PC Gone Too Far

Preserving part of your hallowed history does not require putting monuments in the most prominent places in town. Museums work just fine. If you need to remind folks that these statues date from 100 years ago rather than 150 years ago, you probably need a plaque for that anyway as most folks cannot tell by simply seeing the statutes.Apparently, the majority of the folks in New Orleans don't want the statutes displayed in the middle of town; the plan is to move them to a museum, something which is highly appropriate in my opinion. Undoubtedly, the full details of what folks thought at the time would be included in such a display. Also by the criteria of at least one poster, this particular moving would not be PC because it is not a tactic being employed by the minority that most be resisted at all costs.And apparently, a minority of local folks think that 'people of color' must be required to stub their toe on these things every day. Fortunately, we know that their threats and protests are just PC gone to far. Suppose that already existed. Suppose that 100 years ago, white supremacists had already erected a monument celebrating a famous lynching. Would that be enough of a reminder, so that nothing additional would be needed? We could tell 'people of color' to pretend that those statues were honoring their ancestors rather than celebrating their deaths.From the mayor of New Orleans:

quote:

---

Getting here wasn’t easy. It took a two-year review process, a City Council vote and victories over multiple legal challenges. The original firm we’d hired to remove the monuments backed out after receiving death threats and having one of his cars set ablaze. Nearly every heavy-crane company in southern Louisiana has received threats from opponents. Some have likened these monuments to other monuments around the world from bygone eras, and have argued that civic resources would be better spent trying to educate the public about the history they embody. Respectfully, that’s not the point. As mayor, I must consider their impact on our entire city. It’s my job to chart the course ahead, not simply to venerate the past.

​

The record is clear: New Orleans’s Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were erected with the goal of rewriting history to glorify the Confederacy and perpetuate the idea of white supremacy. These monuments stand not as mournful markers of our legacy of slavery and segregation, but in reverence of it. They are an inaccurate recitation of our past, an affront to our present and a poor prescription for our future.

---

I'm going with the mayor on this. Put these monstrosities in a museum and take eighth-graders of every color on a tour to see them in their proper context.More from the mayor:

quote:

---

Our history is forever intertwined with that of our great nation including its most terrible sins. We must always remember our history and learn from it. But that doesn’t mean we must valorize the ugliest chapters, as we do when we put the Confederacy on a pedestal literally in our most prominent public places.

---

Yeah, that's exactly how I see it.Of course, you know better than the mayor of New Orleans and its citizens what ought to be done with those local statutes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To put this in a more modern context, imagine if Nazis after WWII erected a massive statue of Hitler in the main town square of Berlin in reverence of their much beloved leader. Imagine if the statue was still held in high esteem by modern day Nazis, and that anti-Semitism was still rampant in some parts of Germany.I think we would all think that the Hitler statue would be an affront to human rights and human decency.

Nope. Just entitled to express a thought - particularly when prefaced with the words "Perhaps the middle ground might be".

And yours, too. Yes, I already said that would be fine. If they end up in a museum then that would also be fine, but will they actually end up there? If they do end up in a museum will that really be the end of the objections, or will the objections then become to the museum displays? I agree with the sentiments but not with the solution. We're whitewashing history. Don't remove them, add context. It deserves to be publicly remembered how slowly attitudes change, how recently was the South still venerated, how (as someone recently reminded us in this thread) such attitudes persist still.--Percy

Hmm, how about a statue of Hitler on one side and a statue of Stalin on the other?

"Whitewashing" would imply that we're trying to make something ugly look better. The opposite seems to be true.

There are museums that deal with the Holocaust, mistreatment of Native Americans, and plenty of other ugly parts of history. No one seems to object to them.In our culture, the statues you place in public squares are meant to describe your city's values. That's why these statues are being taken down and moved, because they run counter to the values that NO citizens want to be represented. A museum display detailing the relics of racism, slavery, and the Confederacy wouldn't be considered an expression of NO's values in the same way.

Apparently, we agree that history can be preserved without these statutes being located in the center of town. Absent some story that these statues won't make it to a museum, I don't see how NO can be accused of whitewashing anything.ABE:Apparently, a number of folks have offered to place the statues in a museum or to display them outdoors. Perhaps we can put off the accusations of whitewashing as premature?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Whatever term is used, the point is that the further these monuments are removed from the public eye the more they're out of our consciousness. The more history is forgotten the better its mistakes can be repeated.--Percy

That analogy is a better one than the one I had in mind.Seeing the veneration that some people still hold the old Confederacy - and the historical revisionism some racists are engaging in (as well as black Ameican still being denied their place as equal citizens) - removing symbols and monuments associated with the Confederacy and slave-owning culture is more like a lower key, less obtrusive form of the de-Nazification Germany went through after WWII.

Again, we are both on record as being fine with a museum. If that is no longer your position, just say so, and I will address that.There are competing concerns here, only one of which is making sure that we don't forget about "mistakes" that were nothing of the sort. In this case, I think a museum is a great balance. There is no reason that I need to have J. Davis constantly in view every time I go downtown. My memory is better than that.

Nothing I said contradicts what I said earlier. It's a general principal. And perhaps the public is better off when constantly faced with uncomfortable truths. But out of sight, out of mind. The balance comes at a cost, and at risk of eventual consignment to storage. Museums must show what the public wants to see if they want the public to show up. If the Jefferson Davis statue is something people don't want to see then it won't survive long on public display. It would be interesting to see what the museum display eventually looks like, what kind of context they create.--Percy

You are indeed contradicting what you said. The idea that the public is better off faced with the statues directly contradicts the idea that a museum is good enough. If balance is not a proper thing to do, then why don't we all put statues of Jefferson Davis in out backyards? Why isn't there a forum on EvC dedicated to reminding us of the lessons of the civil war?Being unbalanced also has a cost. Statues of Jefferson Davis are rallying points for neo-Confederates. They are eyesores that detract from the message New Orleans many want to present to tourists. The idea that other concerns are less important that the one you suggest is, IMO, an extreme and ridiculous position.And no, out of sight does not always mean out of mind. I haven't been near a statue or carving of Jefferson Davis in years. But I will note that there are plenty of streets named after the fellow all over the country. The idea that JD was revered by many folks is not something I am likely to forget. Edited by NoNukes, : ABE is marked.

Well, we actually know what folks in the South have forgotten about history, and it seems at least plausible that their veneration of the Confederacy has helped them to forget it. So if the point is to have public aide-mmoires for history students, let's take down the statues and replace them with big placards saying YES, THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT SLAVERY. And then when they've all learned that lesson maybe they can put the statues back up --- if they want to.

Museum good, public display better, is not a contradiction. And I've expressed reservations about the museum alternative from the beginning. I think I'm more arguing that balance as you're advocating it may not really be balancing. It's a way of hiding history. Not less important, also important. Another danger is that even within sight can mean out of mind. Something you see everyday just sinks into the backdrop and goes unnoticed. You keep using yourself as an example. I would argue you're not typical.--Percy