I've got two reactions to this action by State Rep. Borris Miles (D-Houston) in response to artwork he found objectionable.

State Rep. Borris Miles personally removed two pieces of art on display at the Capitol that he found objectionable.

The artworks — a painting of a black man hanging from a rope and an illustration of a man tied to an electric chair with the inscription "Doing God's Work" — were part of an exhibit placed by the Texas Moratorium Network, which seeks a two-year moratorium on the death penalty in Texas.

In e-mail to House colleagues Monday, Miles wrote: "I was greeted with these images as I walked through the halls of the (Capitol) Extension this morning with my two children, ages five and eight. I consider them to be extremely inappropriate and highly objectionable.

"Capitol exhibits are supposed to serve a public purpose or be informational in nature. These pictures were hung with no accompanying text or explanation," wrote Miles, D-Houston.

He said he had spoken to staff at the State Preservation Board about the process for selecting exhibits.

Learning that the moratorium group was behind the exhibit did not change Miles' mind about the two pieces. He said Tuesday that he was still offended. Miles said he hopes a system will be put in place to screen future exhibitions.

1) There is a process for selecting and removing artwork in such a situation. Miles violated it, and therefore deserves condemnation without consideration of his motive.

2) I understand why Miles, as a black Democrat, would be offended by the image of a hanging black man -- after all, he is a member of a party that promoted the lynching of black men for decades, and so is rightly ashamed by the reminder of his party's heritage and the betrayal of his people that his membership in that party represents. How can Miles explain to his children (whose exposure to the pictures he claims motivated him) his membership in the party that actively embraced the KKK as its paramilitary terrorist wing and which still celebrates a Klan leader as "the conscience of the US Senate"?

Also, I noticed something and need to ask a question -- would the party identification of the offending legislator be left out of the article (as it was in this case) if he had been a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 2 kb.