THE ROCK: A MONUMENT, OR A RACE'S CULTURAL MARKER?

By Rafael Collado
Part 2

The second big wave of (Confederate) memorials came just as southern states and local governments were fighting hard to keep segregation legal after the supreme court declared it unconstitutional.

This is the same time when the Confederate flag came to prominence. This flag has no substantive historic significance. It meant nothing in particular in the Civil War. The flag was adopted by segregationist white supremacists and the Klan as their unofficial flag, a symbol of hatred and intimidation.

"Southern heritage" in the context of the Civil War is a number of symbols all surrounding, directly or indirectly, a pro-slavery, white supremacist ideology. Does an American Southern culture or heritage exist that isn't necessarily related to white supremacy, slavery, the racist Confederacy, and Jim Crow? 

I don't think so. Not entirely. 

This doesn't mean that you can't feel pride or attachment to your place of origin and respective collection of symbols and rituals, but to do so on solid moral standing. First the monstrous part of that culture has to be acknowledged and scrutinized thoroughly, and then unequivocally renounced. It has to be exorcised. That’s the only way to rescue your heritage. 

The issue here is that most people are not willing or ready to acknowledge and take accountability for the mistakes of the past. This begs the question how they really feel about racism in the present day, and not just in relation to the past. Without a doubt the whitewashing of history relieves much of the pressure to look at it honestly. 

I believe that at the core of much of the toxic wasteland that is racial discourse in America, the Civil War remains like an unprocessed, unassimilated memory, causing pain in the collective subconscious of the country.

How can we make sense of the present state of racial dynamics if we can't agree on the fundamental facts of their catalysts? Most of the time when discussing the issue I encounter people who do astonishing mental acrobatics in order to keep new information from changing their stance. It is too ingrained in their identity and the view of the world that makes sense to them.

And that is the problem when we talk about the Civil War, and more broadly about race in the United States. We won't defeat the idea of racial supremacy only with information, because it's a cultural illness. When you're dealing with culture, it is so much more labor intensive for people to take in conflicting information, because it's not just a fact that changes; it's your own way of making sense of the world that is disrupted, too.

In this regard, I think it is necessary to clarify a few things that have been said regard this across the country, including defenders of the Davis memorial in Brownsville.

First, it is the distinction of the difference between a historical artifact/historic site and a monument, as well as the difference between public and private. The difference is objectivity vs subjectivity. A historic site or object is an official location or pieces of political, military, cultural, or social history have been preserved due to their cultural heritage value.

In this case there is not an official position on the morality of the issue.

It's an objective look at something mementos from a time that help us learn about it, and understand the context. A monument, BY DEFINITION, is a building, statue or location that HONORS a person or event. This inherently takes a position or a subjective look at history. It chooses a side. Public buildings and public servants are (or should be) always defined in democratic terms.

Why?

Because they are both maintained with the taxes paid by the citizens. Public squares, and parks, and buildings are democratic spaces.

A subjective position should not be assumed officially by a democratic government unless its people have spoken about it. This is why elections and town hall meetings and such things exist. But besides that, the next natural question to ask is this: Is a plaque that honors Jefferson Davis an official representation of our officials’ views on slavery and the American Civil War?

Everybody is free to keep looking up to him in private after learning the facts about him, that is, in their private life. I don’t honor him, though. Quite the opposite. And this thing is located in a public space, sanctioned by our government, which is supposed to be a representation of our ideals and our needs.

If you are honest enough to acknowledge Davis as a historical staple of American racism, then you need to understand that what we have on Washington Park is a shrine with no major historical value. The tone here is considerably different to the one we have used on the countless previous instances in which this was brought up to our officials in the past two years and not taken seriously.

I ask the citizens of Brownsville, Texas if they celebrate slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship. If the answer is no, then why are you allowing your government to do it in your name?