erasing history

Before the controversy erupted last week over a confederate statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, I've avoided that topic of discussion here. I did write on issues somewhat tangential twice in the past: about a white supremacy monument and a controversy at Harvard over a school crest.

But I think I'll write about the issue today. Now I realize, of course, that absolutely nobody has been waiting with baited breath for me to speak on this topic, but the whole point of blogging is to write whatever you want.

So here's what I think: I have not yet seen a compelling argument for keeping most confederate memorial statues on prominent display in public parks and thoroughfares. However, I have seen compelling arguments for removing them.

One argument I see in favor of keeping them where they are is "they're part of our heritage." It seems to be a lot of people who use that argument don't understand the meaning of heritage.

If you live in a particular city, unless you were born and raised there, and spend your adult life there, that city isn't part of your heritage. And even if you lived all your life in that city, if your ancestors didn't fight for the confederacy, it isnt really part of your heritage, either.

My dictionary defines heritage as "a tradition of honor, pride, and courage." So that infers you have to accept something for it to be part of your heritage. If you don't honor the confederate side, if you don't have any pride in it, then it's not part of your heritage even if you had ancestors who fought for the South in the Civil War.

So, really, such statues are "part of the heritage" for only a fairly small percentage of the population in a city. And how is a statue part of heritage anyway, unless your ancestors were literally responsible for funding or installing it in the first place?

Another argument I've seen is that "you're trying to erase history" by removing the statues. That, of course, is ludicrous.

Statues in and of themselves don't record history. Many of the statues in question were actually installed long after the Civil War was over -- particularly in the 1920s, in the height of the Jim Crow era.

The statues themselves tell no real story. They're bronze men on bronze horses covered with patina and pigeon shit. If you take away the statue, the history still exists. You can learn about history without ever setting eyes on a statue.

I think a common-sense, middle-ground solution can be found for these monuments. Remove them from their place of prominence in cities and relocate them to the grounds of history museums and historical societies. That way they can still be seen as historical artifacts without all the public glorification.

Arguably the best closing words on this topic come from Robert E. Lee himself. When discouraging monuments he said it was wiser "not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."