The confederate monuments are perhaps one of the greatest struggles between the right and the left today. Their installations across the South spark unanswerable questions about what the Confederacy stood for and how we should preserve history while still perpetuating a politically correct narrative. In "The Fight Over Virginia's Confederate Monuments," Benjamin Wallace-Wells examines the most vitriolic aspect of this controversy and the violence that took place in Charlottesville as a result of extremely partisan ideology. This article is a lengthy piece, and the information provided raises many questions regarding the role of monuments, especially Confederate ones. For instance, are confederate monuments, as they are now, important to and effective in remembering our history? Furthermore, how should we deal with these monuments? Should we change them, take them down, preserve them in a museum? Lastly, how has the use of the monuments as a rallying cry for white supremacists affected the discourse about their removal? These questions were not answered by the second article that I read, "States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments;" however, I did learn that certain lawmakers and individuals had made up their minds about the nature of confederate monuments. Further, what shall be done of these monuments were not up to the people but to those in power. Which raises more questions about who owns monuments and makes decisions about monuments. If monuments can be considered public art, why are the people unable to have a prominent say in the fate of these monuments?
In my opinion, confederate monuments, as they are now, are not the most effective way to remember our history. They idolize confederate generals and neglect to include and showcase the horrors that these individuals committed against slaves. There are so many better ways to remember our history besides quite literally elevating Robert E. Lee on a podium, on a horse, in a heroic pose in the most beautiful road in Richmond. Robert E. Lee is not a hero. He fought to keep hundreds of thousands of people in bondage simply because of their skin tone. Maybe he may not have supported slavery personally, and maybe he was fighting for Virginia, but that doesn't erase the fact that, if he had won, then slavery would have persisted in America. I think that the statue should not be destroyed, as it does represent history in a sense. However, I think that it should be taken off of its pedestal at the very least. I quite liked the idea of surrounding it with panes of glass with the testimony of Lee's former slaves (Wells, pg. 6). In addition, in regards to my third question about white supremacists, I think that white supremacists have driven this argument to its most extreme. Previously, it was about preserving southern "heritage" vs. not erasing the horrors of slavery from the Confederacy. Now, on the other hand, this fight is about racism by white people vs. absolutely everyone else. More people than ever are heated up about this, in part because white supremacists are involved. Practically any non-racist, person of color, and immigrant has a bone to pick with white supremacists. The involvement of this group has diluted the argument and caused it to become more violent than ever. In response to my last question, I believe that the people should decide what happens to these monuments. State preservation laws are ridiculous. The people in office enforcing these laws are not properly representing their constituents which undermines a representative democracy. If the community where a confederate statue is wants the confederate statue gone, the confederate statue should be removed. The readings are quite similar in their cut and dry presentation of the facts. They provide numerous perspectives from each side of the argument and reveal the reasoning behind those who either support or despise these monuments. The writing shows that the journalists have an implicit bias against the monuments. For example, in "States Are Using...", the author describes the removal of confederate statues as a "national reckoning" (pg. 1). The use of the term reckoning inspires the image of redemption. "The Fight Over Virginia's..." is much less biased and, therefore, has more reliable information. The only problem I had with Wells' article was the fact that a lot of the images included were not relevant to the article at all. Maybe this was a formatting error, but it distracted from what he was trying to say and present to the audience.
4 Comments
Molly Goodman
1/10/2019 06:59:51 am
Your questions are really insightful, especially the one about monuments being a rallying cry for white supremacists.
Reply
Max
1/10/2019 10:16:05 am
I too liked the idea of adding context to Lee's statue. But I disagree that white supremacists have radicalized and heightened this controversy into "white supremacists versus everyone else". Being from Hanover County, I am familiar with plenty of gun-toting, stars and bars-flying residents who support the monuments because it harkens a traditional way of life and culture for them. It's important to remember that not 100% of the statue supporters are klansmen - there are good people with good intentions. This could go back a discussion of if these monuments are related to race or not. For many people, they do, and for some, they don't. White supremacists using the monuments as a rallying point certainly hasn't done good things to non-racist pro-monument argument. Even if these statues were built in the Jim Crow era and in the context of racial oppression, that doesn't mean that racial oppression is what it means to everyone. I agree that the monuments need to come down, need context, and need to be in a museum. But it's important to respect the full complexity of the controversy and the backgrounds of each of the different groups who have a stake in it.
Reply
Eileen
1/10/2019 03:07:25 pm
Your made a really great point by saying that the monuments, "are not the most effective way to remember our history." Going by the original definition of monument - a lasting evidence, reminder, or example of someone or something notable or great - may have been the original purpose of the confederate statutes, but it is clear that they are no longer that to many people. Even heritage is not quite the right term for them. I would be interested in the ancestry of the young supremacists, to see whether they have a legitimate connection to confederate generals or are just rallying around them as racists. Addressing your question on the public nature of these monuments, I think it would be prudent to not, as many states are doing, rely on bigoted preservation laws, but seek the public's opinion. The whole situation has become too wrapped up in politics and the interests of the corrupt, and needs to be settled soon, by democracy, and without further tragedies.
Reply
Renny McFadin
1/10/2019 07:47:43 pm
I found your stance on the idolization of Confederate generals particularly interesting. It was something that wasn’t brought up in my own analysis- the thought of literally removing them from their pedastols is quite intriguing. I think symbolically, it’s a fantastic idea (and it may offend the contemporary Confederates a little less), as well as artistically, but again, i bring up the legality of it My analysis was more focused on the legal hardhsips that are brought by attempting to alter these monuments, and attemping something like taking these monuments off of their podium would be extremely difficult to realize fully. Of course I’m going to still fight for the removal of these awful statues- honoring white men who were not only racist but not part of Virginia’s current idealogy anymore? No thanks.- but I do think that it’s important to understand the difficulties that come with such an extravagant task such as this.
Reply
Leave a Reply.author.jacqueline. she/her. senior. virginia, usa. art v. archives.
March 2020
categories.
All
|