There are many in favor of the preservation of Confederate monuments in the public square. On the other side are those adamantly against their positions of honor and prestige in the public eye. There is much to say about both groups, but those attempting to position themselves in the middle are most intriguing, as they claim positions of neutrality or faux objectivity in the name of “seeing both sides.”
We challenge those proverbial fence sitters. This position, when placed in the context of historical fact, does not hold water. Plainly put – there is no middle ground.
When it comes to issues of race and racism, the ugly history of slavery, and the heinous institutions, policies and practices it birthed, there is no middle ground. Over the last several weeks, there have been a lot of heated discussions about the placement and position of old relics of the Confederacy across our country. Contrary to the accusations of many opponents to the removal of the statues, this fight is not at all new.
Protests against Confederate trophies can be traced to the 1800’s when white and black Union veterans objected to the inclusion of Confederate graves in Memorial Day celebrations.
In 1869, the white Union Adjutant General William T. Collins, wrote, “We strew flowers on the graves of our comrades, and prevent their being strewn in the national cemeteries at the same time, on graves of such rebel dead as may be buried therein … because we seek to mark in this distinction and manner the feelings with which the nation regards freedom and slavery, loyalty and treason … mere courage never ennobled treason. It cannot turn slavery into liberty, or make despotic intentions desirable and to-be-applauded virtues. Our refusal to decorate rebel graves marks … our undying hostility to the ideas for which they fought and died. To do less than keep this distinction fresh in the national mind is to undermine the republic itself.”
For years, African-Americans have objected to the construction of monuments and use of flags and other symbols. However, we learned from the murder of Viola Gregg Liuzzo, the white civil rights activist killed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1965, it sometimes takes a tragedy of just the right hue for people to pay attention.
A modern example is the response to the heroin epidemic. Historically the response to addiction was jail, but the response changes as the hue of the addict changes. Police are now armed with Narcan and money for life-saving treatment seems unlimited. It seems we can’t calculate the value of life until we know the race of the victim. Thus, we understand that the statues stand as evidence that the victims of the atrocities committed are not valued by their country.
You are either for continued celebration and honor of those who fought and died, or were willing to die, for the right to systematically subjugate, brutalize and murder an entire race of people based solely on their skin color and desire for wealth or you are not.
Your silence or ambivalence on this issue does not make you fair, impartial, or well-reasoned. Your willingness to “discuss” the merits of removal with both sides or take into consideration the perspectives of those most affected—as if our lived experiences are up for debate—makes you neither compassionate nor emotionally intelligent.
Rather, they call attention to your disregard for the emotional and literal harm they inflict on generations.
No one, we are familiar with, in favor of the removal of Confederate statues from the public square, is in favor of erasing these monsters from history. In fact, we are staunch advocates for the teaching of a complete American history. A history that includes the atrocities committed against Native Americans, the transatlantic slave trade, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the dismantling of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, the prison industrial complex and more.
We want history preserved and told because we must learn from it. But monuments are not necessary for learning and truth. We need more substantive engagement in museums, books, documentaries, theaters and classrooms.
Monuments honoring losers teach us that there are not consequences for actions, however heinous they may be, particularly (and this is most painful) when the victim is black. They teach us that our darkest moments as a nation should be celebrated. Worst of all, they teach us to forget that the victims of the perpetrators we honor are still here and suffering from that trauma daily.
This debate is not about statues but who and whose values get valued. It is about how we continue to respond or not, to today’s discrimination, hate and marginalization and how symbols reflect our behavior, our values, our endorsement.
Where you fall is a matter of personal conscience, but you must choose. Jefferson Davis said, “You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be.” If you are neutral on whether a monument to him in the Capitol rotunda stays or goes. … you have indeed chosen a side because there is no fence to sit on.
Sadiqa N. Reynolds, Esq., is president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League. Lyndon Pryor is the director of health policy and education at the Louisville Urban League.
