‘We Need to Rethink What Belongs in Public Space’.
The 2017 white nationalist-led “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., renewed a national debate over whether symbols of the pro-slavery Confederacy of the American Civil War deserve space in public places. From the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Tex., to the “Silent Sam” statue in Chapel Hill, N.C., more than 100 Confederate monuments have been removed by local officials—or toppled by protesters—in the past two years. But the public remains divided on whether these monuments and other symbols of figures with racist legacies reflect heritage and history, or injustice and hate.
On February 6, the School of Public Health will host the Diversity and Inclusion Seminar “Remove, Rename, or Replace: Monuments to Past “Heroes” in a Changing Society” featuring Raul Fernandez, associate dean for equity, diversity & inclusion at Wheelock College of Education & Human Development, and Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker.
“The central question is, what do we do when there is a majority of people who want to keep these monuments for historical reasons, but a minority of people who want them removed because they find them hurtful, offensive, and ahistorical?” says Fernandez.
Ahead of the talk, Fernandez spoke about the historical context of controversial monuments and alternative locations where they can be displayed.
As you mentioned, public opinion is sharply divided on whether certain monuments should remain in public spaces. Should decisions on their removal be determined by popular vote or by government officials?
Different communities are going to handle that question differently. It’s important for those communities to have a conversation about what to do with [controversial] monuments. The conversation, to date, has been that people who want certain statues to be removed have to prove the case that they should go. I think both sides should have to prove their case. And if you can’t make a legitimate or compelling argument about why these statues should remain in public spaces, then there should be serious consideration for removing at least some of them.
Think of it this way—if the people who found these memorials hurtful were in power, the memorials wouldn’t still be here. Their mere presence tells us there are people in power, white folks in particular, who are keeping them there. There is not a single federal policy or law that has been passed without the consent of a majority of white men at some level. Imagine what our policies would look like if a majority of our legislators were black women or women of color.
Is this issue best approached from a historical, educational, cultural, or ethical standpoint—or all of the above?
What is right should be our guiding principle, but there is a real disagreement on what is right, so that is difficult. We need to rethink what belongs in public space. When people say, “Oh, we should leave the Columbus statue up because it’s part of history”—monuments are not about history, they’re about honoring people. We should judge these monuments by today’s standards, and if we decide that people are not deserving of that honor, then their statues should come down.
Some people also claim that a monument isn’t always meant to recognize someone or something in a good way. There are certain memorials that help us remember tragedies, such as the Holocaust and lynching memorials. But when we see these statues of towering white men in public spaces—they were put up to honor those men. We need to discuss whether the people who have statues are deserving of that honor.
What should happen to these statues or other symbols once they’re removed?
One alternative is to move them to a place where we can provide context and conversation—such as a museum. Outdoor public spaces have a very different purpose. Other people have suggested putting signage around statues to create dialogue in a public space. I’d be willing to consider that, but it depends on how visible the signs are, and the impact that they may have on people. For many people who have to walk by them every day, it’s jarring and upsetting.
In Boston, we should make room for a discussion on whether or not we want to honor Abraham Lincoln with the Emancipation Memorial [which depicts a black man kneeling in front of Lincoln]. Maybe the answer is to create a different type of statue, or something that actually speaks to emancipation. In this case, the statue was put up by “good” people who wanted to end slavery, and the best depiction they could conjure in their minds at the time, was one of a black man on his knee. But I think we can do better today.
What is your response to claims of “whataboutism” with this issue? Where do we draw the line with other controversial leaders and figures?
When people began talking about removing the Robert E. Lee statue after the Charlottesville incident, the president said, “Who’s next? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?” Well, I think we should have a critical discourse on the contributions of Jefferson and Washington. There are some things we should rightly judge about them. Jefferson is an easy example, but when we look at George Washington, who owned about 200 human beings, we have to think about what that kind of wealth enabled him to do—it enabled him to start a revolution. In Boston and other cities, we might want to rename Washington Street to Washington and the People He Enslaved Street because, surely, his slaves enabled him to be able to do the things that many consider honorable.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.