 |
| A work crew began to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from Robert E. Lee Park . The work was halted due to a judges order. Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News |
With regards towards historical monuments are they up to states control or are they under federal watch. If we begin to cover up the history that some are ashamed of or just leave a sour taste in our mouth is that the right choice. I feel that this action is for the best as it shows a sign of progression through America. Many will show a backlash, but there is always a backlash to some change. States should hold the right to display certain things in their state or the right to remove things. Something that stood out in the article to me was the last paragraph getting a perspective from a supporter and opponent to the statues removal. It allowed an insight to both sights: Is it hate to remove the statue and them being destructive or is it standing for whats right.
Link: https://nytimes.com
8 comments:
I am, personally, extremely conflicted about this issue. Is it appropriate to memorialize Southern war leaders when they were fighting to keep a large population of Americans in slavery? I think the answer there is pretty obviously a no, but was the Civil War entirely about slavery? Some say that the war was more about state's rights and standing up to the "Big Man" (the national government). If we consider the Civil War generals in that context is that appropriate to remember. What about Thomas Jefferson? Should we get rid of statues of him? He was definitely a slave owner, as well as many other of the heroes of our American mythology. What about the Washington Monument, which was built in part with slave labor. Should that be torn down too? By tearing down these monuments are we doing ourselves a favor by removing painful reminders of our turbulent history, or by removing these reminders do we run the risk of deluding ourselves about what really happened, and deny the realities of our history. Maybe the best way to remember the events of the Civil War, and of all of American history, is not to attempt to rewrite it by removing monuments, but to add more that reflect even more of the stories of our past. Especially those stories that for, whatever reason, have not been shared. If we put our monuments into context and acknowledge the mistakes of the past we gain something more valuable then if we were to just blindly erase it.
I believe the two best options for these situations are to either keep the statues where it is or remove the statue and set it in a history museum. While many see the statue and are disgusted by it, the statue is still apart of our american history. Setting it in a museum will remove the statue from the park, and it will also make people at least less angry about the removal of the statue since it is showed publicly and not destroyed. The other option is to just not remove the statue at all, while this can be seen as wrong to some, this can guarantee no outrage or anger will come from southern nationalists. If the statue was never taken down in Charlottesville, then the Charlottesville riots would have never happened. I am mostly leaning towards the idea of removing the statue and putting it into a museum, allowing a compromise between both sides.
I'm definitely with Sam on this one. The case is quite complicated, because removing some statues could lead to a spiral of needing to remove other statues, etc. Furthermore, the removal of these monuments can also be seen as a feeble attempt to remove parts of American history that serve as reminders for what happened, why those events happened, and how we can work to learn from both mistakes and successes. In regards to whether states or the federal government should be able to decide on what to do, I feel as though the states are quite clearly the ones in charge here. What they choose to keep or remove in their parks and their streets should be up to each state government, not to the Feds.
This is a tough issue. On one hand we have Nazis rallying around these statues, and on the other hand we have hundreds of years of racial prejudice and white supremacy. If you didn't get the sarcasm, what I am saying is that even though these monuments are a way of remembering history, they are also being used as a symbol of hate. By placing these statues in public places where they are easily visible, we have created an environment in which people worship these statues has heroes when in reality they were men who betrayed our nation to defend an industry that is the epitome of evil. Rather than place these monuments in our parks and cities, they should be placed in museums where they can be presented in the context of slavery and the Civil War.
I completely agree with everyone else that the act of removing statues that show an unfavorable part of American history is a complicated issue -- there’s ambiguity as to which statues should or should not be taken down, and the decision to remove these statues will likely cause backlash. To build on Will’s point, the placement of Robert E. Lee statues in public areas (as well as other symbols of the Confederate side of the Civil War) is an act of honoring these figures and by extension, the ideology that they stand for. Thus, I personally don’t see the removal of these statues as an attempt to erase or subvert history as much as it is a way to demonstrate that the racist ideology that these figures represent isn’t something that America holds/strives to hold. That being said, I support the transport of these statues to museums for historical and educational purposes. Lastly, to answer the question in the post, I believe that the removal of historical monuments should be under state, not federal, control.
I believe removing the statue was the right thing to do. In my personal opinion, Robert E. Lee's monument represents hatred and the deep racism which was vivid throughout this time period. As Sam mentioned, the Civil War was not strictly over slavery, but slavery was a huge contributor and overall issues regarding race were highly controversial. While decades have passed since the Civil War, American history continues to negatively affect POC's and such monuments are a reminder of the pain, suffering, and injustices their ancestors faced. The removal of the monument is a large step toward progression and equality. I am not arguing that it is right to ignore and forget certain parts of American history just because it hurts to remember and brings shame. On the contrary, I believe it is necessary and important to acknowledge that issues such as slavery DID happen but having monuments embracing such past events is not o.k. Additionally, I am conflicted on whether the authority to remove historical monuments should be in the hands of states or the federal government. But overall, I am very glad that the statue was removed.
Personally I believe the statue should be taken down. It seems obvious, especially since the generals commemerated fought in favor of slavery, but if that is the only reason for taking it down, I think it will open up a can of worms. Where do we draw the line in terms of condoning or condemning statues of these people from our history? While this situation is about confederate generals, most of the founding fathers owned slaves, so should we take down their statues as well? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it creates some interesting and important topics to debate. However, I still think the confederate statues should be taken down, especially since they have been used by racists and hate groups against minorities, particularly African Americans.
I think some argue that the statues should remain so we don't forget that part of American history, that taking them down would imply that we are trying to erase some aspects of America's past. I can understand that point of view, but I do not necessarily agree. Taking down these statues is not a way to disregard our wrongdoings, but a way to discourage using these people and what they stood for as a means to justify the terrorization of the African American community.
I think that these status should be removed if they are making individuals feel threatened or uncomfortable, which it is clear that they are. These statues have a terrible representation of racism and hatred, which I think that most of us have realized. However, one thing that we do not recognize is that most of these Confederate statues were not built during or right after the Civil War, and many did not even exist by 1890; instead, they were built in the 1900s, during the time in which the government was taking steps towards eliminating segregation and racism. They were erected in the South to remind people of the violence of slavery and segregation, and that those ideas and stigmas were still supported even at that time. In this, they were intended to strike fear into African Americans, which they clearly still do today, and for this reason I do not think that they should still be standing, especially if we are trying to eliminate racism and hatred in the country. That being said, I do not wish for the statues to be destroyed, as I think they need to be preserved in museums to serve as a warning and a reminder of the mistakes that were made in the past. It they are completely destroyed, then it is possible that people will not continue to learn from the atrocities that were committed during slavery and use that knowledge to prevent them from reoccurring. Its like that famous quote from George Santayana: "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
Post a Comment