As museums and city officials debate the tearing down of monuments and attempt to share the histories of previously marginalized groups in America, so too will they become battlegrounds between ethnic and social minorities and those hostile to those elements in their communities.
Elif Gokcigdem, a historian of Islamic art and historical journal editor stated “Museums and empathy are a powerful combination that can provide transformative experiences of dialogue, discovery, understanding and contemplation to all regardless of age or background.” This presupposes a state of open-mindedness and curiosity from the museum’s community. What happens if that same community is hostile to this transformation?
Age and background are a force at play when reinterpreting history. Opponents of newer and more inclusive interpretations conclude that reinterpretation is revision. These anti-revisionists are generally of either an older age-bracket than other museum visitors, or part of a group that is dominantly portrayed in the existing narratives. In light of this truth, museums must contend with newly hostile elements in their communities. Monuments sanctioned by the city serve much the same purpose as museums, and struggles to remove monuments that glorify those that brought pain to others are gaining momentum.
The most vicious battles have been, and will continue to be waged in the American south over interpretation of slavery and the Confederacy in museums and monuments. In recent years, there has been a call to action for Texas politicians to begin the process of historical reinterpretation of Confederate monuments. The Confederate monument at Travis Park with the inscription “Lest We Forget Our Confederate Dead” came down in 2017.
Anna Deluna , 47, a San Antonio resident came to witness the removal of the monument and shared her opinion. “We just wanted to see it come down. It just represents racism and inequality and oppression and we are glad now that it’s coming down. It just seems like nowadays things are really, really difficult with Trump being in power, race relations. Maybe the silver lining is statues like these and attention being brought to them.” Her boyfriend, Doyle Avant, 53 agreed “I think it’s disingenuous to say it’s just history and it’s heritage. The heritage argument is really nonsense.” Despite support from many San Antonio residents like these, death threats were made to the construction contractors and workers responsible for the monument’s demise.
Avant’s point about history and heritage, and the way many mistake the two is both poignant and relevant. It is poignant because those who must drive past Confederate monuments to work or school every day are reminded of the darker parts of their city’s heritage, not its history. The two must be distinguished. When an African-American goes past the Confederate monument to Jefferson Davis in Atlanta, they are not gaining any historical understanding of the Confederacy or the institution of slavery. The monument is simply indicative of what past residents of Atlanta deemed fit to glorify as part of their heritage as White southerners that dominated city politics. If there was a monument of Jefferson Davis signing the Confederate States Constitution, it would be closer to history – but still a monument to White southern heritage. These monuments inspire the few and bring grief to the many, so why not tear them all down, and throw them into the sea?
It’s an understandable impulse. However, these monuments in the context of a greater historical narrative do have value. Those protesting the removal of these monuments, even with their incredibly hostile rhetoric and willingness to resort to violence do have a point. Destruction of these heritage markers is historical revisionism. While their love for the darker aspects of their heritage, such as the condoning of slavery is disturbing, the Confederacy and all of its baggage is an important chapter in American history. These monuments could have use in educating future generations on the dangers of political tribalism and fueling racist ideologies. They must be reinterpreted, and not revised. Relocation of these monuments to museums or historical sites with other historical artifacts and museum professionals to interpret them is a far more pleasing solution. Those who are rightfully offended by their presence in prominent parts of their city no longer need see them every day, and those who value these monuments as part of their heritage may still visit them. Hopefully in the process, these people will gain knowledge about their histories and possibly, lose the misguided love they feel for the darkest elements in their heritage.
