Statutes and Monuments: Keep or Remove?

There are three points of view concerning statutes, monuments, and other artifacts from the Civil War (and any other past events for that matter):

(1) These are symbols of Southern Heritage,
(2) They are an insult to those who were oppressed at that time,
(3) They are historical references.

Each of these positions are legitimate, and to minimize or ridicule those who embrace one of those positions does nothing to help solve the problem.

So let’s look at each of these positions and weight the pros and cons.

SYMBOLS OF SOUTHERN HERITAGE

I am a Southerner and my own ancestors fought, and some died, in the Civil War.  So I understand how people can feel when these statues are attacked.  Most who fought in the Civil War did so because they thought they were right, based on their values and beliefs at the time.  In today’s society, of course, the concepts of slavery and white supremacy are abhorrent to us, but we must not judge past figures using today’s standards.  By those standards, almost all historical figures would be fail.

What I cannot understand is why, when we Southerners want to honor our heritage, we choose symbols and figures from the darkest past of our past. Why not focus on the positive events and people?   Founding fathers George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe were all from Virginia.  The first permanent colony in North America, Jamestown, was in the south. Virginia has had more Presidents than any other state.  The United States itself would never have existed at all without the contributions from the South.

CELEBRATING OPPRESSORS

As a white southerner, I cannot even begin to understand the depth of emotions that slavery must provoke in black people today.  To constantly see symbols tied directly to a war whose purpose was to continue slavery must be painful.  Those who wish to celebrate their southern heritage should be able to find other symbols that do not also tend to celebrate slavery.

On the other hand, none of these monuments was erected with the purpose to celebrate slavery or oppression.  There are symbols all around us that may offend someone for some reason.  Just because something offends us does not give us the right to destroy it.  Granted, these symbols are much more offensive to black people than others may be to us.  But a major part of the divide in our country today is a resistance to the “political correctness” movement that tends to label all those who disagree.  It is our very diversity that makes us strong. Once we start taking down monuments that offend, we are starting down a very slippery slope indeed.

HISTORICAL REFERENCES

This is the most emotionally neutral position, and one that can be supported by both sides.  Our history is filled with both bad and good events and people.  Removing the statues will not change the past. Indeed, the very presence of these statues serves as a reminder of both past accomplishments and atrocities. We tend to judge historical figures using today’s standards, and that is a mistake.  Our founding fathers had both good traits and bad, both by standards of the time and by modern standards.

These statues and monuments are a form of art, and like all art, are subject to one’s own interpretation.  Some may see them as a tribute to our southern heritage.  Others can choose to see them as a stark reminder of the evils in our past.

CONCLUSION

There are valid reasons for both removing and for keeping these statues and monuments.  Whether they should be removed or not is a decision that should not be made using a mob mentality. Each statue’s fate should be determined locally by those most effected, and only after civil debate, and perhaps a vote on the next ballot.