logo
Column: Vandalize an Italian American museum during an immigration protest? Bad move

Column: Vandalize an Italian American museum during an immigration protest? Bad move

Yahoo07-02-2025

The latest act in the play that's life in downtown Los Angeles greeted me when I parked at a Chinatown lot Wednesday afternoon:
Students protesting Donald Trump and his anti-immigrant policies.
A group of about 60 were marching up Spring Street before taking a right on Cesar E. Chavez Avenue toward Olvera Street, chanting and blowing horns and cheering any time a car honked in approval. They waved Mexican flags and Salvadoran and Venezuelan ones, with nary an Old Glory in sight.
I wasn't there to cover the kids, though: I wanted to look at graffiti. On Monday, during a "Day Without an Immigrant" rally, people tagged all over El Pueblo, the city's birthplace.
They defaced the Chinese American Museum and a tour office. The Pico House and the first fire station in the city. Interpretive signs that ring the Old Plaza. Businesses across the street from Cielito Lindo. The parking lot for LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes.
The placas were almost all the same, referencing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the president: "F— ICE." "F— Donald Trump."
Read more: Hundreds of L.A. students join immigration protests; buildings vandalized, rocks thrown, LAPD says
The place that got it the worst was the two-story Italian Hall. A brick wall that faced Cesar E. Chavez was a palimpsest of scrawls — the anti-Trump and anti-ICE tags, "ICE Out of LA" with L.A. in the style of the Dodgers logo, a heart with initials inside, a ghostly red "Viva la Raza," a "Viva Mexico."
The historic structure, built in 1908, houses the Italian American Museum of Los Angeles. Back in the day, the hall hosted the very kind of radical politics the students were espousing in this week's protests, with legendary figures like Emma Goldman and the Flores Magón brothers addressing crowds in English, Spanish, Italian and other languages. Defacing a shrine to immigrants of the past while fighting for the immigrants of today — it was a sad irony I wanted to discuss with the museum's executive director and co-founder, Marianna Gatto.
Dressed in all black with a warm smile, she took me on a short tour. A permanent exhibit told the history of L.A.'s Italian American community, which Gatto says is the fifth-largest in the country. Display cases held mementos famous — a Tommy Lasorda jersey, an empty can of StarKist Tuna, which was founded in San Pedro and provided many Italian immigrants with jobs — and personal, like folk dresses and civic club badges. The free museum hosts over 300,000 visitors a year, the majority not of Italian heritage.
"You can't tell the story of what's happening right now without the story of what happened in the past," Gatto said. We were in front of what she said is the museum's most popular display: artifacts from when Italian Americans were the despised immigrants of the day. In her hands were 19th century cartoons depicting Italians as mustachioed rats swimming onto American shores. Before us was a photo of two Italian men who had been lynched, hanging from a tree.
"When I watch visitors here stay and read everything, I find it encouraging," Gatto said.
Earlier in the day, the museum had hosted a group of students from Baker Elementary in El Monte. "You see them making connections to what happened to Italian Americans in the past to their own stories," she said.
The problem, as evidenced by the graffiti outside, is that not enough people are doing that.
Ethnic studies is in vogue in California and set to become a graduation requirement for high schoolers in 2030. But the Italian American experience rarely figures here, unlike on the East Coast or in the Midwest.
Although the California Legislature apologized in 2010 for the state's mistreatment of Italian immigrants and Italian Americans during World War II, Italians barely merit a mention in the ethnic studies model curriculum. They're acknowledged as one of many European immigrant groups, with the longest section a proposed assignment on whether Christopher Columbus was a "hero or criminal."
Omissions like this lead to the type of vandalism that happened at the Italian American Museum, said Cal State Fullerton Chicano studies professor Alexandro José Gradilla. He muttered "híjole" (Oh no!) when I told him about the graffiti there and in other parts of El Pueblo.
"The failure is not with the young people [who tagged]. It's with us as adult activists," Gradilla said. "We haven't showed them the history we should be giving them — that all the successful civil rights movements happened as coalitions. Tagging up other people's places is not the way."
Read more: Latinos Can Look to an Italian Legacy
Gatto was more charitable about the lack of knowledge about Italian American history, especially in Los Angeles.
