The naming of the monument is pretty ironic, all things considered. It was put up to honor the white group that essentially staged a coup against the post-Civil War biracial government. They, of course, viewed it as a restoration of their lost liberty. Black residents definitely saw it as something else.
The monument has been controversial ever since it was erected, and has been vandalized and covered up. Its removal this morning took place in the wee hours, with the workers in bulletproof vests, and with protests against its removal. Some ideas die hard.
You can go to the above links, or you can read about the monument in James Loewen’s book Lies Across America. Or se here: Battle of Liberty Place - Wikipedia
Three more statues, these honoring notables of the Confederacy – Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard – are also set to come down. But this monument , which had nothing to do directly with the Civil War, was a very different case, and a particular sore spot.
What if the French Quarter had been destroyed after the War of 1812, as reflecting colonial values no longer held? How would New Orleans like them apples?
It has nothing to do with the original reason for its existence. Once it is there, it has to do with the historical recognition of a past, good bad or indifferent.
Look at the shitstorms that come up when radicals somewhere blow up mosques or Buddhas or something. You are burning the Alexandria Library because you disagree with what can be learned from some of the books. No matter its historical value, your mindset is to destroy anything that no longer reflects your own personal take on what is momentarily being marched to by the drummer.
Was it destroyed? If not, it’s not comparable to Alexandria or blowing up anything. I’m not in favor of destroying monuments or statues. I’m fine with moving monuments or statues or flags that no longer reflect the standards of the time to a place that doesn’t imply official endorsement of these old ideas – especially when the old ideas the monument represents are related to white supremacy or other forms of bigotry.
EDIT: It’s not going to be destroyed.
They’ll probably end up in a museum, hopefully with appropriate context as to why they were erected.
Get a grip - as pointed out it’s ony being removed, not destroyed.
While the argument may be made for commemorating figures on the Confederate side of the Civil War who did courageous deeds though wasted on a worthess cause, the “Liberty Monument” was created explicitly to celebrate the restoration of white supremacism, and no amount of re-inscriptions or retcons can get over that. If New Orleans says that is not them, then it’s not them, and it’s their call to relocate and redisplay it in a manner that better communicates the history.
I’m not in favor of removing monuments like these. Like you, I believe them to be of historical significance and their removal betrays a desire to conceal history and rewrite it.
But I think your criticism here goes too far. So far as I am aware (and I welcome correction) these statues are not being destroyed – simply moved. They can be moved again, if more calm attitudes return, although such a move might carry some notion of current approval, so perhaps that’s not such a hot idea either. But the reason I’m writing now is to say it’s possible to disagree with the removal without likening it to physical destruction of irreplaceable objects.
Indeed. Other controversial monuments have been moved, sometimes indoors to museums. The Chicago Police Monument (erected to honor the police after the Haymarket Riot) being a case in point. Like the New Orleans monument, this one has had a turbulent history, and still incites passions:
The statue has been destroyed more than once, and the move to its present position in front of Chicago Police HQ is probably more to protect it from further attempts than because it’s an appropriate place for it.
Controversial as that statue is, though, it doesn’t have “recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state” on it. Wanting to keep a monument with that on it (even if you’ve got the rebuttal nearby) is asking an awful lot.
Similarly, the “Good Darky/Uncle Jack” statue that was taken down in the 1960s in Baton Rouge is now in the LSU Rural Life museum, not in the public square, partially to protect it. This one is still highly controversial, too (see the links), and I suspect that putting it anywhere outside a museum would be courting vandalism or destruction. There’s something about having a statue dedicated to some point of view that, even if surrounding inscriptions or signs contradict its original intent, and explain the historical context, implies endorsement of the view the statue was erected for in the first place.
When statues of Lenin were pulled down in Moscow, did you object to that? When swastikas were removed from German buildings, was that a problem?
Public monuments aren’t just a discussion piece. They are propaganda pieces, demonstrating how the state thinks citizens should feel about a topic. If you want to remove them to a museum of propaganda where they can be analyzed, that’s fine–but we shouldn’t pretend that they’re value-neutral, nothing more than souvenirs from history.
