The Red & Gray
The Red & Gray
"At the all-white school I attended, our school colors were drawn from Confederate uniforms—--“Artillery Red” and “Infantry Grey.” Each student was assigned to one of two teams—the “Lees” or the “Jacksons.” (Not until the Obama years did the school, amid great uproar, drop these team names.) At school assemblies, students competed by reading or reciting literary works. A classmate read aloud James Thurber’s famous parody, If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox, which depicts Grant drunkenly surrendering to Lee. The middle school principal stopped his reading, rebuked him for disrespect to Lee, and dismissed school for the day."
I'm of two minds about removing any memorials to the Confederacy. I'm against the glorification of evil, as anyone should be. But are we also talking about erasing Washington, or Jefferson, or so many others, that also held slaves without shame or fear?
They, like so many others, were a blend of good and bad, and a product of their times.
Lincoln, and others, had to decide what to do when the war ended. Just because you defeat your enemies, doesn't mean that you necessarily change them. And just because you unite a divided nation by force, doesn't mean that the issues fought over, go away.
The end of the Civil War did not mark the end of racism, or the sudden establishment of universal justice for the less powerful. Reconstruction was a failure, with consequences that have lasted into the present day.
Part of my perception is undoubtedly colored by the fact that I've lived in the South for most of my life. Richmond is in a class to itself at glorifying its native sons, no matter what. North Carolina has some memorials to the Confederacy that I am aware of, one or two in a town... To me, they are just fusty relics, some of which are prettier and less offensive than others. But I can't dispute that it is more than that, especially to the victims of slavery and oppression.
Richmond, especially, is an example of where a difficult past persists in the present, in identifiable and lasting ways.
It's astonishing how pervasive those effects are. I'm reading Benjamin Campbell's book, "Richmond's Unhealed History." I'm not getting the impression that taking down memorials will fix things. But I"m beginning to think that moving some of them, or cutting them down to size, might be a good start.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-motionless-ghosts-that-haunt-the-south/526668/
"At the all-white school I attended, our school colors were drawn from Confederate uniforms—--“Artillery Red” and “Infantry Grey.” Each student was assigned to one of two teams—the “Lees” or the “Jacksons.” (Not until the Obama years did the school, amid great uproar, drop these team names.) At school assemblies, students competed by reading or reciting literary works. A classmate read aloud James Thurber’s famous parody, If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox, which depicts Grant drunkenly surrendering to Lee. The middle school principal stopped his reading, rebuked him for disrespect to Lee, and dismissed school for the day."
I'm of two minds about removing any memorials to the Confederacy. I'm against the glorification of evil, as anyone should be. But are we also talking about erasing Washington, or Jefferson, or so many others, that also held slaves without shame or fear?
They, like so many others, were a blend of good and bad, and a product of their times.
Lincoln, and others, had to decide what to do when the war ended. Just because you defeat your enemies, doesn't mean that you necessarily change them. And just because you unite a divided nation by force, doesn't mean that the issues fought over, go away.
The end of the Civil War did not mark the end of racism, or the sudden establishment of universal justice for the less powerful. Reconstruction was a failure, with consequences that have lasted into the present day.
Part of my perception is undoubtedly colored by the fact that I've lived in the South for most of my life. Richmond is in a class to itself at glorifying its native sons, no matter what. North Carolina has some memorials to the Confederacy that I am aware of, one or two in a town... To me, they are just fusty relics, some of which are prettier and less offensive than others. But I can't dispute that it is more than that, especially to the victims of slavery and oppression.
Richmond, especially, is an example of where a difficult past persists in the present, in identifiable and lasting ways.
It's astonishing how pervasive those effects are. I'm reading Benjamin Campbell's book, "Richmond's Unhealed History." I'm not getting the impression that taking down memorials will fix things. But I"m beginning to think that moving some of them, or cutting them down to size, might be a good start.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-motionless-ghosts-that-haunt-the-south/526668/
I see a clear difference between depicting Washington or Jefferson in their roles as founding fathers of the enduring principles on which the republic was founded and depicting uniformed men on warhorses like Lee or Jackson as defenders of an unjust institution and violent rebellion against that republic. Confederate memorials are the equivalent of a memorial depicting Washington or Jefferson holding a whip in one and and a manacled black man in the other. (Somehow, many Southerners would view the latter example as an insult to Washington and Jefferson, rather than an insult to humanity and decency)
ReplyDeleteThe intent is pretty obvious in most cases where art is in the service of acclamation. I'm not sure how a memorial heroically depicting a Confederate general in uniform isn't honoring violent rebellion in defense of an evil institution. There is a statue of Robert E. Lee in civvies honoring his role as a college president that few would find any more offensive than statues honoring slave owners like Washington or Jefferson for their statesmanship. A memorial honoring any of them for "Plantation Labor Management" in this day and age would be patently offensive.
ReplyDeleteGranted, there are some cases where intent might not be clear cut, but with a little historical detective work, most of these depictions hiding behind the fig leaf of "Southern Pride" are found to have been commissioned and erected by vocal proponents of white supremacy and historical negationism.
Well, I guess my point is that heroism and memorials can be troublesome.
ReplyDeleteAlmost any region, event, or person you'd want to honor has flaws or dark history. And even the worst villains usually did some good.
It can be hard to do the math on that, sometimes.
I've had some interesting discussions with folks who have been on the pointy end of things about how that works. You don't always hear the things you expect to hear.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've lived my whole life on the West Coast where the Civil War is mostly an historical discussion and not a cultural one. I get that there are emotional aspects to this discussion that I just don't get. About 10 years ago I had one of those conversations that you just keep re-arguing in you head for years. My parents' neighbor; a retired lawyer and judge from South Carolina kept insisting that the Civil , War of Northern Aggression had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. This guy had advanced degrees in History and Law! I've since memorized all of the pertinent passages from the various CSA declarations of independence in case I ever meet him again.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Civil War was about slavery. But it was more complicated and nuanced than is often discussed. For example, the North benefitted systemically from the institution of slavery, and from Reconstruction. It was part of the basis of their industrial might. And Reconstruction, while a failure for slave's civil rights, was a successful continuation of economic dominance.
ReplyDelete