I’m a self-confessed Northern Liberal. I admit it! I will also admit that as a Northern Liberal, the sound of Southern Conservatives complaining about the removal of Confederate statues sounds like whingeing. That’s a British term for peevish complaining. To my Northern ears, it sounds something like, “Blah, blah, blah… loss of privilege. Blah, blah, blah… things have changed. Blah, blah, blah… loss of culture.” Those who make these arguments often go on to talk about White History, the history of Caucasian Americans. If I understand them, they are deeply concerned about “their” history getting lost, covered up, otherwise diminished. I never felt that the “White History” argument was particularly compelling. But like the typical Northern Liberal, I thought, “What if I’m wrong? What if I’m missing something important? Maybe my Northern perspective is just as biased as the White History view?”
It was time to speak with people from outside my own bubble, individuals with very different political views. I’ve come to a conclusion. The White History people are right. Somewhere along the way, major parts of American history have been lost. We have (excuse the term) white-washed American history, and we desperately need to teach its children truthfully about White History. So, I am calling out to other amateur and professional historians, museum curators, cultural anthropologists, school teachers, parents, and activists to raise awareness, in the US and around the world, of true, accurate, White History.
Just like any other concept, there are a lot of different opinions about what White History means. The core argument, that most supporters would agree with, is that history is something like a concert. There are major beats and there are less consequential passages. Some of the notes are key, they are the heart of the composition, the parts we’re supposed to remember, while other sections are less memorable, even less important. Classic pieces of American “music” have been reinterpreted, with too much emphasis on the minor beats. Those who loved the classic version, rate the new interpretations anywhere from “meh”, to an outrageous insult. They want the good old-fashioned version… no introspective, no updates, no modernization.
In a newscast, a woman was literally crying over the removal of a Confederate statue, “We’re losing our White History.” Which is a bit odd, when you think about it. All of the “threatened” Confederate statues are all men, although I do think there are a few Confederate statues of women mostly performing home tasks, or comforting a dying soldier. But that’s the exception. It feels a bit strange that any women support White History, which so rarely includes anything about women. What White History does speak to is important (White) men, doing important men things… like fighting wars.
Decades before Black Lives Matter or even Black studies (or native American studies, or multiculturalism) became a part of the standard college coursework, women in the US and in nations around the world rebelled against the mostly white male, official history of the last century. Women are 51% of the world’s population, a part of every nation on earth, and today they are 56% of all college students. Yet in the last half of the 20th century, women struggled to find evidence of their existence in history books. If women did show up in the official record, their roles were diminished. Discoverers and explorers became mere assistants. Co-authors were transformed into secretaries. It became obvious that official history was highly edited, and important sections had been discarded. The last 50 years have been a struggle for ignored groups to find evidence of their history in the official record.
Consider, Gone with the Wind. A beloved film about the Confederate age that reignited interest in the Civil War, giving a generation of Americans a visceral, romantic, feel for a lost time. But the movie was based on a fictional book, not actual history. The story covers the time just before the Civil War, the war itself, and the aftermath. But the real story is a romance between the two main characters. The Old South is just a romantic backdrop. It skips over the nasty bits, the kidnapping of millions of Africans, slave markets, chains, beatings, and lynchings.
That imagery just doesn’t work with a romance. So, slaves are transformed into smiling, well-treated domestic workers. The main character (Scarlett O’Hara) has a… ahem… black “maid” by the name of “Mammy”. Mammy, clearly loves and protects Scarlett, and appears to Scarlett’s real mother… loving, doting, and forever Scarlett’s guardian. A better, more loving mother, than Scarlett’s real mother. Why isn’t Mammy spending all her time on her own children? Well, for one… she’s a slave. For another, if she had any children of her own they might have already been sold off at a slave market.
Gone with the Wind is not history, but its popularity has made it a part of the American experience. A 2014 Harris poll found it to be the second favorite book of American readers, just behind the Bible. More Americans built their understanding of the Civil War on this movie than on Civil War History books. Therefore, this movie has done more than any other to replace White History with fiction. But we’re here to fix our broken White History, so let’s let go of old movies, romantic books and get back to real history. Specifically, let’s look at those controversial Confederate statues. They have become the lightning rod for White History. By removing the statues are we wiping out American history? Let’s dive in and see what we can do to ensure that America remembers White History!
Were Confederates… Americans? No, they’re not. I don’t mean that the Civil War didn’t happen. Nor do I mean that the Civil War didn’t have many important consequences. I simply mean that not a single Confederates soldier or politician was an American. WHAT!!! You didn’t know that? This wasn’t part of your education? NOW do you see why teaching White History is so important?
When the South became the Confederacy, it wasn’t like everyone saying, “Hey, I’m dropping out of the Republican party. It just doesn’t represent me. I’ll join the… let’s see… Confederates. Yeah , that’s it… Confederates! That’ll show the Northerners!” Nope! The Confederacy was… something altogether different.
