What Happened to "Don't Erase History"? or What the Confederate Monument Debate Was Always About
Tracking the gap between conservative rhetoric on monuments and their silence on Cesar Chavez
For years, the debate over which figures deserve public commemoration has been one of the loudest fault lines in American political and cultural life. When cities began removing statues of Confederate generals following the murder of nine Black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015, and again in the wave of activism after George Floyd's killing in 2020, conservative voices rose in unified, passionate defense of those monuments. Senators delivered floor speeches. Governors signed executive orders. A sitting president called the removals an assault on American heritage and history.
The argument was consistent and forceful. History, however uncomfortable, must not be erased.
Then came the revelations last week that labor and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez had sexually abused multiple women during the 1960s and 70s. Calls to purge Chavez from the commemorative landscape, from the names of schools to the canceling of holidays in his honor have been swift, but there has also been a conspicuous silence.
Yesterday, I posted the following on Bluesky.
What explains this asymmetry? The answer requires looking honestly at what the Confederate monument debate was actually about and what the Chavez debate is actually about.
Let’s get started.