On tearing down statues

[hudebnik]

Like most civilized Americans, I'm outraged and saddened by the violence in Charlottesville last weekend, and by the President's bizarre insistence on treating heavily-armed, overtly and proudly racist right-wing protesters waving Nazi flags as morally equivalent to the mostly unarmed left-wing counter-protesters who were the victims of a deadly automotive assault. And today, the President doubled down on his original tone-deaf statement, saying "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts" (as though facts had ever stopped him before).

However, much as it pains me to say it, he has a point when he says "This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next?"

Let's compare Robert E. Lee with George Washington. Both lived in Virginia. Both owned slaves. Both were considered by their contemporaries to be men of great personal honor. Both were talented generals who led their poorly-trained, poorly-supplied armies to surprising victories. Both committed treason by lending their military talents to an armed rebellion by a region that wanted to declare itself an independent nation. But Robert E. Lee lost, and George Washington won. Is that, by itself, sufficient reason to put up statues of one, and tear down statues of the other?

Of course not: people want to tear down statues of Confederate generals because they fought to defend slavery.

I'm not a Civil War historian, and I have no idea how strong a part slavery played in Lee's thought process when he decided to work for the Confederacy rather than the Union (I gather both courted him at the start of the war). In the murky depths of my memory is a possibly-apocryphal quote from Lee to the effect that "a country that can't stay together without war doesn't deserve to stay together". For that matter, I don't know whether Washington was thinking about slavery when he took his job leading the Continental Army. At any rate, let's suppose hypothetically that historians were to find solid evidence that defending slavery was not a significant part of Lee's reasoning, or even that he opposed slavery but chose the Confederacy for other reasons. Would that suddenly make Robert E. Lee worthy of statues again? I doubt it: anything that memorializes the Confederacy and its leaders would still be viewed as a reminder of black slavery and white domination, and a rallying point for people who would prefer to return to that world.

But we must remember black slavery and white domination, or be condemned to repeat them. I see tearing down statues as rewriting history. The fact is, these people were important historical figures, and were at one point considered great enough to put up a statue of. If our opinions of their greatness have changed, let's discuss the new context and new information that have led us to that change of mind. Even a statue of Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler serves to remind us that they ruled their respective countries for years, during which they did despicable things (and presumably some good things); removing their statues makes it easier to forget both their rule and their despicable acts. Sure, move the statue to a site not of honor but of historical context -- in fact, I think that's what Charlottesville was trying to do with Lee -- but don't just erase it.

(For those readers in the SCA, I'm also bothered when the list of Kings of the East is read aloud omitting Angus. The historical fact is that he served as King twice, and his subsequent conviction for murder doesn't change that.)

For a contrary point of view, see Talking Points Memo.

Comments

And Teddy Roosevelt?

[darklilli]

And what do we do with this one?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest

Re: And Teddy Roosevelt?

[hudebnik]

Teddy Roosevelt, like most Presidents, did some great things (e.g. creating the National Park System) and some despicable things. (One could avoid this the way President Harrison did....) If we tear down statues of anybody who's done despicable things, the statue industry will go out of business overnight. OTOH, statues of people who are primarily known for one despicable thing....

A statue of T.R. on horseback, center stage, flanked and supported by a generic African and a generic Native American, certainly sends a noxious message of white supremacy, but a good argument could be made for defending other statues of T.R. that aren't so explicitly racist.

[siderea]

I see tearing down statues as rewriting history.

Is putting monuments in museums generally rewriting history?

The Stele of Seikilos is in the National Museum of Denmark. Is that a problem?

[hudebnik]

One could argue that there's a difference between moving a statue "belonging to your own culture" from a public square into a nearby museum and moving an icon stolen from a foreign culture thousands of miles away into your own museum. However, cultures don't have clear dividing lines, so any such argument will inevitably be fuzzy and contentious.

In short, I don't have a good answer :-)

[siderea]

o_O

Apparently I was insufficiently clear. Do you feel that the Stele of Seikilos being in a museum is "rewriting history"?

[minstrlmummr]

The thing that persuaded me that a number of statues need to come down was reading about their first appearances. Many turned out to have been strategically placed in Southern communities of color during the first half of the 20th Century by supporters of Jim Crow laws.

Why the heck were Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, whose military action were centered in acts of treaseon and secession, honored in a collection of busts of "Great AMERICANS" (as opposed to Confederates) at a BRONX college?

I would prefer to see such statues moved and annotated with context, into history museums rather than being destroyed. I don't count memorials to the war dead in the same category and I believe they ought to be left alone.

But I can't insist that history needs to slap oppressed people in the face every day, now that people have mentioned that impact.

[hudebnik]

Right: one can't really discuss the disposition of these statues without recognizing that, to a significant fraction of the population, their presence in a place of public honor is a daily reminder that You Don't Belong Here. In case getting stopped by police every week or so wasn't sufficient reminder....

[cellio]

One factor to me is that statues serve multiple purposes, and their placement decides which purposes will dominate. Statues in museums educate; sometimes statues in public squares are shrines. Sometimes we need fewer shrines and more education.

[hudebnik]

Quite true. In fact, MOST statues of military leaders (whether they won or lost) would probably be better in a museum than in a shrine.