Controversial Statue in Times Square

For years, we’ve been warned about the damaging stereotypes surrounding the image of an angry black woman. Imagine my surprise, then, upon discovering a 12-foot bronze statue in Times Square depicting such a figure.

My immediate reaction? “Did white supremacists commission this?”

Surprisingly, the answer is no. However, this statue illustrates how societal perceptions can morph into the very stereotypes that are often decried when race, gender, or sexuality becomes a person’s defining identity.

Titled “Grounded to the Star,” the artwork by Thomas J. Price features a robust black woman with braided hair, expressing, “You’re working on my last nerve.”

One might wonder, why install a statue that portrays a frustrated black woman in such a prominent location? Are there no notable black women we could celebrate instead—notable figures like Condoleezza Rice or Simone Biles, perhaps?

This statue is meant to symbolize all black women. Yet, if that’s the case, why does she have such a glum expression? Is this not reinforcing the dangerous stereotypes we claim to reject?

Michelle Obama might shed some light on this dilemma. The former First Lady recently weighed in on the topic of black women’s anger.

She pointedly remarked that this stereotype is imposed on black women, as if anger is an inherent trait. Ironically, she noted that she often feels “lighter” in demeanor compared to some of her white friends.

The deeper question then becomes, why present black women in this light? Mrs. Obama suggests—I think—that it’s complicated. In fact, she mentioned feeling either more or less angry than her white counterparts.

How are viewers expected to interpret this statue? For black women, it may resonate as a reflection of their pain and frustration. For others, it likely serves as a reminder of the complicity in that suffering.

There’s a history of marginalized groups reclaiming derogatory terms as acts of defiance, as seen with the LGBTQ+ community embracing the term “queer.” Yet, the intention here seems less about dismantling stereotypes and more about inflaming them.

If a child were to ask, “Why is she so upset?” the answer could be simply, “Because she’s a black woman.” It sounds offensive, doesn’t it? Yet that’s the narrative being thrust upon us with this contentious piece of art.

In 2022, the Museum of Natural History took down a statue of Theodore Roosevelt due to the way it represented racial dynamics—portraying a black man and a Native American in subservient roles next to the former president.

In the end, this sculpture visually embodies a tightly wound contradiction. When race or gender becomes someone’s sole identity, it inadvertently reinforces the very stereotypes claimed to be rejected.

The figures depicted alongside Roosevelt were his guides, poised yet expressionless. Meanwhile, the black woman in this new statue appears perpetually angry, which somehow has been accepted as a celebration of her identity.

Ultimately, what does this sculpture intend to convey? Public art usually aims to celebrate beauty and history, yet it can also serve as a reminder of suffering. Great works like Picasso’s “Guernica” portray deep anguish, but this piece lacks the context to belong amidst the thriving energy of Times Square.

We must remember that Times Square is typically a space for entertainment and joy, where many overlook the complexities surrounding race and the anger often projected onto black women.

This intense focus on race and stereotypes has, over two decades, failed to improve relations; if anything, it has exacerbated tensions.

I’m not one to demand the statue’s removal. But if we insist on having a depiction of an angry black woman, can we at least reconsider the loss of Teddy Roosevelt’s statue?