The Controversy of Confederate Monuments in America

Monuments serve as tangible symbols of history, representing the values and events that a society chooses to commemorate. In the United States, citizens have the ability to influence which aspects of history are publicly displayed, thereby shaping the collective memory of the nation. One prominent example of this is the Confederate statues erected to commemorate the Civil War. According to historian Sarah E. Gardner, "many historians have proven, Confederate memorials celebrated slavery, the South as a slave society, and white supremacy in general.

" These monuments, often depicting fallen soldiers, were established to honor and remember the individuals who fought for the Confederacy.

Historical Context of Confederate Monuments

While some Confederate monuments were erected shortly after the Civil War, the majority were constructed during the era of Jim Crow segregation. This period, characterized by racial discrimination and segregation laws, saw a surge in the number of such monuments. These statues were often funded by local communities, as families and descendants of Confederate soldiers sought to preserve their legacy. The Southern Poverty Law Center reveals that between 1900 and 1920, there was a notable increase in the number of Confederate monuments being built, reflecting the South’s attempt to enshrine its narrative of the past during a period of heightened racial tensions.

The motivations behind erecting these statues were not always straightforward. For instance, General William Mahone, despite having a military career that could have been celebrated, saw his efforts to enforce African American civil rights go unrecognized in the form of a statue, as his actions contradicted the prevailing Jim Crow ideologies. An article from the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) highlights that over the past decade, taxpayers have contributed at least $40 million towards Confederate statues, homes, parks, museums, libraries, and cemeteries, as well as Confederate heritage organizations. This investment underscores the ongoing debate over the allocation of resources to monuments that many view as symbols of oppression.

Contemporary Debates and Perspectives

The debate surrounding Confederate monuments has intensified in recent years, with events such as the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, drawing national attention. Organized by white nationalist Richard Spencer, the rally protested the removal of Confederate statues, including that of Robert E. Lee, and resulted in a state of emergency being declared. The incident prompted cities like Baltimore to reevaluate and remove their Confederate monuments, reflecting the deep divide in public opinion.

Public opinion on Confederate monuments is varied and complex. According to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll, a significant majority of white respondents (67%) believe the monuments should remain as historical symbols, while 75% of non-college-educated whites agreed. In contrast, the poll found that 65% of Latinos and 44% of blacks were in favor of keeping the statues. These statistics highlight the nuanced perspectives within different demographic groups and suggest that education level and race may influence opinions on this issue.

Arguments for Preservation vs. Removal

Supporters of maintaining Confederate monuments argue that these structures are integral to understanding America's past. They contend that removing these statues would erase a significant portion of history, depriving future generations of the opportunity to learn from it. Advocates believe that engaging in honest discussions about the purpose and significance of these monuments is essential for fostering a comprehensive understanding of the nation's history, including the acknowledgment of its darker chapters.

Conversely, proponents of removing Confederate statues assert that these monuments perpetuate a narrative that glorifies white supremacy and marginalizes African American experiences. They argue that the monuments serve as painful reminders of a history of oppression and should not occupy public spaces. Instead, they advocate for a more inclusive portrayal of history that recognizes the contributions and struggles of African Americans and other marginalized communities.

Analyzing Mitch Landrieu and Trevor Noah's Perspectives

The discourse surrounding Confederate statues has been echoed by public figures such as Mitch Landrieu, former mayor of New Orleans, and Trevor Noah, a South African comedian and host of The Daily Show. Landrieu, in his speech advocating for the removal of Confederate statues, emphasized that the Confederacy was "on the wrong side of humanity." He utilized rhetorical devices such as pathos and rhetorical questions to connect with his audience emotionally, urging them to consider the perspective of African American families when confronted with these monuments.

Landrieu's speech was characterized by a confident and empathetic tone, as he sought to align himself with the African American community despite his own background as a white Southerner. He employed repetition and amplification to underscore the notion that history cannot be changed, but it can be contextualized and understood in a broader narrative that includes all Americans.

Trevor Noah, on the other hand, approached the issue with satire and humor, leveraging his platform to highlight the absurdity of certain arguments in defense of Confederate monuments. Through his satirical diction and use of analogies, Noah effectively communicated the emotional impact these statues have on African Americans. He also incorporated counterarguments to strengthen his position, showcasing a deep understanding of the multifaceted nature of this debate.

While Landrieu emphasized the cultural unity of New Orleans, Noah's outsider perspective as a South African provided an unbiased lens, allowing him to critique the issue from a distance. Both figures employed rhetorical strategies to engage their audiences, with Noah's use of humor and satire making his arguments particularly resonant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments in America reflects broader societal tensions about race, memory, and representation. The arguments for and against the preservation of these statues are deeply rooted in historical and cultural contexts. By examining the perspectives of public figures like Mitch Landrieu and Trevor Noah, we gain insight into the complexities of this debate and the importance of rhetorical strategies in shaping public discourse. Ultimately, addressing the legacy of Confederate monuments requires an honest reckoning with America's past and a commitment to fostering a more inclusive narrative for future generations.

Did you like this example?

300

16