I've devoted my career as a historian to centering the story of the enslaved in the Civil War and in the Confederate army specifically. Your comment beautifully sums up much of what I believe re: the importance of interpreting the experiences of the enslaved. We just disagree that the solution is the removal of park monuments.
If you really want to prevent people from misinterpreting Civil War battlefields like Gettysburg you should be advocating that they be closed down and cemented over with a shopping mall or housing development.
No, I am suggesting that this is logical outcome of your argument. You seem to think that the removal of Confederate monuments will somehow flip a switch on visitors interpreting the battlefield through a Lost Cause lens. I am suggesting that the monuments may not be the biggest problem in that regard.
What I have maintained is that these monuments can and are increasingly being used to help visitors understand the difference between history and memory. This would include a critique of the Lost Cause.
Relying on one example involving a political radical doesn't do much to support your argument. I've seen and led plenty of live tours of the monuments that reach a wide range of visitors. Even the professor you are referring to doesn't believe that the experience justifies their removal.
I am sorry if you think the study of memory is too "esoteric," but a s someone who has worked with students at the junior high and high school levels I strongly disagree.
I've devoted my career as a historian to centering the story of the enslaved in the Civil War and in the Confederate army specifically. Your comment beautifully sums up much of what I believe re: the importance of interpreting the experiences of the enslaved. We just disagree that the solution is the removal of park monuments.
If you really want to prevent people from misinterpreting Civil War battlefields like Gettysburg you should be advocating that they be closed down and cemented over with a shopping mall or housing development.
No, I am suggesting that this is logical outcome of your argument. You seem to think that the removal of Confederate monuments will somehow flip a switch on visitors interpreting the battlefield through a Lost Cause lens. I am suggesting that the monuments may not be the biggest problem in that regard.
What I have maintained is that these monuments can and are increasingly being used to help visitors understand the difference between history and memory. This would include a critique of the Lost Cause.
Relying on one example involving a political radical doesn't do much to support your argument. I've seen and led plenty of live tours of the monuments that reach a wide range of visitors. Even the professor you are referring to doesn't believe that the experience justifies their removal.
I am sorry if you think the study of memory is too "esoteric," but a s someone who has worked with students at the junior high and high school levels I strongly disagree.
Guess I have a bit more hope for the future.
As always, thanks for the feedback.