My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.
Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).
There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.
Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.
So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.
So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.
Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'
and
and
Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).
There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.
Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.
So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.
So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.
Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'
JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.
And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.
And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.
and
COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.
Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.
Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.
and
COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.
But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.
But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.
