Jon Tevlin's column ("Debate over art could be put to good purpose," Dec. 2) makes me suspect that the painting of Indians attacking New Ulm will remain prominent in the State Capitol, maybe with a small plaque explaining that there is another side to the story.
If any of these war paintings must remain, I suggest the approach used by the Culloden Battlefield and Visitor Centre in Scotland. That battle, in 1746, changed the way of life in Scotland forever, and it has great ongoing significance for "both sides" living there today. The museum has long halls featuring art and memorabilia as well as audio re-enactments from many viewpoints, including ordinary people: the quartermaster who explains how much food was involved, the woman whose house was occupied, soldiers who were hungry and cold, clan chiefs who raised money. But wonderfully, each side of the hall tells the story from a different perspective — the Scottish rebels on one side and the English royalists on the other. I so appreciated the lack of simplistic "good guys" and "bad guys" and the chance to understand some of the complexities. This history comes alive in a way that might help us avoid future wars.
If we must display the Gag painting, can't we commission another painting to hang right next to it showing the other perspective, the Indians who were attacked?
Bonnie Peace Watkins, St. Paul
• • •
Those of us who want offensive art removed from the State Capitol are not pushing censorship as some suggest. Quite the contrary. Many of us are asking for the art to be moved to a museum where it can have better interpretation and discussion. The Capitol is not set up to be a history museum and teaching tool.
And to be clear, some of the art is truly offensive for a public building. Look hard at the mural in the Senate Chambers titled "The Discoverers and Civilizers Led to the Source of the Mississippi." It is an allegorical painting with many symbols of Manifest Destiny, including the forced conversion of American Indians. A priest holds out a cross at an Indian man and woman who appear trapped; behind the priest, another man among the crowd of "civilizers" restrains two attack dogs. If we believe in freedom of religion, this painting has no place in our Capitol.
Scott Russell, Minneapolis
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ATTACK
Editorial exaggerated views of anti-abortion violence
I read with considerable frustration the Star Tribune editorial Dec. 1 attacking those with pro-life views ("Planned Parenthood and a warlike attack"). The writer describes a "decadeslong stretch of hateful, inflammatory rhetoric and periodic violence employed to limit the constitutional right of a woman to control her body."
I have been involved in the pro-life movement for a long time, many years as a journalist covering pro-life events. I have seen no violence, threats of violence or even hints of violence on the part of pro-life activists, and I have been to many of the largest pro-life rallies over the last 19 years. The people I have observed are peaceful, including young mothers who often bring their children to pray and express their pro-life views.