Share This Article
“Every time we go by these (Tercentenary) signs…our heart hurts, and we think about what happened to us. So, are these signs, OK? Absolutely not. Should these signs be revamped? Absolutely not. They are false history. They are a grim reminder of the assimilation and colonization that was set forth in laws (against Indigenous people). They need to come down. Take them down.”
So said Nipmuc citizen Andre Strongbearheart Gaines, Jr., a panelist at the 2023 Athina Education-sponsored event – “The Signs Are All Around Us: A Community Forum on History, Memory, and Roadside Markers” (below).
The impetus for this forum was the 2022 Sudbury Clergy Association’s letter (below) to Sudbury’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission, which expressed concern about the representation of First Peoples in public markers in Sudbury. Wayland’s Clergy Association had expressed the same concern and co-sponsored the 2021 Panel Discussion: “The Public History of King Philip’s War with Three Indigenous Scholars” (below).
Commemorative markers, statutes, and monuments have been used to frame and perpetuate cultural narratives often shaped by prejudices and political motives. Confederate memorials promoting the false “Lost Cause” narrative are an example.
Although the five Sudbury Tercentenary markers may be characterized as “historical artifacts,” they convey and perpetuate a discriminatory cultural message about Indigenous people. Because of their problematic messaging, these signs differ from other historic resources, like residences and cemeteries.
The 1930 Tercentenary Commission was clear about the purpose of erecting these markers. This Commission, comprised of prominent white men mostly of Puritan heritage, acknowledged that the markers commemorate “our” history—the history of Massachusetts Bay Colony Euro-American colonizers. The text on the markers reflects the colonizers’ perspective and biases against Indigenous people.
The continuing display of Tercentenary markers in Sudbury should be considered not through the lens of them being “historical” but through an ethical lens of discrimination because of the present-day ongoing injustice, harm, and the negative impact these signs have on Indigenous communities and people. Yale historian Ned Blackhawk’s recent book, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History, delves deeply into the history of the Native Northeast and British North America, unpacking the prejudiced views of European colonizers against Indigenous peoples like the Nipmuc – prejudices that are represented in the text, context, and choice of topics of the Tercentenary markers. Not only are individual Tercentenary markers offensive, but so are the purpose and context of the Tercentenary marker program.
The Massachusetts Legislature has proposed establishing a state advisory council to redesign the State seal, which currently depicts a dismembered colonist’s arm holding a sword over the head of an Indigenous man. The seal is displayed on all Tercentenary markers. 2023 Sudbury Town Meeting supported changing the state seal.
After having promoted the use of Community Preservation Act funds by local communities to restore Tercenteneray markers, the CPA Coalition has modified its stance to now urge “communities to make careful deliberation as to whether preservation efforts and public display of specific Tercentenary signs would perpetuate harmful, misleading, or prejudiced perspectives of historic events.”
The prime focus and reason to remove these signs from Sudbury’s roadways should be the injustice and discrimination the markers represent and the harm they continue to inflict. MassDOT’s maintenance role or how Sudbury’s local history should be publicly presented should not sidetrack Sudbury from acting.
While Sudbury has no say in what other municipalities do or what MassDOT does, the Sudbury Select Board can and should approve the removal of the markers located in Sudbury, as Concord has done. Concord’s markers were removed earlier this year.
In the Summer 2022 Massachusetts Journal of History article (here), “Marked Territory: Rethinking Massachusetts Roadside Histories,” Emma Boast asks the question – “What if we were to see these physical objects not as (historical) “assets” to be saved and preserved but as opportunities to question ourselves, our messages, and our intentions?”
Sudbury is presented with an opportunity. As a town, we can demonstrate our support of the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, not with words but with acts by removing the Tercentenary markers. If not, then what does that say about Sudbury’s values and intentions? Is keeping historical artifacts along our roadsides more important than removing the discriminatory messages they carry? Will Sudbury hear and act upon Mr. Gaine’s words to “take them down”?
Diana E. Warren, 10th-generation descendant of Sudbury’s European Colonizers and past Sudbury Historical Commission Vice Chair.