Washington wasn’t a Briton. It’s nitpick, but kind of an important one; a Briton is a person who is a citizen or a native of Great Britain. Washington was neither; he was born in Virginia, and at the time there was no such such as a “citizen” of Great Britain. People under the rule of the British crown were subjects, a concept rather different from a citizen, and the differences between types of subjects were in practice substantial, established in an unfolding system of judicial decisions and conventions. The modern British concept concept of citizenship was not enshrined in law until quite some time later. Washington was certainly, legally, a subject, but was not a Briton in the sense that word is customarily meant now or was meant then.
In any event, I quite wholeheartedly agree that it was be inappropriate to have a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, which, I imagine, is why there isn’t one.
There is, in fact, a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar square (which may have been your point?).
This demonstrates an important thing about statues in public places: they do not strictly mirror historical enmities: they say far more about the desire, on the part of those in authority, to do honour to particular persons for appropriate reasons.
In the case of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, the reason is to do honour to the deep friendship than exists between Britain and America. The message is simple: Washington may have rebelled against the British of his day, but that is in the past; in the present, the British do him honour as the father of his country, a country that is a steadfast friend and ally. Putting up his statue symbolizes, in short, no hard feelings about that whole rebellion thing.
To my mind, the same reasoning points out why removing Confederate statues makes sense now. The statues do not symbolize an end to the hard feelings created by the Civil War. They are not a gesture of reconciliation. They are the opposite. In their case, reconciliation requires removing the statues, not erecting them.
It is important to notice that some states and cities already decided to or are considering to remove the statues of Lee and others, before the recent unpleasantness.
It’s worth suggesting that they weren’t put up solely to remind blacks to stay in their place, but to remind whites to keep them there. Jim Crow persisted for so long largely because of peer pressure among whites. Those many who were inclined to see the blacks as their fellow human beings, deserving of common decency, knew they’d be ostracized in all possible ways if they dared act like it. That could include physical violence and death. It’s easy to condemn them for moral weakness, but the price to be paid for resistance needs to be considered as well. It’s easier still, but more wrong, to casually label them all as deplorably racist.
The memorials to those who fought for slavery constantly helped remind them of what their daddies and grandpappies had fought and died for, and the mass of lies built around The Lost Cause helped reinforce it as well. So there’s no reason for any of that to continue to exist outside museum settings, as exhibits to how we used to think and what we’ve *all *arisen from, whites included. Some of us still need some serious prodding, even today.
The problem with these statues is their symbolic meaning for the various groups in question such as the KKK, neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. The RELee statue in Charlottesville was commissioned by a philanthropist in 1915(?) whose political leanings I don’t really know about but it did seem to be done to create works of art that commemorated US history. At that point in history the resurgence of the KKK was about to take place, I don’t know how the events relate exactly but I don’t think it would be seen in the same light as we do now.
We could see this objectively as a statute of an American who was a major leader in an act of failed rebellion that enveloped half the nation. In the direct aftermath of the Civil War it may have been reasonable to try to put the past behind and not totally demonize the rebels. Decades later that effort seems to have preserved the political rebellion morphed into white supremacist movement since the issues of secession and slavery had become moot.
Now we are a century and half past the civil war, statues in the public square don’t serve the same cultural function they once did, and in this case they are symbols of hate. They don’t need to be destroyed, but we do not need monuments for hate groups to gather around. Store them in a warehouse or away from publicly accessible property, or in a suitable museum setting that does not focus on the political issues perhaps, but it is time for them to leave the public square.
First, statues are rarely (if ever) made to accurately portray a historical figure or a historical event. Statues are generally made to honor or lionize someone in particular (like Lee) or an event, like the statues of the Korean War Memorial or those of the Warsaw Uprising Monument. Major General Benedict Arnold played a significant role in the early years of the Revolutionary War and the Battle of Saratoga in particular, but outside of his (unlabeled) boot, there are no statues of him in the U.S. and none are needed to commemorate him or otherwise remember his actions in history.
