intent of the shoving is clearly benevolent. To me you all sound like a person who’s going on and on about someone who shoved them without acknowledging that they didn’t get run over.

    Another example: I had to wear a patch on one eye when i was a kid to correct an eye condition. Are you going to point at me and go ‘omg pirate!’ and condemn the doctor that is trying to help me for making me look foolish? And that was all you had to say about it? You had nothing to contribute except ‘omg pirate’? Nothing like ‘I hope their vision gets better’ or ‘Cool the doctors are working to solve that condition’ or ‘I wonder if there was a way to improve this like give the person a parrot and a sword so they can really rock the pirate look?’ ‘Maybe we should all wear eye patches so they don’t feel so self-conscious’? There were so many ways to better respond to the actions of these activists besides ‘omg blackface’! and then nothing else.

    These activists see an important problem, a social problem with lives at stake. They were moved to do something real about it, not just talk about it. They’re trying to solve a problem that they believe is worthy of their time and commitment and possible public criticism / incarceration. There’s an unfortunate visual similarity to blackface, but the visual similarity does not extend to an act of racism that blackface entails. In other words it’s besides the point.

    I wish ppl that had bothered to comment ‘omg blackface’ would follow up with something substantive about the cause behind this act. Be part of the solution. How cool would it have been if AS had an amazing conversation about activism, historical acts of protest art, their own activism in their communities, civil disobedience and performance art. It’s a big exciting topic.

    I get it, activists are easy to make fun of. Portlandia makes a living at it. The passion activists feel towards righting wrongs and pulling out all the stops can sometimes result in not seeing right away what a more cynical eye would see. I was disappointed that the AS community didn’t use this remarkable opportunity to bring more to support to this important conversation.

    Activists; good job. You moved me and I believe in what you’re doing.
    -Former Pirate and Would-Be Activist.

      • Thumb up 0

        Please log in to vote

        Yes I agree ppl can be unintentionally racist. What I’m saying is that everyone is reacting as if they were deliberately racist, which leaves me gobsmacked because they were doing it to honor a black woman. I think intention matters very much.

        I used a story from my own life because it’s preferable to pretending I know what it’s like to have a racist act perpetrated against me. It is a logical comparison because ppl are reacting to superficial appearance rather than the purpose or intention in both cases.

          • Thumb up 2

            Please log in to vote

            Actually Jesse’s comment above helped me to understand. If I got it right, Jesse’s saying the personal experience of racism relating to blackface made it so the negative impact of how the statues looked outweighed any positive impact from the good intentions of the activists to honor an important black woman.

            I think that’s what you were getting at J.V. with your comments, saying that the analogies of train collision and eye patch did not apply because they don’t occur in the context of racism.

            As someone who is a part-time activist for various causes going on 20 years now, I’m used to grassroots shoestring budgets and homemade stuff for rallies sometimes looking undignified, and I hadn’t encountered the appearance outweighing the intent before, so it’s given me a lot to think about and to feel.

  13. Thumb up 1

    Please log in to vote

    So when these statues were vandalized in the past it was an act of homophobia, but now that it is trans people who are vandalizing public art it is ‘liberation’.

    Oh my sides.

    The vandals are idiots.

    Surely their rage would be better directed at the straight men who are killing them?

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      The homophobic vandalism wasn’t just generic vandalism that people interpreted as homophobic. In one case the statues were beaten viciously with a hammer, in another “AIDS” was spraypainted on the male couple.

      Those incidents were clearly intended to communicate the vandal’s homophobia.

      This incident is clearly intended to critique the statue’s choices in representing a riot over the arrest of gender noncomforming members of the gay community with nonthreatening, gender conforming gay couples, and in representing a racially diverse community with bronze statues coated in white enamel.

      And the prioritizing of white, gender conforming gay couples over the more downtrodden members of our community does kill people, so no, we shouldn’t only focus on those who are harming us in the most unsubtle ways and give more covert bigots a free pass.

  14. Thumb up 7

    Please log in to vote

    People seem to be really agitated by the fact that trans people of color might be critical of the mainstream LGBT movement. But trans people and POC owe you nothing, and they especially don’t owe you their silence when your organization or activism has failed to represent and support them. Just because the community uses an acronym doesn’t mean there’s only one agenda–in fact, it’s plainly clear here that the political wants and actions of cisgender gay folks have consistently and violently come before those of trans folks, especially those of color.

  15. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Looking at the statues, it doesn’t look like they’re depicting a specific race. These aren’t statues of white people in white clothes. The statues are all the exact say color. I hate to point out the obvious, but white people aren’t actually paper white. They don’t blend into the snow. If they wear a white shirt, it doesn’t look like there’s no color change at their hands. If these statues were a different solid color, would there still be a need to vandalize them. Their vandalism looks more like what you would see in a wax-work, not a statue. The statues weren’t about whitewashing or white people. They are just literally white colored statues. White people should actually be called peach. I am not the color of those statues, before or after. If I stood beside them and held my hand up to them, they would not match.

    In all honesty, I wish the statues were the colors of the pride rainbows. Each one a different solid color. Now that would stand out in a good way.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      They are literally whitewashed statues that represent a figuratively whitewashed event. The color of the statues is not meant to represent a skin color, but it becomes symbolic of a skin color (as well as other the more generic figurative sense of whitewashing, or misrepresenting history to make it seem more idealized) because of the way the historical event is treated.

      They are also statues of gender conforming people that are supposedly meant to represent a riot that began when a bunch of people were arrested for dressing in a gender nonconforming way.

  16. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    or you could make your own monument instead of doing something temporary that looks like shti on someone else’s existing monument that they put actual effort into.

    so what you have is 100% vandalism which is destruction of property REGARDLESS of one’s convictions and intended message and sense of moral indignation.

  17. Thumb up 1

    Please log in to vote

    A cis ally told me that Miss Major didn’t participate in the famous Attica Riot like she has claimed. I told this person to get lost. But later I went to the NYS DOC inmate database and there’s no record of her! Also, there was a commission to investigate the riot and it issued a big report, which I found, and there’s no mention of her in that report either. Can someone tell me what is going on? If she wasn’t at Attica, why should anyone think she was at Stonewall?

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Miss Major was at Stonewall apart from her own claim, and her claims about the event (that Marsha P. Johnson wasn’t there, that it mostly drag queens and transwomen, and that there were few gay men at the riot, are contradicted by a lot of other witnesses and evidence such as photographs and arrest records. So while it’s possible she was at Stonewall, the weight of evidence would suggest she wasn’t. And, as you note, her falsehoods about Attica suggest she’s lying about this too. Sadly, she wouldn’t be the only gay, lesbian, or trans person to falsely claim to have participated in Stonewall.

Contribute to the conversation...

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated by the guidelines laid out in our comment policy. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation and thanks for stopping by!