Richard E. Parisi 
Member since Jun 26, 2012

Recent Comments

Re: “With the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue, what's next for the monuments and New Orleans

This article is a pile of hooey. There was never any "decades of debate" regarding the New Orleans Lee monument. If there had never been a very unfortunate incident in another state hundreds of miles away the local statues of Lee, Beauregard and Jefferson Davis would most likely still be standing today with very few people, if anyone at all, giving it a thought. When there was the Super Bowl parade everyone was certainly happy to decorate the Lee statue and party right there together. This initiative has purely been the product of an opportunist politician quick to jump on the train of the national trend of political correctness phenomenon for his own sake and the fact of the mayor writing columns in out-of-town newspapers proves it(in the meantime the city's actual main issues, i..e. public safety and sluggish economic growth, continue and then now with a community more divided than previously). To call this whole maneuver high-handed sanctimonious horse hockey is being too kind.

27 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 05/20/2017 at 2:25 PM

Re: “Commentary: It didn't have to come to this

Those, as in questions about what's going to happen over the long term, are highly pertinent. The mayor and the city have never spelled out what the long term plan is and have never offered any assurance to anyone that the monuments are not, in fact, going to be either destroyed outright or else left to slowly fall to ruin while out of sight in storage. Does the mayor even care about the long term preservation of these works, which are, I am sure, highly valuable? Does he care, as well, about the current locations of the memorials and that htey're not merely empty places that are going to be very noticeable during the Tricentennial? Or is it that the only thing that matters is just getting these offensive works of art out of sight? I highly suspect that it's the latter, as I don't expect the mayor to be sticking around the city after his term is up. He needs employment and it appears that he's auditioning for employment -- for a position elsewhere. As regards the city's business leaders and their silence, it's the mayor's role here to try to foster community unity. I suspect that he didn't consult them before he rolled his initiative out, seeing how he's typically been a "my way or the highway" type of leader, and they were caught off guard like most of us were. Even council member Cantrell had noted, I believe, that the initiative came from the top down in this instance, as opposed to from grass roots up.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 05/16/2017 at 12:34 PM

Re: “Jefferson Davis comes down, second of four Confederate-era monuments removed in New Orleans

Indeed there is racism and ill feeling in this world aplenty. However, it's fair to point out that after all of this removal of public art will have been completed, there will probably still be racism and ill feeling and, if anything, maybe, probably more of it than there was before this controversy came about. There will also be, after this whole operation will have been completed, still be the same basic issues facing the city that there have been all along, i.e. job growth, public safety, infrastructure, cost of living. Finally, after the operation will have been completed, there is a question of whether anyone's basic rights will have been better served. The only sort of right that I can see that's really being served in this is what seems to be a right to not ever be offended -- and where is that in the Constitution? Yet the leadership of the city has seen fit to spend much energy and political capital on this anyway. Where was the cost/benefit analysis?

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 05/13/2017 at 10:04 AM

Re: “Clancy DuBos: Our monumental challenge

There may well be many curators and historians who could help with finding an appropriate place for the statues to be placed, however the city hasn't said anything except for that they are planning to haul the statues to an undisclosed storage facility. We have no idea even whether any such curators or historians will be even be granted access to them there, which they should be if the city is sincere about preserving the statues. No matter what one thinks about the Confederates' cause or about white supremacists and so on, it would be tragic if somehow these authentic antique works of art, of which, at the least the Beauregard statue is very historically significant, become damaged or are lost or just remain in storage for an indefinite time because the city isn't able to work something out with someone on mutually satisfactory terms. Of course, as we know, there are those who have been calling for the statues to be thrown into the river, and then every time the mayor talks and insists that the statues are not historically important it would seem that he is making common cause with those folks more than he is with preservationists. It does seem clear that what is most important to him is just making these pieces disappear while anything beyond he hasn't said anything about.

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 03/16/2017 at 7:15 AM

Re: “Take 'Em Down NOLA marches against Jackson statue

Adding new statues to memorialize different people is a fine idea. However, trying to sanitize the landscape of everything that's remotely controversial -- Andrew Jackson may or may not have been the greatest human being, however, his importance in U.S. history and in New Orleans history is beyond question -- is a just a bad, wrong-headed idea and not something that a society that's confident in itself and in its ability to confront its history, bad parts and all, as these people seem to be stressing that we need to do, would do.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 10/02/2016 at 7:59 AM

Re: “Who tells the story of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans?

What the anti-monuments contingent members seem to be missing is that with the passage of time the notion of these monuments being essentially honors that we, as in our own current generation, are bestowing on individuals such as Lee and Beauregard (and by the way I trust that the poster did not really mean to suggest that Grant and Lee actually fought on the same side during the Civil War) because of how we, as in, again, our current generation, have very strong admiration for these individuals, has diminished while, on the other hand their significance and importance, as meaningful historic relics has grown. Do the people of, say, Paris keep the Arc de Triomphe preserved, rather tear it down, because they still, 200 years later, think the world of Empire of Napoleon? No, they keep it around as it's important because it's historic.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 05/26/2016 at 6:42 PM

Re: “Who tells the story of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans?

Agreed. Once something like these century-old authentic antique sculptures is tossed away, it's irreplaceable. If they do carry out this removal the contingent who support this will savor the moment as it happens no doubt but eventually with the passage most people will come to realize the foolishness of just tossing something authentic away on a whim. What's doubly saddening about this business is that this city in particular among all others is known for savoring its public art and attaching importance to preservation of historic structures though now is deciding that such values must be overridden by the need to serve the aims of trendy political correctness, which is all that this is, seeing as how there was no burning issue, prior to June 2015, with the presence of offensive monuments. Okay they were able to find a story, (from more than 40 years ago), about an incident in connection with the Lee monument. How about stories of incidents more recent than that one or about the incident from about 20 years ago involving the Liberty monument? How about any stories at all about incidents having to do with the Beauregard monument, which, it has to be pointed out, is quite striking as a work of art and has to do with an individual who was from the area and did much for the city both before and after his involvement in the American Civil War but is on the list of targeted structures nonetheless? Moreover, it seems clear from this story that no one has any idea about what to do with these sculptures post-monument demolition. If this is all purely about just moving the sculptures to a place where they can be displayed in the better context or whatever these anti-monument group members say then why not wait until we can figure that out before doing anything? I have to think that this business is really mainly about just making these pieces disappear from view and that's the beginning and the end of it.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard E. Parisi on 05/25/2016 at 7:15 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Gambit
Powered by Foundation