I believe in the important role hunting plays in conserving North America’s wild animals and wild places. Thisconservation model was created around the turn of the 20th century by big thinkers, among whom Teddy Roosevelt was arguably the most important.But removing a racist statue of this former presidentis good for the future of hunting.
I’m writing this because I’ve heard a lot of my friends in the hunting world questioning, mocking, or decrying the American Museum of Natural History’s decision last month to ofRoosevelt that’s stood on its steps since 1940. I’m not here to call any of you outbutto help you understand why your actions are racist—even if you don’t mean for them to be—and to urge you to do better.(I don’t mind calling outCam Edwards, though, since he’s the lying pawn of anti-hunting interests.)
This is an especially important message right now, not only because of thenational reckoning around systemic racism and institutional violence against Black people,but because the number of people who participate in hunting is collapsing, , and therefore Roosevelt’s most important legacy, too.
Here’s a quick history lesson for nonhunters: our country has benefitted enormously from something called the . Thismodel takes fees paid by hunters, as well as voluntary taxes we impose on ourselves, and uses thatmoney to protect habitats and fund the scientific management of wildlife populations. The public lands you hike and camp on, and the animals you enjoy seeing on them, are largely paid for by hunters. Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in developing and implementing this approachand has come to symbolize its success story. Butwithout participants paying into the system, it can’tcontinue to work.
Our country is in desperate need of more hunters, and we won’t be able to recruit them unless we make our worldless intimidating to more Americans—which is where we get to the statue in question.
Because the majority of hunters come from traditionally conservative political backgrounds, than the rest of this country. If you only consume right-leaning media, you may not be aware that the reason for the statue’s removal isn’t Teddy himselfbut ratherthe two otherfigures alongside him.
If you look at a full, uncropped photo of the statue, you can see Teddy riding a horse, dressed in outdoors garb from the period. Behind and below himare smaller figures depicting a Native American and an African. Bothappear to be tasked with carrying the president’s rifles.
It was not the intention of the artist to present a racist message. “The two figures at [Roosevelt’s] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races,” wrote sculptor James Earl Fraser .
But the purpose of art is to be considered; its meaning is derived both from the creatorand the viewer. Andpeople who have viewed the statue havenot always interpreted its message as friendly.
“You can see how these two figures have allegorical meanings relative to Roosevelt,”Philip Deloria, a professor of history at Harvard Universityand person of Dakota descent, .“They speak to Roosevelt as an American, as a person who happily goes as a dominating white figure to Africa, as a person who goes and takes advantage of the possibilities that [arise] by Indian land being dispossessed.”
Interpretations like Deloria’sled to calls for the statue to be removed. The museum itself has been evaluating the need to do so since at least 2017and last year dedicated an entire exhibit to the monument’s troubled history.
Removing the statue is not about “canceling” Roosevelt’s legacy, , but, rather,an effort to honor it.“The world does not need statues, relics of another age, that reflect neither the values of the person they intend to honor nor the values of equality and justice,” wroteTeddy’s great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, in supporting the removal. “The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.”
Prominent right-wing voices disagree. President Trump calledthe move “ridiculous,” while political commentator statedthat because he’s never been oppressed by the presence of a statue, it mustreason that removing this and others is .
Perhaps unintentionally, both Trump and Beck are making the point that symbols matter. The people we choose to publicly honor, and the way in which we do so, representthe values we’re trying to communicate about our society and culture. And this is a great illustration of the ways in which racism can be communicated, even when it wasnot the original intent. Rather than an assault on hunting’s legacy, it seems to me that the debate around this statue represents alearning opportunity.
“I don’t think any educator in New York City would describe Roosevelt as a racial unifier,” saidAndrew Ross, directorof the American studies programat New York University,. “In fact, quite the opposite.” He’s referencing Roosevelt’s promotion of racial-control theories, the erasure of Native American history, and imperialistic tendencies abroad.
Even if we weren’t aware before that , mixing important achievements for the United Stateswith harmful exploitation of Native Americansand hatefulopinions on racial superiority, we can, as a community and an industry, see that now. We can also see that the personalities, imagery, and context that we choose to represent us can unintentionally carry meanings that communicate exclusion, or even hate, depending on who receives them. It is possible to put out a racist messagewithout meaning to.
This isn’t an argument that the image or legacy of America’s 26th presidentshould be extirpated from the hunting world. It is an argument that there are important, powerful lessons being taught right now. And all we have to do to benefit from those lessons islisten. The very ways in which we can make hunting more appealing to a more diverse audience are being communicated to us by that audience. That doesn’t happen often.
I asked, two hunters from Mississippi, for their take on the statue saga in relation tothe hunting world. “Inever feellike anyone sees me as a Black man first. Everyone just sees us as fellow hunters,” Henry said. The couple emphasized that the hunting industryis exceptionally inclusive, with a welcoming sense of camaraderie—once you’re in it. Butthe Woodards also acknowledged thathunting hasa high barrier to entry, and strongpro-hunting messages are often absent outside of the industry. The Woodards are working to expand access to hunter education courses in city centers to include a more diverse audience. “People need to be able to see representations of hunting that look like them,”saidHenry.
In response to the Black Lives Matter movement, New York City the creation of the Racial Justice and Reconciliation Commission, whosemission is to tackleissues related to systemic racism.It will reviewother problematic public monumentsand workto replace them with more inclusive symbols that better portray the city’s diverse history, with the goal of a more inclusive future.
If nothing else, we should compare the environmental legacy we like toassociate with Roosevelt’s presidencyto the environmental legacy of our current leader, who has so loudly voiced his opposition tothe statue’sremoval. During his two terms as president, . In contrast, in the first three years of his only term, President Trump has already removed protections from35 million acres.
Symbols matter. If hunting is going to continue to live up to Roosevelt’s vision as the savior of North American wildlife populations, then hunting needs to find symbols that support that goal.