How might Williams go about \u201ccontextualizing\u201d\u009d the Haystack Monument?<\/p>\n
The monument\u2019s bicentennial celebration in 2006 provides clues. The weekend events included twilight vespers, panel discussions on the meaning of mission work today, and Sunday worship services. But the event also featured a critical reflection in which Prof. Denise Buell argued that Christian missionary work is \u201ca justification\u201d\u009d for violent forms of cultural imperialism.<\/p>\n
All of this reflects what Glenn Shuck, a scholar who taught courses on the history of Christianity at Williams for over a decade, calls the college\u2019s \u201cironic relationship\u201d\u009d with the monument: It is a memorial to something important that happened on campus\u201d\u201dbut not something of which the college\u2019s faculty is necessarily proud. According to Mr. Shuck, many Williams faculty members regard efforts to translate the Bible into other languages to spread Christianity as inherently racist and imperialist, a view he does not share.<\/p>\n
Despite the recent media tempest about the Haystack Monument, the statue seems relatively uncontroversial among students. I spoke with about 15 students walking by the monument this week, and none knew what it represented. Once told, not one took offense.<\/p>\n