|
A historian on statues
Statues are not about remembrance, they are about commemoration; not teaching, but moralizing.
We have large, publicly funded history teaching tools. They're called museums (and also to an extent, battlefield parks).
But statues are not teaching tools. No history is lost when a statue comes down.
The question is, what values does this statue express?
So if you are thinking, "should this statue be here?" The question you want to ask is not "what history is it connected to?" but "what values does it express right now ?" Not who does it glorify, but WHY does it glorify them?
And for the person saying,"well, maybe it was because they were good soldiers" answer this: where are James Longstreet's statues? Why is there one confederate general left out of all of this soldierly commemoration?
Why? Because after the war, he supported reconstruction.
It was never about generalship or leadership, these statues were always about hate and Longstreet didn't hate quite enough for the hateful people who put these statues up.
That's the value they communicate. Hate.
So when evaluating a statue, ask yourself, "What values was this statue created to communicate? Are they good values? Are they values I believe in?"
And if the answer is "no" - remove that statue and replace it with one that does represent our values.
And if you don't think the Confederacy was about slavery and race, you have not read the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States.
|
Hybrid Mode
