I don't think the addition of memorializations to US veterans changed the fact that it was still - at its core - a monument to the Confederacy and an artifact of "Lost Cause" propaganda. It seems akin to when some Southern states added Martin Luther King Jr.'s name to the Robert E. Lee (or Lee-Jackson) holiday and then acted as though no one should have anything to complain about afterwards. Perhaps the Confederate language could have been sand-blasted off the monument, but considering all of the African-American area residents' ancestors who grew up looking at that monument and knowing what it meant, I'm guessing there was too much emotional baggage attached to it. At any rate, I think the US veterans from the area deserve to have a monument unencumbered by any connections to the UDC and the Lost Cause.
Hi Tre. I tend to agree with your comment here, but I think we need to leave some room for the possibility of reappropriating monuments. This, however, may not be an example of that.
I agree that communities have a right to decide their own lawn art. So long as the process of dedication/removal is pursued in accordance with democratic practices, I have no real comment. That said, this is one instance that leaves me a little cold. As you mention, this monument has been repurposed several times since 1918 to include other conflicts. Whether the locals had African-American veterans in mind when they rededicated the monument each time following a United States conflict is impossible to say. However, it complicates this particular moment, and I do wonder if the mayor and citizens recognized that distinction as they reached their decision?
It's a good question whether there were alternatives, but it's also true that later US wars and their memorialization served the cause of "reconciliation"—i.e., reinstalling white supremacy as an organizing principle of the US military and of veteran culture. (Greg Grandin is especially good on this in his most recent book, The End of the Myth.) Perhaps a new monument that more clearly re-grounds the observance of veterans' sacrifices apart from this legacy is proper.
“ ENFIELD, N.C. (WITN) - The State Bureau of Investigation said it is looking into the destruction of a Confederate monument in an Enfield town park… An SBI spokeswoman told WITN News this afternoon that their investigation began at the request of the police chief and the district attorney.”
I don't think the addition of memorializations to US veterans changed the fact that it was still - at its core - a monument to the Confederacy and an artifact of "Lost Cause" propaganda. It seems akin to when some Southern states added Martin Luther King Jr.'s name to the Robert E. Lee (or Lee-Jackson) holiday and then acted as though no one should have anything to complain about afterwards. Perhaps the Confederate language could have been sand-blasted off the monument, but considering all of the African-American area residents' ancestors who grew up looking at that monument and knowing what it meant, I'm guessing there was too much emotional baggage attached to it. At any rate, I think the US veterans from the area deserve to have a monument unencumbered by any connections to the UDC and the Lost Cause.
Hi Tre. I tend to agree with your comment here, but I think we need to leave some room for the possibility of reappropriating monuments. This, however, may not be an example of that.
I agree that communities have a right to decide their own lawn art. So long as the process of dedication/removal is pursued in accordance with democratic practices, I have no real comment. That said, this is one instance that leaves me a little cold. As you mention, this monument has been repurposed several times since 1918 to include other conflicts. Whether the locals had African-American veterans in mind when they rededicated the monument each time following a United States conflict is impossible to say. However, it complicates this particular moment, and I do wonder if the mayor and citizens recognized that distinction as they reached their decision?
It's a good question whether there were alternatives, but it's also true that later US wars and their memorialization served the cause of "reconciliation"—i.e., reinstalling white supremacy as an organizing principle of the US military and of veteran culture. (Greg Grandin is especially good on this in his most recent book, The End of the Myth.) Perhaps a new monument that more clearly re-grounds the observance of veterans' sacrifices apart from this legacy is proper.
Complicated stuff, although a new veterans’ memorial is a good idea. Also, there’s this story: https://www.witn.com/2022/08/22/crime-scene-tape-surrounds-confederate-monument-taken-down-by-enfields-mayor/
“ ENFIELD, N.C. (WITN) - The State Bureau of Investigation said it is looking into the destruction of a Confederate monument in an Enfield town park… An SBI spokeswoman told WITN News this afternoon that their investigation began at the request of the police chief and the district attorney.”
It’s unclear to me what the alleged crime actually is. Enfield has an interesting recent political history too. https://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/local/enfield-candidates-for-mayor-answer-questions/article_4206e3e0-c07b-5619-bc62-82b6194c4ca4.html
Thanks for the links.
Can’t they just erect a new monument? One that is designed by an African American would have special appeal, I would think.
They absolutely can.