JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Abstract (237 words) The American Civil War has been commemorated with a great variety of monuments, memorials, and markers. These monuments were erected for a variety of reasons, beginning with memorialization of the fallen and later to honor aging veterans, commemoration of significant anniversaries associated with the conflict, memorialization sites of conflict, and celebration of the actions of military leaders. Sources reveal that during both the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras, many were erected as part of an organized propaganda campaign to terrorize African American communities and distort the past by promoting a ‘Lost Cause’ narrative. Through subsequent decades, to this day, complex and emotional narratives have surrounded interpretive legacies of the Civil War. Instruments of commemoration, through both physical and digital intervention approaches, can be provocative and instructive, as the country deals with a slavery legacy and the commemorated objects and spaces surrounding Confederate inheritances. Today, all of these potential factors and outcomes, with internationally relevance, are surrounded by swirls of social and political contention and controversy, including the remembering/forgetting dichotomies of cultural heritage. The modern dilemma turns on the question: In today’s new era of social justice, are these monuments primarily symbols of oppression, or can we see them, in select cases, alternatively as sites of conscience and reflection encompassing more inclusive conversations about commemoration? What we save or destroy and assign as the ultimate public value of these monuments rests with how we answer this question.

Objective:

I describe monuments as symbols in the “Lost Cause” narrative and their place in enduring Confederate legacies. I make the case, and offer documented examples, that remnants of the monuments, such as the “decorated” pedestals, if not the original towering statues themselves, should be left in place as sites of reflection that can be socially useful in public interpretation as disruptions of space, creating disturbances of vision that can be provocative and didactic. I argue that we should see at least some of them as sculptural works of art that invite interpretations of aesthetic and artistic value. I point out how, today, these internationally relevant factors and outcomes of retention vs. removal are engulfed in swirls of social and political contention and controversy within processes of remembering and forgetting and changing public dialogues.

Methods:

This article addresses several elements within the purview of the Journal: questions of contemporary society, diversity of opinion, recognition of complexity, subject matter of interest to non-specialists, international relevancy, and history. Drawing from the testimony of scholars and artists, I address the contemporary conceptual landscape of approaches to the presentation and evolving participatory narratives of Confederate monuments that range from absolute expungement and removal to more restrained responses such as in situ re-contextualization, removal to museums, and preservation-in-place. In a new era of social justice surrounding the aftermath of dramatic events such as the 2015 Charleston shooting, the 2017 Charlotteville riot, and the murder of George Floyd, should we see them as symbols of oppression, inviting expungement, or selectively as sites of conscience and reflection, inviting various forms of re-interpretation of tangible and intangible relationships? I describe monuments as symbols in the “Lost Cause” narrative and their place in enduring Confederate legacies. I make the case, and offer documented examples, that remnants of the monuments, such as the “decorated” pedestals, if not the original towering statues themselves, should be left in place as sites of reflection that can be socially useful in public interpretation as disruptions of space, creating disturbances of vision that can be provocative and didactic. I argue that we should see at least some of them as sculptural works of art that invite interpretations of aesthetic and artistic value. I point out how, today, these internationally relevant factors and outcomes of retention vs. removal are engulfed in swirls of social and political contention and controversy within processes of remembering and forgetting and changing public dialogues.

Results:

I argue that we should see at least some of them as sculptural works of art that invite interpretations of aesthetic and artistic value. I point out how, today, these internationally relevant factors and outcomes of retention vs. removal are engulfed in swirls of social and political contention and controversy within processes of remembering and forgetting and changing public dialogues.

Conclusions:

Today, all of these potential factors and outcomes, with internationally relevance, are surrounded by swirls of social and political contention and controversy, including the remembering/forgetting dichotomies of cultural heritage. The modern dilemma turns on the question: In today’s new era of social justice, are these monuments primarily symbols of oppression, or can we see them, in select cases, alternatively as sites of conscience and reflection encompassing more inclusive conversations about commemoration? What we save or destroy and assign as the ultimate public value of these monuments rests with how we answer this question.