When I finished my run, I decided to take a short walk around the park -- partly because I needed to catch my breath, partly because I wanted to explore. I had passed a beautiful monument right after I had started jogging, and, being the history nerd that I am, I wanted to go back and read the description. As I approached the monument, my mood began to shift from one of contentment and happiness to one of disappointment. At the top of the description honoring Tom Lee, a heroic Memphian who saved 32 helpless passengers when a steamboat sank outside of Memphis in 1925, was the phrase, "A Very Worthy Negro."
While reading the rest of the text, which offered heaps of praise for Lee's selflessness, courage, and bravery, my mind was plagued by the first phrase I read. I couldn't get out of my mind that, rather than describing Lee as "A Selfless Man," "An Honorable Memphian," or "A Lifesaving Hero," the people who designed this monument -- whose names are proudly etched at the bottom of the description -- thought that the most fitting characterization of Lee was "A Very Worthy Negro." I began subconsciously shaking my head in disappointment as I continued reading, only noticing what I was doing when I got a strange stare from a young couple sitting on a bench nearby.
This experience has left me with several questions, even beyond those that challenge the offensive and oppressive attitudes toward black Memphians in the 1950s, when this monument was erected. I keep asking myself, do we change the language of this monument because it's clearly offensive and demeaning? Do we leave it up to show how far we've come -- and how far we still need to go? If nothing else, this monument caused me to critically and deeply reflect on civil rights in Memphis and the freedom struggle, even after finishing a satisfying and exhausting run. (Note: there is also another monument to Lee in the park erected in the mid-2000s. It is a much more fitting tribute to Lee, showing the courageous man leaning from his boat and pulling a struggling person into his boat. It lacks the offensive language that the older argument uses. The City of Memphis must be given credit for taking this step to more appropriately honor Tom Lee.)
Also, for more on Tom Lee and his noble efforts, here is a thorough article done by Memphis Magazine in 2014: http://memphismagazine.com/features/tom-lee-a-heros-tale/
Do we remove remove historical landmarks because they represent a time of racism and controversy or do we leave them be for history's sake? That is always a tough question to ask. There are many now a days that want the monuments of the ole Confederacy to be removed because they represent a racist time in American history and there are others that desire they remain because they represent their history and the removal of these symbols would serve to destroy that history. And both parties are right. Yes, these symbols and monuments represent a racist period of time in American history, but they do too represent history, a culture, and a state of mind.
ReplyDeleteWe in the present, I believe, have a privileged position. We get to decide what is right in history and, consequently, what the majority of those in the future will see and hear. Do we try and create a narrative for the past that they will like better or do we leave the cold hard facts for them to interpret on the their own?
Brooks, I've always heard of Tom Lee as a hero, but a very distant one. I've recently started researching him for another class and realized that the first statue, the one with the rather heinous subtitle, was actually erected under E.H. Crump. Wouldn't expect Mr. Crump would do anything else.
ReplyDeleteMichael, the idea that you bring up is something I've had to discuss quite a bit in my classes this semester. I'm guessing you're alluding to Nathan B Forrest Park and Confederate Park which have been points of contention in Memphis for as long as I can remember. I understand the argument that these monuments are representations of a side of history that was once viewed as valid. But I feel that by taking down statues of figures like General Forrest no one is denying how respected Forrest was in the region. Instead, we're acknowledging Forrest's other actions, like being a slave auctioneer or leading what's widely considered a massacre of black Union soldiers. There's no denial of Forrest as an influential figure, but we, as a public, are no longer glorifying men like Forrest.
Taking down statues of Confederate figures is not altering public memory, at least to me. It's not a rewriting of a "better" future because discussing these issues necessitates acknowledging what those before us believed.
I view these changes lead to a more honest attitude toward history. "The cold hard facts" cannot be interpreted by future generations without looking at today's discussions. So much of history is building upon not only primary sources, but how philosophies evolve from the initial events forward.
Kala, I think that what you bring up is an interesting point. Professor Huebner has actually informed my thinking about monuments -- like the Forrest Monument -- more than anyone else. He argues that the monument should be left up because it is an important piece of history. But, and this part is most important, Forrest MUST be explained in an accurate fashion. This means that panels would need to be erected that tell exactly who Forrest was: a prominent general, yes, but also a slave trader, a leader of the Klan, and the architect of the massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow. Additionally, he alludes-- and I agree -- that other monuments should be erected in the same park, monuments that pay tribute to the likes of Ida B. Wells (there's no monument to her in the city) and the victims of the Memphis Massacre of 1866. This would paint a more accurate historical picture for the public to view, one that is not tainted by white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to an article that Professor Huebner wrote on this issue: http://archive.commercialappeal.com/opinion/guest-column-parks-dispute-misses-dual-points-of-history-ep-362489530-329039911.html
Thanks for sharing your reflections Brooks. I have yet to visit the Tom Lee monument. I hope to do so soon.
ReplyDeleteI want to focus my comment on the Nathan Bedford Forrest part of this discussion. One of the purposes of a monument is to honor those who have accomplished extraordinary feats. For example, through Tom Lee's memorial we are honoring his selfless actions of saving 32 passengers. Which of Forrest's actions are we honoring? What did he do that deserves a whole monument? Second, this monument should be removed because finds its home in a public space. In class, we've talked about the frustration that Black Memphians faced because they were restricted from using public facilities that they paid for. This park is a public space that Black Memphians are paying for, but may feel barred from using because of who this park is honoring and what this park represents. Black Memphians should not have to be confronted with memories of unrestricted white violence and terror in public spaces that they pay for.
I believe we should leave the monument up, as it is a demonstration of our mistakes in the past. What we should do is create something near the monument, to clarify why this is not appropriate language. Simply taking it down would not teach anyone anything, but simply show that we are cowering away from what is politically incorrect, and quickly fixing it. We want Memphians to understand why this is wrong so they can bring this lesson into their life and become more culturally aware.
ReplyDelete