Richmond's Valentine Museum Interprets Jefferson Davis Statue
A statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis is now on display in Richmond’s Valentine museum. The decision to display a toppled Davis forces visitors to look down rather than the direction that white southerners intended for it to be viewed when it was dedicated on Richmond’s Monument Avenue in 1907.
This display suggests that with some careful thought it is possible to display Confederate monuments that have been removed in a way that is both educational and non-threatening to the community.
It also guarantees that the visual experience will be tied to the statue’s final moments, when it was toppled by protesters shortly after the police murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Interpretive panels can provide the relevant historical context of the Lost Cause, the Jim Crow era, and local history.
I look forward to hearing more about how the public reacts to one of the most iconic and controversial statues in its new home.
The museum has the right to display the statue however it wishes, and given that the toppling and covering with paint were a part of the 2020 riots following the killing of George Floyd, I can see how it could view these things as themselves an important part of history and, as a result, not wish to restore the statue to its original state. However, I find your argument that leaving it like this is "non-threatening to the community" to be highly problematic. Displayed like this, the statue is just as provocative as it was before the rioting on Monument Avenue--only in a different way. I think it's very plausible that some people will look at it the way it is now and feel a sense of being "threatened." However, they will not be the same people as those who felt that way gazing at it on its lofty perch on Monument Avenue. Moreover, given that statues and other monuments that are vandalized usually have the vandalism removed, the museum's decision not to do so here could easily be seen as a political statement. Again, I can understand their decision. But by the same token, I think it's very naive to believe it can be seen as a neutral, unifying way to display the statue that no well-meaning person will have reason to take issue with.
What explanatory notes are around this statue?
Do any of them contain the word traitor?