US: Removal of Confederate statues

The meeting of white supremacists in Charlottesville was originally held under the pretext of demonstrating against plans to remove the statue

Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency Monday (October 16) in northern Florida ahead of a speech by white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, who was involved in a march in August that ended in violent clashes.

Spencer, a leader of the so-called “alt-right” movement, is due to give a speech Thursday at the University of Florida in Gainesville, a town of some 130,000. Saying there was an "imminent" threat of a potential emergency as a result; Scott explained that the emergency declaration will ensure that security forces have all the necessary resources at their disposition.

We live in a country where everyone has the right to voice their opinion, however, we have zero tolerance for violence and public safety is always our number one priority," Scott said, adding that local authorities had requested the extra help. "This executive order is an additional step to ensure that the University of Florida and the entire community is prepared so everyone can stay safe."

Spencer was involved in and spoke at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August that triggered a weekend of clashes. A 32-year-old woman was killed when a car plowed into counter-protesters, and two police officers died in a helicopter crash as they were responding to the violence (AFP/Yahoo, 17 October, 2017).

The recent turmoil over the removal of Confederate statues in the United States invites us to think about the importance of monuments and historical memory worldwide. It also invites us to ask, should statues that represent dark episodes in a country’s history be removed? Or should they be kept as reminders of trauma?

The taking down of a statue of Confederate icon General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia, encouraged groups of neo-Nazis and white nationalists to protest. These extremist groups claimed the decision was a direct attack on their cultural identity and an effort to rewrite history. As we now know, this led to violent clashes between these groups and counter-protestors, and the death of one young woman. It has also led to an unprecedented presidential crisis due to President Trump’s ambiguous statement on the matter.

The violent scenes in Charlottesville, Virginia, that led to the death of one woman and left many more injured began as a dispute over a statue of General Robert E. Lee, which sits in a local public park. However, the controversy feeds into a much wider debate that is as old as the United States itself. So who was Lee and why does a memorial to him trouble so many people?

The meeting of white supremacists in Charlottesville was originally held under the pretext of demonstrating against plans to remove the statue. The Charlottesville city council voted in February for it to be removed from the recently renamed Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park). The decision came as part of a movement to challenge the ubiquity of Confederate symbols in the South.  These statues, for their opponents, signify the oppression of African Americans under slavery and the Jim Crow segretion laws. They serve as daily reminders of the vulnerability of black people. The message of such monuments is the same to many of their defenders, even if their interpretation is different. To the white supremacists who gathered on the streets of Charlottesville, the statue of Lee represents white military and political power.

In the decades after the Civil War, memorials celebrating the South’s valiant effort and glorious defeat appeared all over the region. They embodied the myth of the “lost cause” – the idea that the war had been fought to defend states’ rights, rather than slavery. In this interpretation, the south only lost because of the industrial might of the northern “aggressor”.

This doctrine came to prominence during the Jim Crow era when whites implemented racial segregation through violent, extra-legal and then legal means. The lost cause memory was used to justify and enforce white supremacy. Following the Charlottesville violence, the far right has planned as many as nine more rallies in the coming days. In Baltimore, Mayor Catherine Pugh decided to remove Confederate statues overnight, with no publicity, in an effort to ward off political and racial violence in her city, which has witnessed riots in the past. Other Confederate monuments are being removed across the country.

Removing Confederate statues in the US is not unprecedented, nor is it an effort to rewrite history. Rather, it demonstrates a deeper understanding of the nation’s troubled history. For decades, the productive capacity of the southern US depended on the forced migration of people from Africa and their slave labour. The void left by the Confederate monuments speaks even louder than the statues themselves, as the issue of race has gained currency there today.

A monument, like the one to General Lee, is a material acknowledgement of a person’s virtue and contribution to the common good. Once history books are written and the voices of victims of dark episodes such as slavery have been heard, it is pertinent to reconsider the moral standing of figures that might have once been considered heroes and are depicted in statues.