Criticisms of my post are well taken, and I agree that you have a point. If they are not destroyed, then that diminishes the threat. What I attempted to illustrate was the mindset behind the idea that only today’s way of thinking has the right of exposure to the public.
How would you feel about today’s heroes being placed on temporary pedestals, awaiting the judgment of future citizens who may deem them unworthy?
There’s a difference between a piece of history and a monument. These statues should be remembered as pieces of history, perhaps in a museum or the like. But keeping it in the public square doesn’t just say “this is who we were”; it says “this is who we are”. And that’s a problem.
If you see a bottle of piss on the sidewalk, it’s offensive, or ignored, or subversive. If you put a bottle of piss in a museum, it sparks a discussion of why it exists.
I disagree. It is pretty obvious to everyone walking by that the monuments predate current sympathies. What 21st Century Italian believes a statue of Caesar is “who we are”?
We are all the bigots to an unseen future. It is the best, not the worst, among us who will be memorialized for what will some day be seen as bigotry. Our heroes will have their statues hidden.
What American believes that a bunch of cloth sewn together and displayed on top of a pole is “who we are”? What American believes that the Statue of Liberty is “who we are”? What Roman Catholic believes that a crucifix is “who we are”? Where do people get there information from about “who we are” that doesn’t include symbols and celebratory commemoration constructs? What society erects monuments to things that they despise?
While it is possible to create a statue that recognizes but does not honor, this is definitely not such a statue. As such, it makes sense that those who no longer wish to present the subject as something to honor will remove it from its place of honor.
It can still be put in a museum where you can provide context to say “This is what we used to honor. This is who we were. We have learned and continue to learn from this.”
And, yes, of course I expect those in the future to decide that people we thought were heroes weren’t. Or that people we shunned were actually heroes.
That’s what should happen if society get better. If it continues to honor the same people, I’d be worried that society had stagnated, and that the problems of today were never dealt with.
Well, technically, the Liberty Monument isn’t a statue – it’s an obelisk. But the 1932 inscription I cite above is pretty appalling to modern sensibilities. as I say, even though it had a nearby disclaimer, leaving the statue up gives it a legitimacy it no longer has or deserves.
In his epic novel The Source, James Michener describes a statue in an eastern European city that heaps scorn on the Jews. I don’t know if he had a real-life example in mind, but it’d be hard to believe that such a statue, despite its history and historical importance, would be left out in a public square today.
We’re talking about a literal–literally literal, not figuratively literal–monument to white supremacy.
If you’re worried that future people of the future won’t see eye to eye with our current values, you have a point. But refraining from removing literal monuments to white supremacy won’t obligate those future people of the future to preserve our current monuments that they no longer agree with.
Yeah, people today have a lot more trouble innocently celebrating a guy like Christopher Columbus as a hero. 100 years ago he was a hero, now he’s considered pretty problematic. But the thing is, he wasn’t a hero in his own time, he was hauled off in chains back to Spain for his brutality after all. He was considered a hero by the people 100 years ago for their own reasons, and that necessitated ignoring the real Columbus in favor of a made up fantasy version of Columbus. Making up a new fantasy version of Columbus as a villain to serve our current needs is just as silly.
If in the future everyone is a pacifist vegetarian tree-hugger, they might topple the statues of people who were soldiers, or meat-eaters, or who owned a car. And maybe they’ll put up statues of vegetarian white supremacists in their place. The only thing we can do to stop this horrible dystopian future is to advocate for freedom and justice here in 2017. Leaving up literal monuments to white supremacy doesn’t seem like it’s going to help.
Read Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me and the more encyclopedic Lies Across America, which visits something like 300 historical sites and markers and lays bare the issues surrounding each. (Every monument mentioned in this thread is covered.)
As a historian, he makes a careful case for why each monument should be preserved… but moved or re-contexted with additions explaining its genesis and history.
(I am particularly fond of his division of history into the sasha and the zamani… left as an exercise for the reader. The 1800’s just passed into the zamani, BTW.)
