
Case Study
Monumental Crossroads

1. The System Before
It Wasn't a Debate.
It Was a Shouting Match.
In 2017, the American conversation around Confederate monuments was a feedback loop of outrage. The system was perfectly designed to generate conflict, not clarity. Trapped in a false binary of "erase history" versus "honor heritage," the media focused on the spectacle of protest, leaving the deeper questions unasked. The most important of which was: "And then what?"
2. The False Belief
I Went to America to Find a Dutch Story. I Was Wrong.
My initial hypothesis was flawed. Sparked by a heated debate over a Blackface character in the Netherlands, I arrived in New Orleans assuming I was observing an exotic version of a familiar problem. I came to compare. It was an expensive belief that cost me my initial plan, but the truth it revealed was worth the price. By following my curiosity, I was forced to demolish my own assumptions.
3. The Ecstatic Truth
They Didn't Need an American.
They Needed an Outsider.
The story wasn't about statues. It was about the competing, deeply held myths of identity, memory, and trauma. I realized my unique position was not a liability, but my single greatest asset. I was, as Professor W. Fitzhugh Brundage of UNC-Chapel Hill would later write, "an outsider... generous to all of the subjects," able to see the whole system without being captured by it.
"Like Gunnar Myrdal ninety years ago, it takes a Dutch filmmaker to ask critical questions about Americans and racism." Doug Thompson, Professor of History and Southern Studies, Mercer University
