Blaize- Thanks for the clarification on the specifics of the park and the buildings. I think I should reiterate my point in light of this more accurate information that the defacer essentially just caused damage to a period building, one not directly connected (in the non-physical sense) to the work of the missionaries. Yes, the building may have housed individuals who were somehow related to the mission, but to stretch that out means that any building that has survived from the mission period is open to destruction because it may have had something to do with the work of the missions.

And as was previously pointed out in this string, we are all beneficiaries, both positive and negative, of the mission period in CA. So simply causing damage to a public building doesn't seem to me to do much more than prove that the actor just needed to let off some steam and chose to do it in a juvenile way. For instance, not that I condone graffiti, if the defacer had painted a mural depicting the native tribes of the Monterey Bay Area (Ohlone, Esselen, etc) I think a positive dialogue would have surfaced. Instead, by just scribbling phrases that appear to be based on high school bathroom graffiti he/she has shown the child-like qualities of their argument.

I have a hunch that the perpetrator is a UCSC student (and before you jump on me, I'm a slug alum myself) who doesn't/didn't realize the history of the facility and the community they were damaging, but wanted to make a point nonetheless. I assume this mostly because people who live in a community and have roots in that community tend to be less likely to then damage a community-owned asset. However, someone who is a transient (albeit long-term and on a hill, as opposed to on Pacific Ave) may not have the same respect for the community that is hosting them, or the assets that belong to that community.

I'm sure I'll be called nazi, catholic murderer sympathizer, etc. I just think that messages can be rendered impotent by the actions of their messangers, as in this case.