"L.A. history is not known," she said as we continued our tour. "Ask the average person, 'How did Los Angeles begin?' and they'll probably say 'Hollywood.'"
Gatto, who gave her age as "late 40s," said she grew up in an era when Italian Americans celebrated the "good" ones among them — politicians, judges, Frank Sinatra — and not the hardships they suffered. "They were once this," she said, referring to the anti-Italian hate display, "and didn't want to be that, so they ran away from that."
But during her childhood in Silver Lake and Los Feliz, Gatto said, the white kids didn't think of her as white, and "the Mexican and Filipino kids were like, 'Why are you hanging out with us?'"
The descendant of immigrants from Sicily and Calabria gained her passion for Italian American history after visiting the then-boarded-up Italian Hall as an undergrad at UCLA and Cal State Los Angeles and telling herself, "This needs to be a museum, and I need to be the director."
The museum did come to pass, after local Italian Americans fought to save Italian Hall. In 2010, after working as a high school teacher and a curator for the city of Los Angeles, Gatto became head of the Italian American Museum, which moved into the hall in 2016.
"For me, this isn't a matter of ethnic pride, but the story of Los Angeles," she said.
Lincoln Heights, one of L.A.'s traditional Italian American neighborhoods, "was split in half" by the construction of the 5 Freeway shortly after Gatto's father's family moved there in the late 1940s. She said some Italian Americans look skeptically on the immigrants of today: "They'll say, 'We came over legally,' and I tell them it was different back then, and we need to listen to the immigrants of today."
I asked about the vandalism outside. Gatto stressed that she wasn't conflating the protests with the graffiti.
"We're immensely supportive of everyone's rights to free speech," she replied. "We're hoping people will just respect what's here and be more thoughtful of how it impacts us."
Sadly, vandalism has become fairly routine at the Italian American Museum.
People have repeatedly broken the vestibule windows. Someone once tried to set the building on fire. This past weekend, a woman entered a temporary exhibit about Italian American inventors, stripped naked and stole a plastic mouse. Workers have removed some of the graffiti from the "Day Without an Immigrant" protest, but some was written with a type of spray paint that requires a more extensive — and expensive — removal.
The pandemic eviscerated the Italian American Museum's finances, which have yet to rebound. Some board members lost their homes and businesses in the recent fires.
"Let's say we get damage of $10,000," Gatto said as we stood near a small replica of a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine, invented in the city of Paramount by Italian American Frank Zamboni. "Do you know how many kids' workshops that funds? We serve people who don't go to the Getty. They don't feel welcome at the Getty. At other places, $10,000 won't get you a napkin."
She offered a tired smile. "When we're fighting constant vandalism, it takes away from our resources to do the stuff that's more important."
I asked if she was going to seek criminal charges against whoever tagged up the museum on the day of the protest. Gatto immediately shook her head no.
"As an educator, I'd like to see this as an opportunity to educate. It's a scary time for a lot of people, and it's going to get harder and harder," she said. "Prosecution isn't the answer, but let's discuss what happens when you do deface property. It's a blemish to what you fight for. I love to see young people participate, but let's do that the right way."
We said our farewells, and I walked down the stairs back to Main Street. A man was urinating three doors down, in front of Sepulveda House.
I strolled around El Pueblo one final time before returning to the Old Plaza. Honks and yells were audible in the distance. Another evening of protests was launching.
Esteban Barrientos, a Guatemalan immigrant, was sitting on a bench, waiting for a friend to arrive at Union Station.
Read more: Column: Why waving the Mexican flag at immigration rallies isn't wrong
"It's not good," the 64-year-old said of the vandalism. "I'm not against the messages, but you have to give respect to history. I hope that they [students] learn."
Nearby was 17-year-old Janelle V., who marched in the protest I encountered earlier that day. The Orange County resident only gave her last initial because she had ditched a school field trip in favor of the protest. She said the experience was "empowering and gives me more motivation to join more."
I asked about the graffiti all around us. She looked at the Mexican flag in her hand.
"It's sad," she finally replied, "but that's what comes with protests."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australians Equally Distrust Both Trump and Xi, Survey Finds
Australians Equally Distrust Both Trump and Xi, Survey Finds

