Some statues are better than others
The Internet has suddenly become full of self-styled statue enthusiasts and historical preservationists. Their specific focus of interest are statues in the public square glorifying Confederates who took up arms against the United States. The flurry of slippery slope, whatabout, and bothsides arguments is almost blinding in its intensity. They conjure up dire images of an Orwellian world where history is erased, forgotten, and repeated.
Taking these arguments at face value, good-natured people seeking a reasonable compromise say, “how about a museum?” This suggestion is mostly ignored. It’s ignored because the wailing about history is a pretext. We have a million books about the Civil War. The statue of a noble-looking Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in a public place of honor tells you nothing about the men or their times.
These statues are about marking territory. They are about demonstrating who is in control of the public square and promoting their values. These statues mostly cropped up in the Jim Crow South and during the height of the Civil Rights movement. That’s not a coincidence. The people in control were sending a message by venerating this very specific slice of American history; by venerating men whose only notable role in our history was committing treason in defense of slavery. That message will not be communicated if those statues are in a museum, surrounded by information and context that gives perspective to their place in history.
Does this mean we have to take down statues of George Washington? No. Because we still value his contributions to this country. Who is the “we” that gets to decide these things? That’s the real rub, and the real source of anxiety and concern. The “we” who are increasingly leaning toward tearing down monuments to treason are different than the “we” who decided to put them up in the first place. But, mostly the folks who were so powerful in the old “we” can’t say that out loud. So, we get a lot of hand-wringing about historical preservation.
This is exactly right (as are most of your analyses!). It’s the same reason people weren’t mollified when the Nativity display on Monument Circle was moved across the street to the Christ Church lawn: it was just as prominent, just as visible–but it was no longer an official government endorsement of Christianity, which was really what they wanted. It’s the same reason people want to erect religious displays on courthouse walls–to signal whose country this really is…
The “why not a museum?” people in this case are the “why not on your lawn or at Church” people in the Nativity case. They mean well and are a little befuddled when their reasonable suggestions falls on deaf ears. The problem with pretexts is that they make it difficult to identify solutions.
Bingo, Prof. Kennedy. Many years ago, I worked with someone who claimed he was going to chain himself to the Ten Commandments monument that was on county property and was about to be removed. I said to him, “If the laws of God are written on your heart, what does it matter if the monument is removed?” He had no answer. He did not chain himself to the monument, either. I don’t think he was all that concerned about the commandments, per se. Rather, he thought that removing the monument would cede power and influence to non-Christians.
The Courthouse in Tippecanoe County came to mind when I read this as well. It really is about demonstrating power – who is the majority and who isn’t. And my argument has been all along that plastic Jesus no more proves your Christianity than the open fish on your bumper. I also see each of these acts as a death throes moment – they know they’re losing, so they are desperate to mark the territory to make themselves feel less – lost.
Now, if we could only get folks to vote against the soft racists, so these people go away instead of just hiding behind their robes.
Another line of prefidity we hear is that the statues are just inanimate objects. If someone is troubled by them that it is their problem and they should just ignore the statute.
How about this? If a local “hero” raped your daughter or wife, and we erect a monument to him because he saved the town from the flood of 1998, you should just ignore the statute as an inanimate object.
Such a relief to read these thoughts on the subject, putting the whole mess in a clear perspective that removes the breast-beating and crocodile tears about “losing our heritage” when the heritage is an odious collection of “monuments to treason” (love that phrase!). For those who wish to equate Washington and Jefferson with Robert E. Lee, let’s not forget that Washington and Jefferson were busy building the country while Lee and his minions were trying to tear it apart. Instead of building statues to those guys, it’s better to put them under the monuments in the cemetery.