Burlington officials say someone literally defaced the controversial “Everyone Loves a Parade!” mural this week.
Police Chief Brandon del Pozo said the vandal targeted white people, including Samuel de Champlain and Ethan Allen, depicted leading the parade. A Native American figure was unscathed, according to del Pozo.
“An unknown person applied a solvent to the faces of the people in the front of the mural,” del Pozo said, adding that the chemicals “melted the paint and the finish down to the wood.”
Once the faces were removed from the 124-foot-long mural, del Pozo said, the vandal spray painted pink dollar signs in their places. It marked the second time the mural had been recently vandalized.
“About two weeks ago … somebody spray painted ‘colonizers’ across the mural,” del Pozo said, “but it was over the laminate, so it could be removed.”
No arrests or citations have been made in either case, del Pozo said. While he wouldn’t share specifics about the investigation, the chief noted that there are security cameras in the alley where the mural is located.
The artwork has been controversial in Burlington because it predominantly represents Caucasian people. It was intended to commemorate Samuel de Champlain’s “discovery” of Lake Champlain and some of the people who shaped Vermont’s history over the subsequent 400 years. Critics say the massive piece of public art fails to represent the legacy of Native Americans in the state.
In response to the criticism, the Burlington City Council voted in October to remove the mural by 2022.
Albert Petrarca, a vociferous critic of the mural, has called the piece “white supremacist” art. Petrarca criticized city officials for not immediately removing the piece, which lines Leahy Way between Church Street and a parking garage.
In an email sent after this week’s vandalism was discovered, Petrarca called the act “the people’s response to the council’s 8-3 racist vote to keep it up until 2022.” He said in a later email to Seven Days that he doesn’t know who committed the crime.
Petrarca has resorted to vandalism in the past to express his disgust with the mural. He was cited for unlawful mischief in October 2017 after he spray painted “Off the Wall” on an identification plaque next to the mural. In that case, Petrarca himself called the police and confessed to the vandalism.
Because of the extensive damage caused by this week’s defacement, del Pozo said those responsible may face felony charges.
“Vandalism in excess of $1,000 of someone else’s property is a felony,” del Pozo said.
In a written statement, Mayor Miro Weinberger condemned the stunt and said it disregarded the public process that led to the council’s recent vote to remove the mural.
“By acting unilaterally and in contradiction of the recent Council decision, the vandal(s) has disrespected those engaged community members and the democratic rule of law,” Weinberger wrote.
“When arrests are made,” he added, “we will seek full prosecution of the perpetrators.”
As of Friday morning, the damaged section of the mural was covered with a tarp.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Del Pozo declared that this is not a simple act of vandalism, rather it’s a crime perpetrated against white men, and, given the suspicious circumstances, most likely by white men. In this context Del Pozo would be wise to carefully search the mural’s overwhelmingly white population for Yorkers in hiding, as their great enmity towards Ethan Allen was an open secret.
This crude street crime has all the classic Yorker earmarks, and the painted perps could have readily slunk eastward from their original panel to hide in plain view outside of their widely accepted historical context.
Personally, Id check the full store frontal Leunigs panel for crafty Yorkers attempting to blend in with the suspiciously large waitstaff. Or mebbe wrangle a VIP pass and head upstairs, where the scofflaws could be casually mingling at the afterparty with Phish and their entourage.
Mapplethorpe??? more like Pawnee, Indiana.
I am reminded of the Robert Mapplethorpe photography exhibit In the late 80’s when some of his photography was to be hung in an exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery and all the brouhaha that resulted with the question about government funds or public funds being used to fund ‘art’ some found objectionable, maybe even pornographic. A museum director who held an exhibition of Mapplethorpe’s work was even tried for obscenity but eventually found not guilty. This began a national conversation about whether tax dollars should be used to fund art and who decides what is art, what is obscene or offensive and if art is free speech, is it a violation of the Fifth Amendment to revoke funding, or in the case of this mural, order its removal? Now, 30 years later, the conversation hits Vermont where some find a mural objectionable here in our own city. And instead of using it as a teaching moment about art, it’s nature to influence and make a public statement, to inflame, or about funding for art, an artists worth or lifetime of work, or our own reactions to something we find distasteful, it’s the same reaction as those conservative voices who objected to Mapplethorpe’s work and forced the exhibits cancellation. I suggest Burlington City Arts purchase the mural and install it in a permanent installation where this question can be pondered over for generations more to answer, as it is clear Burlingtonians are just as confused about one of the purposes of art and the ramifications of the Fifth Amendment.
Are you referring to crazy old Albert Petrarca? Why isnt it appropriate for 7D to include him in his story about vandalism of this piece of property? Hes already confessed to one act of vandalism on this property, and has publicly stated that this most recent act was justified as the *peoples response* (not true, btw, just old white hippies response). The article doesnt imply that he committed this most recent act, but that he publicly approved of it. He is totally a part of this story. In fact, he insists on wanting the spotlight.
Wow, Seven Days, you singled out a person by name, insinuating maybe he did because he wrote you an email expressing his opinion about it? Holy targeting, tar & feathering, Batman! Wow, I’m coming to a slow boil as it sinks in….
It could’ve been vandalized *better*…
Lea,
Nope, you are completely wrong. And frankly trying to imply some “harm” is caused by a mural, flag, slogan, bumper sticker, lapel pin, or other symbol just to amp up the emotion and try to overwhelm reason is reprehensible. Some people in this world have to deal with actual harm, stop cheapening their struggles for your ideological ends.