Bloomberg

time27 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Australians Equally Distrust Both Trump and Xi, Survey Finds

Australians are equally distrustful of both US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, according to a new survey, complicating Canberra's task of managing ties with its key security ally and biggest trading partner. A new survey released by the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney showed that 72% of respondents said they didn't trust Trump to act responsibly in global affairs, just edging out the 71% who said they didn't trust China's Xi. When asked whether Trump or Xi would be a better partner for Australia, the two leaders were tied at 45% apiece.

The Smithsonian faces an existential crisis. The world is watching.
The Smithsonian faces an existential crisis. The world is watching.

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Smithsonian faces an existential crisis. The world is watching.

When the National Portrait Gallery was created by an act of Congress in 1962, the authorizing legislation defined portraiture as 'painted or sculptured likenesses.' And when it referred to the future directors of that museum, which is part of the Smithsonian Institution, it was with exclusively male pronouns. 'His appointment and salary,' the text read, would be fixed by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Fourteen years later, Congress amended the original legislation to widen the definition of portraiture to include photographs and 'reproductions thereof made by any means or processes.' As the NPG built its collection and expanded its mission, it was clear that there were many Americans who would never have their images painted or sculpted — mainly Americans who weren't White, male and wealthy — yet were nonetheless essential to the story of America, its history and culture. Kim Sajet, who became the first woman to lead the NPG in 2013, was hired to continue what that amending legislation did in 1976. She expanded the definition of portraiture and widened the scope of people considered worthy of representation in the nation's portrait gallery. Visitors now encounter painted portraits, photographs, ink-jet prints, sculpture, videos, assemblage pieces, paper cutouts and videos. Women, people of color and those who identify as LGBT are more regularly seen in the museum's galleries. Last week, President Donald Trump attempted to fire Sajet, continuing an assault on the leadership of top cultural institutions that has led to the dismissal of Deborah Rutter, the first woman to lead the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; and Carla Hayden, the first woman to lead the Library of Congress. Trump offered no substantial reason for Sajet's dismissal, using only a variation on his all-purpose denunciation of leaders he doesn't like: She is, he said in a Truth Social posting, 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' When she was hired, the Smithsonian celebrated Sajet's broad cultural range and diverse roots as a Dutch citizen born in Nigeria, educated in Australia and with deep professional roots in U.S. cultural organizations. Efforts to caricature her tenure as partisan or obsessed with diversity or identity issues can't be squared with her track record of traditional programming and collection building, which included acquiring the oldest photograph of an American president (an 1843 daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams) and exhibitions such as the rock-solid 2023 survey of colonialism, '1898: U.S. Imperial Visions and Revisions.' It's not clear that Trump has the authority to dismiss Sajet, and a Smithsonian spokesman said 'we have no comment at this time' when asked whether she is still the museum's director. Despite receiving federal funds, the Smithsonian is independent of the executive branch, and its museum directors are hired by the Board of Regents. But Trump's effort to oust Sajet presents the Smithsonian with an existential crisis: If the president succeeds in removing a key leader who is not accused of any professional or personal misconduct, he will effectively gain control over the content and mission of the entire Smithsonian. This also presents a critical leadership test for the Smithsonian's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch III, who is negotiating potentially devastating