The Confederacy was a new nation and a new constitution. The official name was The Confederate States of America or the CSA. The CSA made it quite clear that they despised the USA’s positions on slavery and other issues. They could not stand being part of the US, they turned their backs on the US, and created the CSA. By their own choice. They built an army and navy, and then on April 12, 1861 they opened fire on Fort Sumpter, starting the first battle of the Civil War.
There is an argument to be made that constitutions and war have more to do with a few major political figures than the common man. But the common man put on a foreign uniform and was told that he would be sent to kill his Northern cousins. And he did. Not every Southerner may have wanted war or supported the CSA, but most fought for and sacrificed for the CSA. Poor white southerners (the majority were very poor) supported slavery and the war. They didn’t own slaves, but they were raised in a society that told them that regardless of how poor they were, they belonged to a superior race. That was something they did not want to give up. Unlike their US citizenship.
Shouldn’t Great Generals Get Monuments? Nope. Great generals who WIN, get monuments. The South, the CSA, lost. When you lose, you don’t get a monument. More often you get imprisoned, sometimes executed, and almost always penalized in some way. But monuments? No.
Consider Napoleon. Historians often talk of him as a Tyrant and a mass murderer, but he is also considered one of the most successful greatest generals of all time. Naturally, there are statues of Napoleon in France depicting the battles he won. But in the UK, which fought against Napoleon, no monuments. WHAT! Are these stiff-necked Brits a bunch of sore… ahhh… winners?
It’s a rule. When two nations fight, the one that wins chooses which monuments will be built. The loser gets no say. The sinning side invariably builds monuments to the generals and the battles that they won. Why would you build a monument to the battles you lost? Why would you build monuments to the battles that killed more of your citizens? Yet, few White Historians emphasize that CSA statues not only glorify slave ownership, but they glorify some of the greatest slaughters of American citizens before WWII. This connection, that these individuals killed so many American citizens MUST be a part of the White History that is attached to any remaining statues.
What Do These Monuments Celebrate? There are many different types of monuments. In what used to be the Garment District of New York City there is a monument with a 30-foot needle going through the hole in a button. Not a bad way of saying “this marks the Garment District”. Romans loved building Triumphal arches. When a general won a big battle, they would put a big stone arch on a major road, and decorate the arch with inscriptions and images of your victory. A monument coupled be abstract, like the Washington Monument, or contemplative, like Lincoln’s statue in the center of the Lincoln Monument.
Confederate monuments tend to be a “Guy on a Horse”. More specifically, a high-ranking guy in a military uniform, on a horse. Sometimes it is a generic rank and file soldier (or soldiers), with one or more holding a gun. There are a few other types, but most have that military look. These are soldier generals either headed into battle or returning from a battle. After all, where does a General go on a horse? And what is it that Generals and soldiers do in a battle? They kill the enemy. These aren’t just monuments for the losing side of a war, they are monuments to the battles they won, monuments to the murder of Americans. The biggest killing grounds (and killers) got the biggest (and the most) monuments.
Wait… that’s a SURPRISE? You didn’t know that Confederate monuments exist to glorify the slaughtering of Americans? Weren’t the guns and foreign military uniforms a hint? Now that you think about it, aren’t you shocked… and a bit horrified… that ANY American is fighting to preserve murder memorials?
The Civil War was a long time ago. It’s hard to understand the feelings of that time. Let’s modernize this argument. What if in 1939 the German majority in Pennsylvania declared independence from America, and became a part of Hitler’s Third Reich? When the war was over, would we accept monuments to Nazi heroes on American soil? OK, Pennsylvania would never join the Nazis, but what if a group of non-political… engineers?… wanted to just build a monument to a technical accomplishment. Like the creation of the Mitsubishi A6M, better known as the Zero. Pearl Harbor would be a great place to build that memorial, given that this is where America first learned just how capable the Zero was. Anyone care to propose a Monument to Al-Qaeda in New York or Washington?
Are all of these monuments absurd? Of course they are! We would have to be insane to build monuments to the Nazis or to Al-Queda. Or to the Confederacy. These were all military organizations that were opposed to the USA. Their opposition was not just theoretical, they killed American citizens. They were all enemies of America. For me, that’s a pretty good cut-off for monuments.
Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate military, said it best when he was asked for his opinion about a monument in Gettysburg. “I think it wiser, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” He didn’t want ANY memorials. Of course, more monuments (and statues, schools, roads, and public buildings) were built in his name than any other Confederate. Perhaps, instead of glorifying his battles or his monuments, White History should glorify Lee’s opposition to Confederate monuments? Yes, we have much to teach our children about White History.
Yes… we MUST teach American White History. REAL White History, not a sentimentalized, sanitized, and idealized version of history. History can be… messy. And heroes can be less than heroic. Genuine history, truthful history, regardless of its color, takes courage. Every new page of history can have surprising information, but we can’t make history better by leaving out the bits we don’t like.
What do you think? Should we continue to remove Confederate memorials, or should they be left as they are? Are there cultural benefit to these monuments? Share your opinions with us!