Second, there are very few who are demonizing every single Confederate soldier. Many high level Confederate officers and Confederate politicians, however, are worthy of some not-so-fond remembrance given that they betrayed oaths they took either as U.S. military officers or as U.S. office holders in order to serve in the Confederacy, steal U.S. property and munitions, and work to kill and generally support the war effort against U.S. service members. The only president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis (namesake of our current Attorney General), was serving in the U.S. Senate before he resigned to join the Confederate government, first as a general and shortly afterwards as its president. Most of the senior levels of the Confederate government were comprised of either just-resigned federal-level politicians before secession or very recently-sitting federal-level politicians.
Ultimately, even if we got rid of every single Confederate-honoring statue, monument, and marker, there are still plenty of officially sanctioned remembrances. Many of the battlefields of some of the significant battles of the Civil War are maintained and protected by the federal government, along with numerous other national cemeteries. And the names of many of the most significant active U.S. Army bases will still paradoxically carry the names of Confederate generals - Fort Lee, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Gordon, Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, etc.
Here are a couple of articles on the racist history of the Lee statue. I find it troubling that white America has created a false history that kindly historians scattered these monuments across the south like a tweedy Johnny Appleseed. They were the symbols of an oppressive regime.
Do please note, everyone, the near-total lack of memorials to slaves anywhere near the memorials to the slavers. Wouldn’t it be rather the *opposite *of erasing history to put up a statue of a kidnapped African on an auction block, and another of a black child getting whipped, next to each statue of Robert E. Lee?
I didn’t have the full story on it, I didn’t want to immediately classify it as a symbol of hate, but the facts seem to indicate that’s what it is. It is a piece of history, unfortunately not really Civil War history, but the history of further hate and intolerance that followed the war and still remains.
I’m someone who actually does agree that statues of George Washington are inappropriate and potentially harmful, as they would be for any slaveowner. Do you have an alternative as a counter-argument for someone like me?
George Washington put his life on the line to create this nation. Had we lost the revolution he would have surely been hung. He fought for freedom, including the freedom that would have taken his slaves away. Like Jefferson is life is stained as a slave-holder, but there’s no comparison to Custer who’s only mark in life was to lead the army of treason against the cause of freedom.
Despite the love and awe I hold for the Lincoln Memorial I would be perfectly willing to have all the statues taken down, to end idolatry in the public square, but I’d have to set my watch for half past when hell freezes over to ever see that happen. That doesn’t mean we can’t take down the most offensive of these statues which were intended to celebrate treason, hatred, and slavery.
Being a slave-holder isn’t like having a dirty mark on one’s tabard otherwise decorated with medals and ribbons of valour. It isn’t a stain; it corrupts the whole. There are of course other historical figures who don’t get fine deeds pinned to their chest. But drawing a line between them is the problem, because it says this; you can do some of the things we say are the worst you can do to another person, but if your medals are shiny enough, hey, you get a statue and our appreciation.
I agree that there’s no chance in hell for any sort of taking down of Founding Father statues or the like, and that there’s a possibility of it for other, less revered figures.
Sorry, but you are excluding any possible middle. I think Washington and Jefferson are both stained by slavery, but their ‘medals’ are things they do deserve credit for and their statues exist to commemorate their service in the cause of freedom. There are no important mitigating factors for Lee that justify the statues with erected for the purpose of glorifying treason and hatred. It is not hypocritical to remove Lee’s statues keep the statues of Jefferson and Washington, a reasonable distinction can be drawn.
Custer wasn’t a confederate. He was an excellent cavalry and US army officer and was promoted many times during the civil war for meritorious service, to the rank of Major General.
I don’t exclude the middle; I exclude slave-holders from the middle.
The fine deeds and good works that historical figures did can be commemorated, and even celebrated, by recognising those fine deeds and good works. I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical to call for a Lee statue to be removed but not a Jefferson one; my standards aren’t someone elses’.
How about, for each statue, we go back and see what the enshriners had to say?
Because it would put an end to this revisionist crap I think. Maybe dig it out and read it aloud as they’re pulling it down. Just so everyone is clear on the difference between heritage and hatefulness. And which was actually intended.