Should controversial historical statues be removed?

 

In recent years, there has been considerable debate concerning whether controversial historical statues should be removed. This debate is centered on competing narratives between those individuals who argue for the removal of the statues because they idolize negative history and those who believe that the removal of such statues is the equivalent of erasing history. A consequence of this situation is that in the United States, as well as other parts of the world with dark chapters in their history, the debate has been raging with the result in some cases being the removal of the statues of controversial figures such as those of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate army general. This paper seeks to make an analysis of the arguments brought forth by both sides of the debate in a bid to better understand the motivations behind their stances on the issue of removing controversial historical statues.

One of the most prominent arguments for the removal of controversial status is that they misrepresent history and end up glorifying the individuals that not only attempted secession from the United States, but also lost the Civil War and were among the biggest perpetuators of slavery. The major reason for the Southern states making the decision to secede from the Union was because of the impending abolition of slavery. They believed that slavery was the mainstay of their economy and therefore a natural state ('Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union'); an argument that was disagreed with by individuals in the North. Therefore, the decision to secede was essentially an economic one and involved the need to maintain slavery as an institution despite the fact that it also involved considerable suffering and dehumanization on the part of the African peoples who were bound to it. It is also essential to consider that the move to leave the Union is one that essentially sought to undermine the latter and would have created an environment within which slavery would have remained a prominent aspect of the social fabric of the Americas.

It is also noteworthy that when the Confederate States lost the Civil War, there was an attempt in the South to rewrite history. This is especially considering that they made the declaration that they had not been fighting to ensure the preservation of history, but rather were attempting to ensure that they preserved the rural agrarian southern civilization from the onslaught of the industrialized North (Little 2017). This mythology, among others, was used as a means of justifying the need for the subjugation of the African American population, based on the idea that they needed to be subjugated for their own good. Thus were the Jim Crow laws put in place and there was a concerted attempt in the South to ensure that there was the revision of history (Shah 2019). This revision essentially reversed the progress that had been made in the South during the Reconstruction and created an environment within which segregation and racism became the new order.

It is also noteworthy that the statues are a painful reminder of the institutionalization of racism in the United States. This is especially the case when one considers not only the intention of raising the statues, but also their historical impact, especially when it comes to the perpetuation of white supremacy. It is argued that putting up the statues was undertaken as a means of making sure that there was the promotion of a scenario within which there was not only the affirmation of white supremacy, but also the central role played by it in Southern culture (Aguilera 2020). Therefore, because of their original intention to promote white supremacy, the statues need to be removed as a means of ensuring that there is the beginning of the end of racism through the discarding of the symbols of its perpetuation. The continued presence of the statues promotes the idea that racism in society is still valid.

The statues continue to appeal to white supremacists and are a focus on the way that these individuals glorify the dark past of the South. The 2017 rally to defend the Jackson and Lee statues in Virginia as well as the pre-massacre tour of plantations by Dylan Roof is significant because it shows the manner through which white supremacy remains a powerful ideology in the South (Palmer and Wessler 2018). Monuments raised to men who advocated for barbaric and cruel practices should not be allowed to stand because they pay homage, not to heritage, but rather to hate. They create an environment within which it becomes quite difficult to ensure that there is an end to the ideology and institutionalization of racial discrimination and hate that has been perpetuated in the United States since the founding of the nation.

Despite the arguments that have been made above, those that advocate for the retention of controversial statues argue that the latter represent the complicated history of the country. Therefore, taking the statues down will be tantamount to not only whitewashing, but also create a potential of its being forgotten. There is the potential of the history of the country being demolished and be replaced by an oppressive regime that does not care for the past (Andrew and Sturia 2020). It is therefore essential to consider that the citizens of the United States, because of the freedom of speech, have the right to have controversial opinions because it is enshrined in the Constitution. This right should be inviolable and therefore, protections against the opinions of the majority, who may want the controversial statues to be removed, should be considered. The removal of the statues is a violation of the First Amendment and the government has the responsibility to ensure that the protections afforded to free speech are respected.

The history of the United States is not only continuously evolving, but it is also multilayered to such an extent that it is quite complicated. Those individuals that disagree with the beliefs that are promoted by the statues should undertake a research in order to gain an understanding what is represented by these monuments. The attempt to remove these statues and their history from sight is one that should be considered tantamount to the erasure of history because it involves a situation where there is a failure to establish a context for the reasons the monuments were raised in the first place (Davidson 2017). The recognition of the fact that the history behind the statues will always be a part of American history would be a sign of maturity. This is especially the case when one considers that other cultures, such as the Roman Empire, did not topple the statues of the pagan gods when it became Christian.

It is also noteworthy that removing the statues will create a slippery slope which could lead to the removal of the statues of any individuals that are considered to be the least problematic to the majority. This is especially the case when one considers that during the protests that came about following the death of George Floyd, numerous Confederate statues were toppled or damaged, including statues of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ulysses Grant. It is important to consider that individuals like Washington and Jefferson were major contributors to the country, as seen through the affirmation of the democratic system by Washington when he declined to be king, and Jefferson, who not only authored the Declaration of Independence, but also represented the United States diplomatically for many years (Ambrose 2002). These individuals are therefore important cornerstones to the history of the United States and should therefore not be erased through the removal of their monuments.

Moreover, there is the need to appreciate the contributions of some of the Founding Fathers, as well as other national leaders, despite their legacy as slave owners. Jefferson, for example, promoted the idea of equality and religious freedom, and he was also an abolitionist, albeit a hypocritical one because despite being a slave-owner, he also believed that the slavery was an institution that was no longer viable and a hideous blot ('Jefferson's Attitudes toward Slavery'). Also, Grant is an individual that came from a family of abolitionists and when he inherited a slave from his father in-law, he promptly freed him (Fling). He further supported the enlistment of African American men into the Union Army during the Civil War and when he ran for president, he was endorsed by Frederick Douglass.

To conclude, the way that the debate concerning the handling of controversial historical statues should be handled is through a mature dialogue between both sides. This is because the figures represented by these statues have played a significant and historical role in the making of the nation and they cannot be erased from its history. Instead, there should be a process within which coming to terms with and accepting the role of these individuals should be made a priority and advanced for the sake of reconciliation between the two sides of the debate as well as opposing groups across the nation can be achieved.