The proposal of the first group which drew my attention the most was their idea about memorials. They proposed several things, which I will (hopefully correctly) summarize here.
1. Add more memorials in public places to prominent African Americans
2. Keep the existing memorials to controversial figures (Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example)
3. However, add additional information to those memorials explaining the situation
For 2 and 3, there are questions in regards to the severity of certain memorials. In my mind, there is a huge difference between a statue recognizing E H Crump, a controversial figure who, while exploiting African Americans he is at least known for other things, and a statue honoring General Forrest (Read the story for a quote by Professor McKinney), who is solely famous for fighting for the Confederacy and starting the KKK. Placing more plaques outside the statue of Crump and providing information about ALL of his actions (including the more unsavory ones) seems good enough. But it is hard to imagine that any number of plaques can hide the shame of a statue of Forrest. Instead, wouldn't it be better to take out the statue entirely (which also takes away a shrine for many Confederate sympathizers) and THEN replace the location with a plaque detailing what used to be there. In my mind, that still respects the history of the statue, while not glorifying the man himself. What do you think? Is it really that important to keep the statue alive if the "history" of the statue is protected?
For 1, this is more of a logistical question. Where would the memorials be located? There are s many pros and cons for nearly every location. In a central place? That already exists on Beale, with musical notes and a half dozen plaques. But without much physical points of interest, they seem to lose some of the interest. However, if you place the memorial outside or inside a historical building, such as their home, the memorial can be easily ignored if the location is out of the way. If there is just a plaque or mural, many people will not specifically travel to it. If only the local neighborhood sees it, how useful is the memorial in the first place. So what about a hybrid? For instance, for Ida B Wells, they could put a memorial outside the office building where her newspaper was located. This could be useful, but if many events happened in the same area (Beale, or the town hall), that location could also be too saturated to mean anything.
So the question remains: Where should memorials be located?
This was Brooks' section of out Blueprint for Liberation so he will have a more finely developed opinion on the matter then I. I will provide my own thoughts but please don't take them as a representation of my group as a whole because you do raise some interesting and concerning questions. General Forrest was a traitor to his nation who sacrificed his wealth, position, and legacy in support of a doom cause and an evil economic system. He inspired hundreds if not thousands of men to fight for white supremacy during the war and after the war with the foundation of the KKK. Should he be put on a pedestal in the center of Memphis in such a grand manner? Absolutely not. Do we have the political and social capital to remove/ replace his statue? Unfortunately not. The backlash against attempts to simply rename parks and public spaces in Memphis have made it clear that their is a significant population of people in both Memphis and Tennessee as a whole who still want to see the Confederacy and her heros venerated. We can assume then that the removal or relocation of the Forest statue would cause an even greater uproar the legal and social cost of which could undermine attempts to provide more context and more accurate monuments in the city. A fight for more information about the real Forrest surrounding his statue we likely could win. But say if we fought and lost to have the statue removed what consequences could that have for future efforts for public memory reform? I am normally the last person to preach caution and I in no way support that statue being where it is (or anywhere for that matter.) I do think however this is not the right political moment for this particular fight to take place. Additionally by providing more context we might just open the eyes to individuals who are visiting this monument expecting to see only the "positive" side of their hero. Imagine a father bring his children to see this statue of a so called great man only to find them reading several signs depicting his evil deeds. This bait and switch is not a good long term strategy but in the immediate future it might be our best shot at reclaiming this particular monument for the forces of historical authenticity.
ReplyDelete