Occupy Instead of Tearing Down

And what will they do when monuments they care about come down?

If you were a psychiatrist treating a trauma patient, would you chemically induce amnesia in that patient? Of course not! It would be unethical to wipe clean a person’s entire memory in the name of expunging a troubling aspect of it.

For the past several years I have researched and lectured on the phenomenon of removing objectionable monuments. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Richmond removed Robert E. Lee from his pedestal on Monument Avenue. The nearby city of Fredericksburg has prised from the ground a slave auction block. It may surprise you to learn that I am (semi-) opposed to such actions.

Before I delve into why, let me assure you that I have never said a kind word about the Confederacy in my life. History books should treat Robert E. Lee the same way they treat another infamous traitor: Benedict Arnold. I also think guys who drive around with Confederate flags on their trucks are lowlife jerks. There are some cases in which monuments with troublesome pasts should be relocated. There is, for example, no excuse for having a statue of a known Klansman sitting outside a courthouse where African Americans register to vote. Whenever possible, though, I think it is wiser to “occupy” objectionable symbols rather than closet them.

Let’s revisit the amnesia analogy. Good historians encourage a dialogue with the past, as in considering two or more perspectives. Monologues are dangerous. Consider that a majority of Americans get no formal history education past high school. Even many college graduates have taken but a single required course. Remove symbols of the past and it will be even more difficult to redress what led to their production in the first place. They need to be occupied and displayed within a historical context for the possibility of learning to occur. I’ve never seen the Fredericksburg auction block, but I have seen the sites of slave markets in Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA. They are powerful and deeply disturbing.

Some, usually younger folks, have asked me why such sites should be preserved. My answer is that we should never forget the injustices and horrors of the past. After all, “lest we forget” is the rationale for erecting war monuments. It is the reason why hundreds of Holocaust museums and memorials are found across Europe. (There are at least 83 in the United States and scores more elsewhere.) There are those who ask why anyone would wish to preserve a concentration camp–until they visit Auschwitz. Then they know why. To understand, we need to look ugliness square in the face, not look away or lock it way.

Why? Because amnesia is too easy. Once we forget the past, lessons go out the window. A good friend of mine is involved in efforts to erect a Kent State memorial. Maybe you know that some college kids were killed. Great. When? Why? What were their names? What happened next? Bonus points if you can name any of the wounded. (My friend was one of them.) To antifa protestors, do you think there might be some lessons in Kent State for today?

You should all answer that last question–especially if you fancy yourself a liberal. There are those in Ohio who find the idea of a Kent State memorial “objectionable.” The great conceit of wanting to tearing down anything is that such decisions are by nature ideological. Why do liberals assume that their ideals will prevail? You can appeal to “justice” or “morality” and I will agree with you, but it’s still an ideological position and we suffer from serious amnesia when we become sure that being “right” is all that matters.

There was a time in the very recent past when Richmond residents objected to a statue of Abraham Lincoln along its riverfront. It was defaced numerous times and was frequently the focal point for pro-Confederacy and anti-civil rights rallies. Does anyone recall the brouhaha over the decision to erect a statue of black tennis pro Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue? Remember Paul LePage, the former governor of Maine? He ordered the removal of a mural depicting Frances Perkins on the grounds that she was anti-capitalist. Actually, she was the first woman to serve in a president’s Cabinet; she was Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of Labor.

If that doesn’t scare you, consider the effort of far-right groups bent upon tearing down a statue of Barack Obama in New Orleans that replaced one of Jefferson Davis. They couldn’t tear it down because it didn’t exist in the first place! More recently such groups expressed their outrage at a life-sized bronze of the former president in the White House. That doesn’t exist either. But you can count on the fact that as soon as there is a statue of the 44^th president somewhere, thousands will object. Then we must ask, who gets to say what is torn down and what stays?

I could cite dozens more examples, but it comes back to the same place: Monologues are dangerous. Even if we are yelling at each other, we are at least talking. And we can add voices to the debate. We have a model of how this can begin to work. Have you been to a Civil War battlefield lately? In the early 21^st century, Congress threatened to deny funding for such sites unless slavery was integrated into their presentation narratives. Battlefields hastily tucked walls of excess muskets into storage and began to grapple with race, the slave trade, abolitionism, and plantation life. Discussions are afoot to add additional voices, including those of reenactors, slavery apologists, and women. There is much work remaining to be done, but battlefield museums are starting to look more like reconciliation than amnesia.

Hold the wrecking ball. To change, we must remember. Occupy. Occupy. Occupy.

Rob Weir