 In Spain, after the death of Dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, many towns with statues of Franco decided to remove them. The last Franco monument was removed from the mainland in 2008. The removal of these monuments was also met with the ire of conservative groups.

Perhaps the most famous example of a monument’s removal for political reasons was the spectacular toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Firdos Square in Baghdad in 2003. Symbolically, it marked the end of Iraq’s Baath dictatorship. This event, staged by the US Army and watched in real-time worldwide, represented the end of the regime even more than Saddam’s actual death by hanging in 2006.

We keep the things that we love the most, but sometimes we also keep the things that remind us about the horror of the past. Monuments can echo the traumatic events that have shaped our culture, history and civilisation.

A famous example is Memento Park in the outskirts of Budapest in Hungary, where a number of removed statues from the Communist period are kept for visitors to see them and learn about the horrors of the Soviet years. Some also appreciate them as aesthetic objects or a tourist attraction.

According to the Gregorian dictum, written 1400 years ago by Pope Gregory the Great: images should not be destroyed because they are the books of the illiterate. We learn the mistakes of our past from the images that we make, in the present, of that troublesome past.

But some statues have to be removed as a cathartic event, as in the #RhodesMustFall movement in South Africa. At first, it demanded the removal of some statues of Cecil Rhodes, a notorious white supremacist and British imperialist, but the movement became so powerful that it eventually sparked demands for the fall of South African head of state, Jacob Zuma. Removing the statues relieved the accumulated social tensions.

Some statues need to be removed because of their embodiment of venomous ideologies, such as Nazism. For this reason, many symbols of Nazism such as the big swastika in the Zepellinfeld in Nuremberg were completely destroyed after the Second World War in Germany. After all, images can work as didactic devices.

Perhaps Charlottesville is the first of many cases in which societies will re-evaluate past atrocities. Regardless of the outcome, it’s clear that monuments and statues will sometimes help determine the course of history.

The writer is Former Head, Department of Medical Sociology, Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control & Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh. E-mail: [email protected]

 

US: Removal of Confederate statues

The meeting of white supremacists in Charlottesville was originally held under the pretext of demonstrating against plans to remove the statue

Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency Monday (October 16) in northern Florida ahead of a speech by white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, who was involved in a march in August that ended in violent clashes. Spencer, a leader of the so-called alt-right movement, is due to give a speech Thursday at the University of Florida in Gainesville, a town of some 130,000. Saying there was an imminent threat of a potential emergency as a result; Scott explained that the emergency declaration will ensure that security forces have all the necessary resources at their disposition. We live in a country where everyone has the right to voice their opinion, however, we have zero tolerance for violence and public safety is always our number one priority, Scott said, adding that local authorities had requested the extra help. This executive order is an additional step to ensure that the University of Florida and the entire community is prepared so everyone can stay safe. Spencer was involved in and spoke at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August that triggered a weekend of clashes. A 32-year-old woman was killed when a car plowed into counter-protesters, and two police officers died in a helicopter crash as they were responding to the violence (AFP/Yahoo, 17 October, 2017). The recent turmoil over the removal of Confederate statues in the United States invites us to think about the importance of monuments and historical memory worldwide. It also invites us to ask, should statues that represent dark episodes in a countrys history be removed? Or should they be kept as reminders of trauma? The taking down of a statue of Confederate icon General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia, encouraged groups of neo-Nazis and white nationalists to protest. These extremist groups claimed the decision was a direct attack on their cultural identity and an effort to rewrite history. As we now know, this led to violent clashes between these groups and counter-protestors, and the death of one young woman. It has also led to an unprecedented presidential crisis due to President Trumps ambiguous statement on the matter. The violent scenes in Charlottesville, Virginia, that led to the death of one woman and left many more injured began as a dispute over a statue of General Robert E. Lee, which sits in a local public park. However, the controversy feeds into a much wider debate that is as old as the United States itself. So who was Lee and why does a memorial to him trouble so many people? The meeting of white supremacists in Charlottesville was originally held under the pretext of demonstrating against plans to remove the statue. The Charlottesville city council voted in February for it to be removed from the recently renamed Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park). The decision came as part of a movement to challenge the ubiquity of Confederate symbols in the South. These statues, for their opponents, signify the oppression of African Americans under slavery and the Jim Crow segretion laws. They serve as daily reminders of the vulnerability of black people. The message of such monuments is the same to many of their defenders, even if their interpretation is different. To the white supremacists who gathered on the streets of Charlottesville, the statue of Lee represents white military and political power. In the decades after the Civil War, memorials celebrating the Souths valiant effort and glorious defeat appeared all over the region. They embodied the myth of the lost cause the idea that the war had been fought to defend states rights, rather than slavery. In this interpretation, the south only lost because of the industrial might of the northern aggressor. This doctrine came to prominence during the Jim Crow era when whites implemented racial segregation through violent, extra-legal and then legal means. The lost cause memory was used to justify and enforce white supremacy. Following the Charlottesville violence, the far right has planned as many as nine more rallies in the coming days. In Baltimore, Mayor Catherine Pugh decided to remove Confederate statues overnight, with no publicity, in an effort to ward off political and racial violence in her city, which has witnessed riots in the past. Other Confederate monuments are being removed across the country. Removing Confederate statues in the US is not unprecedented, nor is it an effort to rewrite history. Rather, it demonstrates a deeper understanding of the nations troubled history. For decades, the productive capacity of the southern US depended on the forced migration of people from Africa and their slave labour. The void left by the Confederate monuments speaks even louder than the statues themselves, as the issue of race has gained currency there today. A monument, like the one to General Lee, is a material acknowledgement of a persons virtue and contribution to the common good. Once history books are written and the voices of victims of dark episodes such as slavery have been heard, it is pertinent to reconsider the moral standing of figures that might have once been considered heroes and are depicted in statues. In Spain, after the death of Dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, many towns with statues of Franco decided to remove them. The last Franco monument was removed from the mainland in 2008. The removal of these monuments was also met with the ire of conservative groups. Perhaps the most famous example of a monuments removal for political reasons was the spectacular toppling of Saddam Husseins statue in Firdos Square in Baghdad in 2003. Symbolically, it marked the end of Iraqs Baath dictatorship. This event, staged by the US Army and watched in real-time worldwide, represented the end of the regime even more than Saddams actual death by hanging in 2006. We keep the things that we love the most, but sometimes we also keep the things that remind us about the horror of the past. Monuments can echo the traumatic events that have shaped our culture, history and civilisation. A famous example is Memento Park in the outskirts of Budapest in Hungary, where a number of removed statues from the Communist period are kept for visitors to see them and learn about the horrors of the Soviet years. Some also appreciate them as aesthetic objects or a tourist attraction. According to the Gregorian dictum, written 1400 years ago by Pope Gregory the Great: images should not be destroyed because they are the books of the illiterate. We learn the mistakes of our past from the images that we make, in the present, of that troublesome past. But some statues have to be removed as a cathartic event, as in the #RhodesMustFall movement in South Africa. At first, it demanded the removal of some statues of Cecil Rhodes, a notorious white supremacist and British imperialist, but the movement became so powerful that it eventually sparked demands for the fall of South African head of state, Jacob Zuma. Removing the statues relieved the accumulated social tensions. Some statues need to be removed because of their embodiment of venomous ideologies, such as Nazism. For this reason, many symbols of Nazism such as the big swastika in the Zepellinfeld in Nuremberg were completely destroyed after the Second World War in Germany. After all, images can work as didactic devices. Perhaps Charlottesville is the first of many cases in which societies will re-evaluate past atrocities. Regardless of the outcome, its clear that monuments and statues will sometimes help determine the course of history. The writer is Former Head, Department of Medical Sociology, Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh. E-mail: [email protected]