Outrage over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin last month in Sanford, Florida can now be seen in the form of graffiti on Civil War monuments in New Orleans. It should come as no surprise. Monuments to both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were spray painted with the names of Martin and two other local African American men, who recently died as a result of violent clashes with city police. The spray painted names are themselves a form of memory, but the use of the Davis and Lee monuments add meaning that go far beyond confronting random graffiti on the side of a building.
Irregardless of whether the graffiti can be traced to the black community, the act itself serves to remind the surrounding community that this violence is perceived to be racial in nature. The use of these particular monuments not only points to the history of racial tension in the community, but to the institutions themselves that were responsible for creating these public spaces and largely responsible for legally enforcing inequities within the public sector. The damage to these structures reflects a sense of alienation from the community and a rejection of the community’s values as represented in these monuments.
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the decision to deface these particular monuments reflects the extent to which memory of the Civil War has been eclipsed or shaped by our collective memory of the civil rights movement. It is likely that the perpetrators of this act know very little about Davis and Lee, but they know enough to connect them to the history of race in the United States during the past 150 years. That is clearly a recent development. The appropriation of the meaning of these sites as stamped with a history of racial injustice is itself an attack on the values and preferred Civil War memory of previous generations.
It is unlikely that the monuments will be cleaned in time for the “Final Four” showdown this weekend. That’s OK for at least one person:
Pastor Shawn Anglim of First Grace United Methodist Church has a different take on the graffiti that has focused on the controversy surrounding the meanings.“Right now, it’s a need for conversation. And whether done in proper way or not, maybe it’s OK it’s up for a week or so. And it gets some people talking a little bit,” Anglim said.
Whether Lincoln deserves a day in Virginia will be determined by whether the sponsors of the bill can gain enough support in Richmond and ultimately among the general public. This is not about political correctness , but about political persuasion. In other words, whoever makes the best case within the marketplace of commemorative visions and can rally sufficient support will prevail. In the context of the public sphere how we as a community commemorate and remember our past has always proceeded along these lines. One of the comments on the previous post pointed out that the sponsor of the resolution is both a Democrat and African American. I suggested that it is irrelevant given that Democrats and African Americans have just as much a right as anyone to propose such commemorative events. Perhaps if the sponsor had chosen to honor an ex-Confederate general there would have been no need to bring up politics and race. I don’t know.
What gives me comfort is that unlike the formative period of Civil War commemorations we now live at a time when these questions can be discussed and debated by both black and white Virginians. After all, it is a shared history.
A couple weeks ago I linked to a video of Ron Paul lecturing a group about the Civil War and today I came across another segment from that same talk. It’s more of the same nonsense. I don’t know what is worse, not knowing any history or butchering it in the way that Paul does. He doesn’t seem to know the first thing about Jefferson, the Hartford Convention, the relative importance of the tariff as a cause of the war and even the fact that both the United States and the Confederacy instituted a draft.
What I find more troubling, however, is that someone like this has any interest in leading this country. I truly do not understand why someone who is this antagonistic about the role of the federal government would want to serve in its highest office. The ease with which people throw around words like nullification and secession disgusts me. In today’s climate it is used as little more than a scare tactic and reflects a defeatist attitude.
No, I won’t be voting for Rick Santorum in any upcoming primary, but compared to some of his nutty friends on the right [and here] this seems to me to be a pretty reasonable response to what was probably a question about whether a state has the right to nullify or secede from the Union.
Santorum latches on to the popular Shelby Foote quote from Ken Burns’s PBS documentary about how Americans supposedly referred to the nation as “these” United States before the war as opposed to the postwar reference of “the” United States. Yes, Americans were more likely to define their allegiance primarily through their states, but such an identification did not exclude strong feelings of nationalism and patriotism. Just ask George Washington. Americans north and south identified themselves simultaneously as members of multiple communities beginning with their families and extending outward. These strong feelings were informed by an understanding of their history going back to the founding of the nation as well as a firm belief in American Exceptionalism. The process that led to secession beginning in December 1860 was not inevitable nor did it extinguish those strong national bonds in many of those southerners who came to believe that the Union was no longer tenable.
I can’t imagine that this response won Santorum many new friends in New Hampshire last night.
Hope everyone is enjoying the Holiday season. My wife and I had a wonderful time in New York City. The weather was fairly mild and pleasant compared to last year’s blizzard. On Christmas Day we headed downtown to “Ground Zero” to see the new 9-11 Memorial. We’ve been to NYC plenty of times since September 11, 2001, but this is our first visit to the site of the attacks. I guess dwelling on the events of that day and the loss of my cousin just never fit into previous visits, but after ten years and the dedication of the new memorial it was about time. We chose to go down on Sunday thinking that it wouldn’t be too crowded. The last thing I wanted to do was experience the site amongst a crowd of tourists snapping photographs.
We stepped out of the subway at City Hall and walked the few blocks south to the site. Even on Christmas Day the area was mobbed with tourists and street salesmen peddling 9-11 souvenirs. One of them shoved a collection of images of the most horrific images of the attacks in my face and asked if I was interested. I felt a combination of rage and sadness well up inside of me. As we moved closer it just got worse and by the time we arrived at the entrance to the site I felt emotionally drained and pretty much ready to leave. It was clear that most of the people waiting to get in did not have tickets and the 9-11 Memorial Volunteers did everything they could to move the crowds away. Neither did we. We lined up in a small group around one volunteer and he gestured with his hand for us to vacate the entrance way. He clearly had been engaged in the same gesture all day.