budget cuts from Congress, including zero funding for the forthcoming National Museum of the American Latino. If Sajet's status as head of the NPG becomes a negotiating chit, then everything the Smithsonian does — including its commitment to telling the truth about history, science and art — will be negotiable. The Smithsonian has a long and sadly craven history of caving to critics, including making changes to exhibitions after pressure from activists and members of Congress. Former Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough censored an NPG exhibition of portraiture featuring LGBT people in 2010, after pressure from conservative Christian activists. Clough forced museum curators to remove a single video, by the gay artist and AIDS activist David Wojnarowicz, which actually made the exhibition more popular when it traveled to Brooklyn and Tacoma, Washington. The precedent for that intrusion on editorial independence had been established at least since 1995, when the National Air and Space Museum censored an exhibition about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb. The Enola Gay controversy, which centered on some veterans' opposition to an evenhanded curatorial discussion of why the bomb was dropped and whether it was necessary, damaged the institution, but it also helped foster widespread and lasting resistance to censorship and content meddling throughout the organization. But those examples were mere brush fires compared with the destruction that would follow a new precedent, the right of the president of the United States to dictate hiring and content. Trump's ongoing efforts to assert control over the performing arts, museum sector and the larger American historical narrative have been audacious and destructive. Subscriptions sales at the Kennedy Center are down some 36 percent from last year, and community arts and humanities groups around the country are suffering from the loss of small but essential grants from organizations including the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Unlike previous scuffles with Congress, which involved particular exhibitions and were limited to a few controversial subjects, Trump is using his anti-DEI agenda as a master key to exert transformative power over the Smithsonian. If successful, he won't stop with the removal of Sajet, who was hired because Smithsonian leaders and the nation at large were once committed to telling a richer, more inclusive story of the American people. The Smithsonian is currently seeking a new director for the American Art Museum and will need to find one for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, as well. If Sajet is removed, that will be a third major post to fill. What qualified, respected museum leader would take these jobs knowing that Trump has final say over exhibitions, hiring and publications? Throughout the past four months, people tracking the administration's attack on the federal arts and culture infrastructure have periodically wondered, is this the moment of truth? Will the latest executive order or social media post from the president determine the future and independence of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Smithsonian, the National Park Service, the Institute for Museum and Library Services? Is this the tipping point from mere chaos and destruction into genuine authoritarian control? On Monday, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will hold one of its four annual regularly scheduled meetings, and Sajet's future is almost certain to be one of the main subjects under debate. It will be tempting for the regents to attempt some kind of compromise, find some middle road that appeases the president and preserves the Smithsonian from further harm. But there are no good options, only worse ones. A direct confrontation between the Smithsonian and Trump would probably lead to a protracted battle in Congress and perhaps the courts. But compromise measures, such as reassigning Sajet to some other Smithsonian position, might only embolden Trump for further, even more destructive attacks. There is no middle road. Appeasement won't work. The fate of the Smithsonian is now in the hands of Bunch and the regents, and the precedent they set will reverberate throughout every institution in America that, like the Smithsonian, is dedicated to the 'increase and diffusion of knowledge.'

