Yesterday I began to unravel the tangled threads that are contributing to a pressing question on the minds of our nation--the question of what to do about the Confederate statues. I laid some vital foundations in yesterday’s post for what I am about to discuss in this one, so if you haven’t yet read Part 1, please do so before continuing on...
Reactions to the statue part of the issue seem to be all over the map, both figuratively and literally. And as someone who both denounces racism and advocates for the study of history, it’s been a difficult one for me to untangle. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but in working through this, I’ve been asking these questions:
1. Do statues of Confederate generals offend African-Americans?
For some, yes; for others, no.
2. Should statues of Confederate generals offend African-Americans?
I realize many will think I have no right to answer this question simply because I am not African-American. I also realize I cannot inherently understand the gut, emotional reaction that African-Americans who are, in fact, offended by Confederate statues have. But I do think it is possible to set emotion aside and focus on reason, at least for a time, so it’s reason to which I hope to appeal.
The general rationale that seems to be given for why Confederate statues should be removed is that they are offensive and that they are offensive because the men depicted owned slaves, fought for slavery, or were racist. I think we can agree that racism is wrong and offensive. So to answer this question, we must ask another question:
3. Should statues of Confederate generals be equated with racism?
This is where I’ve had the most trouble, because it’s clear that some of the men immortalized in these statues were racist. I’ve also heard claims that the purpose of erecting these statues was racist, pointing to the time period in which they were created. I haven’t had the time to research the circumstances surrounding the statues’ creation, so I can’t yet speak to whether or not there is any historical evidence for or against that claim. I do know that the mere correlation of the statues’ being set up during the Jim Crow era does not by itself indicate causation (i.e. that the statues were intentionally placed to intimidate African-Americans because they were erected during an era of racist public policies).
That being said, if there is historical evidence to show that the statues were set up for the express purpose of intimidating blacks, I think that would provide the best case for removing them. But even that is not an ironclad case because something can be redeemed out of its intent and be given a new purpose (more on that later).
But let’s separate intent from content for a moment and focus on the latter. Is the depiction of a Confederate general inherently racist? If a history textbook has a photo of Robert E. Lee in its chapter on the Civil War, is the textbook de facto racist? I would hope we can agree the answer is no.
But a statue is different, some would argue; it’s not just depicting a person; it’s lifting him up to a place of honor. True. But what is being honored in the case of Confederate statues? Is it slavery? Is it racism? Or is it something else? Once again, we arrive back at intent.
For the sake of the argument, let’s say that the intent of the people who erected the Confederate monuments was to exalt slavery and/or white supremacy. Does that mean that this particular purpose has to be indelibly tied to the statue? Or is it possible for a society 100 years removed from the statues’ formation to collectively choose to use them for a different purpose?
For all the sins of those generals who were racists and who wrongly enslaved their fellow human beings, there are honorable traits in their character as well, such as love of family, love of home, a desire to protect their land and loved ones from invading armies, and yes, in many cases, even love for God. The point is that being able to recognize both a man’s flaws and his virtues helps us not only to have a more accurate view of him but also to evaluate our own lives and see where our vices may be so we may guard against and repent of them. There is nothing but benefit in receiving somber reminders that those who do tremendous good are also capable of harboring tremendous evil in their hearts, and vice versa.
Reactions to the statue part of the issue seem to be all over the map, both figuratively and literally. And as someone who both denounces racism and advocates for the study of history, it’s been a difficult one for me to untangle. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but in working through this, I’ve been asking these questions:
1. Do statues of Confederate generals offend African-Americans?
For some, yes; for others, no.
2. Should statues of Confederate generals offend African-Americans?
I realize many will think I have no right to answer this question simply because I am not African-American. I also realize I cannot inherently understand the gut, emotional reaction that African-Americans who are, in fact, offended by Confederate statues have. But I do think it is possible to set emotion aside and focus on reason, at least for a time, so it’s reason to which I hope to appeal.
The general rationale that seems to be given for why Confederate statues should be removed is that they are offensive and that they are offensive because the men depicted owned slaves, fought for slavery, or were racist. I think we can agree that racism is wrong and offensive. So to answer this question, we must ask another question:
3. Should statues of Confederate generals be equated with racism?
This is where I’ve had the most trouble, because it’s clear that some of the men immortalized in these statues were racist. I’ve also heard claims that the purpose of erecting these statues was racist, pointing to the time period in which they were created. I haven’t had the time to research the circumstances surrounding the statues’ creation, so I can’t yet speak to whether or not there is any historical evidence for or against that claim. I do know that the mere correlation of the statues’ being set up during the Jim Crow era does not by itself indicate causation (i.e. that the statues were intentionally placed to intimidate African-Americans because they were erected during an era of racist public policies).
That being said, if there is historical evidence to show that the statues were set up for the express purpose of intimidating blacks, I think that would provide the best case for removing them. But even that is not an ironclad case because something can be redeemed out of its intent and be given a new purpose (more on that later).
But let’s separate intent from content for a moment and focus on the latter. Is the depiction of a Confederate general inherently racist? If a history textbook has a photo of Robert E. Lee in its chapter on the Civil War, is the textbook de facto racist? I would hope we can agree the answer is no.
But a statue is different, some would argue; it’s not just depicting a person; it’s lifting him up to a place of honor. True. But what is being honored in the case of Confederate statues? Is it slavery? Is it racism? Or is it something else? Once again, we arrive back at intent.
For the sake of the argument, let’s say that the intent of the people who erected the Confederate monuments was to exalt slavery and/or white supremacy. Does that mean that this particular purpose has to be indelibly tied to the statue? Or is it possible for a society 100 years removed from the statues’ formation to collectively choose to use them for a different purpose?
For all the sins of those generals who were racists and who wrongly enslaved their fellow human beings, there are honorable traits in their character as well, such as love of family, love of home, a desire to protect their land and loved ones from invading armies, and yes, in many cases, even love for God. The point is that being able to recognize both a man’s flaws and his virtues helps us not only to have a more accurate view of him but also to evaluate our own lives and see where our vices may be so we may guard against and repent of them. There is nothing but benefit in receiving somber reminders that those who do tremendous good are also capable of harboring tremendous evil in their hearts, and vice versa.
That’s
why I think the best solution I have heard proposed for this statue issue is
not to remove them but rather to add to them--to add plaques that explain the
complexity of a person’s life, that specifically identify and honor the good
and clearly, explicitly denounce the bad. By doing so, we target the true
enemies (racism and white supremacy) by showing in our public parks and squares
that they are wrong and condemned instead of targeting the totality of a
person’s legacy and taking away reminders not only of the good but also of the
very evil we are trying to eradicate.
Wiping
out all things that might bring racism to mind does nothing to prevent racism,
and in fact, I would argue, serves to create an environment more conducive to
breeding racism because it fails to openly address the evil and paint it as
such. I think by adding to these monuments, we have a tremendous opportunity to
take what may or may not have been intended for evil but what is clearly
associated with evil in the minds of many and actually to use them for good--a
good that can benefit every member of our society by causing us all to reflect
honestly on the complexity of the past and decide what we want our present and
future to be characterized by.
In
summary, racism is a sin. There is no scenario in which it is acceptable, and
it must be explicitly denounced. The Civil War was complex. The claim that it
had nothing to do with slavery is false, but so is the claim that it was
entirely about slavery. Not all Southerners were racist; not all Northerners
were abolitionists. As usual, the truth is more complicated than that.
And
finally, we must avoid condemning an entire era or group of people for one vice
instead of condemning the vice. We need to be precise in identifying and
targeting the evil. Broad generalizations are counterproductive.
No comments:
Post a Comment