Trump wanted a military spectacle. Instead, he got a history lesson.
Trump wanted a military spectacle. Instead, he got a history lesson.

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump wanted a military spectacle. Instead, he got a history lesson.

The Army's 250th birthday parade was not the grand military spectacle that many anticipated, and for that Americans can breathe a momentary, measured sigh of relief. It was a family-friendly conclusion to a celebratory day, with events on the Mall and fireworks at the end. What had been billed as an overwhelming display of military might turned out to be a linear history lesson, from the early days of revolution to the age of robotic dogs and flying drones. A narrator made sense of it all over loudspeakers and for those watching the live stream on television, with a script that rarely strayed from the Army's disciplined sense of itself as a lethal fighting machine in the service of democracy and the Constitution. The tone was reminiscent of the wall texts and exhibits at the National Museum of the United States Army, which opened on the grounds of Fort Belvoir in November 2020, during one of the most dangerous moments in recent American history. Like Saturday's parade, the museum celebrates the Army's history, but it does so with the temperance and nuance of serious professional historians, and a well-crafted historical and cultural narrative that largely steers clear of propaganda. It opened in the waning days of President Donald Trump's first term, after he lost reelection, and only days after he fired his defense secretary, Mark T. Esper. There was, at the time, considerable anxiety that Trump might attempt to use the Army to sustain his false claims of election fraud. That Army, which has a keen sense of its own aesthetics, had been embroiled in Trump's efforts to politicize it earlier in his first administration. In June 2020, a photograph of members of the D.C. National Guard on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial went viral, during the unsettled days of national protests after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. That picture, of troops seemingly deployed and ready for combat, standing in an orderly phalanx on the steps of the memorial, recalled the horror of the 1970 Kent State shootings, when Ohio National Guard troops fired on unarmed student protesters, killing four of them. It also seemed to presage a new age of domestic militarism, with the U.S. Army loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump personally. The same anxiety preceded Saturday's parade, especially after a speech earlier in the week by Trump at Fort Bragg, during which uniformed troops booed mentions of former president Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and cheered Trump's partisan MAGA message. But on Saturday, at least, the Army stuck to its familiar themes of service, sacrifice and duty. The result was a display of civics, not power. The president was supposedly inspired to demand a military parade, an exceptionally rare event in recent U.S. history, after seeing a very different display on Bastille Day 2017, on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. Given Trump's admiration for strongman leaders in Russia and China, there was worry that the Army parade might hew to the authoritarian geometry of military spectacles in totalitarian countries, especially the absurdist mix of camp and menace favored by the regime in North Korea. But the soldiers who paraded past the presidential reviewing stand on Constitution Avenue walked with a loose-limbed gait, disciplined but not robotic, with individual soldiers integrated into the collective without losing their identity. Those riding by on tanks, trucks and other combat vehicles waved and smiled, engaging with an enthusiastic crowd. The announcer often sounded as if he were narrating a fashion show for machines rather than a military parade. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle: 'It is fast, it is tough, and it is lethal.' Parades always come with a message, which is why so many people were wary. When the American painter Childe Hassam painted a series of patriotic events, including a Fourth of July parade, before America's entry into World War I, he offered an innocent, exuberant vision of red, white and blue, all but overwhelming the individual marchers, as if flags, banners and bunting were sufficient to win a battle. But he was also positing an image of a unified America, during a period of considerable anxiety over mass immigration from European countries not deemed sufficiently Anglo-Saxon to fit a racist model of the country's emerging imperial identity. The impressionist blending of colors mimics the blurring of origins in the proverbial American melting pot. The last big U.S. military parade in Washington, held in 1991 after the Gulf War, wasn't just a welcome-home for the troops, but also an effort to allay the alienation of many Americans from their armed forces following the debacle in Vietnam. Since at least World War II, the Bastille Day review in Paris has been an even more complicated affair, a Gaullist effort to prioritize visions of orderly state power over leftist memories of modern France's birth in revolution and bloodletting. In Leni Riefenstahl's 1935 Nazi propaganda film, 'Triumph of the Will' — a terrifying compendium of parades and military spectacles — there is a scene in which Adolf Hitler walks through a vast empty space flanked by hundreds of troops. They have been reduced to the fascist ideal, mechanical dots on a relentless grid, remote and so distant from the leader to affirm the vast difference in their status: One man alone has agency, all the rest are part of the machine. Riefenstahl's image reminds us of a basic rule of thumb for analyzing a military parade: Look to the edges. Is the army of and among the people, or does it cut its own space, cleaving the throng, inhabiting its own power separate from civilian society? The U.S. Army has complicated edges; it is professional and thus apart from the civilian world, but it is also voluntary, and thus integrated into the fabric of American society. Heavy security on Saturday kept the people apart from the troops, but individual service members often seemed intent on bridging the distance, with waves and smiles. That offered a sharp contrast with the presence of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, where the governor insists that they are not wanted or needed, where the edges of their presence are sharp and dangerous, and could be cutting. This year marks not just the 250th anniversary of the Army's birth, but also the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, which was the all-time nadir of the military's reputation in the United States. The parade on Saturday could have done exceptional damage to a decades-long effort to climb out of that hole. The current president is extraordinarily good at creating situations that force unique message discipline on his critics. Thus, people who are deeply troubled by the unprecedented federal use of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles were invited to hate on an unnecessary and costly (up to $45 million estimated) but mostly benign Army celebration in Washington. But the Army proved even better at message discipline, keeping attention on its history, its service and its members. One early warning sign of a shift in the Army's allegiance will be a fraying of how it tells its own story: If it fires its historians — or attempts to coerce their compliance, as seems to be happening in other institutions, including the Smithsonian — there will be even more serious trouble ahead. But on Saturday, it kept that history in the foreground, and even the president looked bored during much of it, which isn't surprising. The Army made it about the country, not the man.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store