Flexible Historical Narrative through Heritage
An analysis of the contemporary debate surrounding the
Confederate Battle Flag and statues in the United States
Contact information F. van Helsdingen: Address: Vrouwenkerkkoorstraat 1D
Postcode: 2312 WP Tel.: 06-45992187 Email: freek@vanhelsdingen.nl
Flexible Historical Narrative through Heritage
An analysis of the contemporary debate surrounding the
Confederate Battle Flag and statues in the United States
Freek van Helsdingen, 1177052
MA Thesis, studiegidsnr: -
Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology Supervisor: Dr. G.D.J. Llanes Ortiz
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ... 4 Research Question ... 7 Methodology ... 8 Theoretical Framework ... 11
Defining Problems with Heritage ... 11
Similar Case Studies ... 15
Historical Context ... 24
Confederate Battle Flag ... 26
Confederate Statues ... 27
Conclusions ... 29
Media Coverage... 31
Confederate Battle Flag ... 31
Confederate Statues ... 34
Media Coverage Conclusions ... 44
Discussion ... 49
Public Opinion ... 49
Case Comparison to Theoretical Framework ... 54
Case Comparison to Similar Case Studies ... 57
Balancing the Arguments ... 59
Evaluation of Applied Investigative Method ... 63
Conclusion ... 65
Abstract ... 70
Bibliography ... 71
4 Introduction
The destruction of symbolic statues is by no means an original idea. Infamous examples being the iconoclastic fury in the Low Countries and Germany as a result of the rise of Protestantism, and more recently when a large statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down in 2003 as part of the second Gulf War, symbolising the toppling of Saddam’s rule in Iraq. These were both acts of symbolic resistance to power structures by targeting statues that represented the resisted power. Both acts have been regarded recently with some form of regret. The iconoclastic fury destroyed invaluable statues that (art)historians could have learned a lot from. The more recent symbolic act of destroying the statue of Saddam arguably did not improve the current political situation (Rayburn 2014, 292-294; www.bbc.com 2016) and perhaps even replaced grim realism about the future politics of Iraq with short-lived euphoria.
This destruction of symbols such as statues because of their symbolic reference is an effect of a hostile interpretation of these symbols. Negative interpretations of statues are not exclusive to warzones such as Iraq in 2003 but are more and more being discussed in the western world as well. However, what happens when the negative interpretation of heritage is not widely accepted? The clashing of interpretations is called heritage dissonance, or dissonant heritage. Interpretations of heritage can differ because different groups of people resent a version of history represented by heritage, an extreme example being the Taliban destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues (Bren 2016, 216-217). Another reason for clashing interpretations is because heritage with a negative connotation is featured prominently in public space as a display of power, like the Parliament Palace in Bucharest (Light 2000, 149-150). The idea of dissonant heritage is not new. In the past few years, attention for dissonant heritage usually connected to a history of racism, colonialism, war, and/or slavery, have erupted throughout Europe and the Unites States (Banaszkiewicz 2017; Battilani et al 2018; Chhabra, 2012). Although discussions about dissonant heritage are mostly civil, they can also result in violence or civil unrest.
One such discussion concerns The American South, more specifically Confederate symbols such as the Confederate Battle Flag and statues. These statues and the flag seem to honour and revere the Confederacy, which is problematic for some, mostly liberals, because the Confederacy fought to maintain slavery and these symbols gained prominence as a promotion of white supremacy (Wilson 2017, 2). In contrast, other people, mostly conservatives, deem these symbols to be important parts of history and heritage (Furgurson 2015, 16). These symbols continue to be a cause for civil unrest and have been protested over the past years. Multiple solutions ranging from total removal to maintaining the status quo
5 have been already proposed with the most prominent obstacle that the fate of these statues should differ depending on each individual case (Furgurson 2015, 16-17; Gilbert 2017, 39). Neither of these solutions seem to have influenced the debate in way that led to a satisfying resolution.
The subject of this thesis is addressing heritage dissonance, how it forms, how it relates to ‘regular heritage’, and how to approach. These subjects are approached through analysis of the case study of the Confederate symbols. The aim is to try to help facilitate peaceful and productive (future) debates about dissonant heritage by employing an analysis of media coverage to explicate the different interpretations and arguments of the Confederate symbols case study. To achieve this aim, this thesis tries to examine the debate surrounding Confederate symbols beyond partisanship, which too often plays a part within this subject, and to give a clear overview of arguments that represent the different interpretations of these symbols, in reference to earlier theoretical literature and cases.
In this thesis, interpretations are approached in two ways. The first way is to analyse the emotional aspect, how the Confederate symbols make people feel. Feelings do not have to be backed with arguments, but can be reinforced by them (Gilbert 2004, 247). Conversely, the second approach of interpretation is intellectual, where interpretation is based on argumentation rooted in science or history. Purely emotional or intellectual interpreting is hardly ever the case as both influence interpretations, and emotional and intellectual approaches can influence each other within a group or individual (Ben-Zeev 1995, 192-193). An example of feelings influencing intellectual arguments is the denomination of ‘fake news’, a heavily politicised argument used to discredit a news or science outlet that does not support the opinion of a certain individual.
To understand better how heritage dissonance can manifest and how it applies to other regions, a theoretical framework is provided, supplemented by similar discussions that have been/are still in the process of being resolved that are summarised. After the theoretical framework, a chapter on historical context sets a baseline for the discussion, giving an overview of the creation and emergence of the confederacy symbols that are discussed, as well as providing an overview of when these symbols were most ‘popular’. Some attention is also given to the history of racial tension and inequality in the United States, noting that the subject of racial history in the United States is much too big to be featured in full. Tragedies such as the Charleston church shooting of 2015 or the Charlottesville riots in 2017 are included in the historical overview because, although these events took place just recently, they are both cause and effect of the increased political and racial tension concerning this subject.
6 After the historical context is provided, an analysis of media coverage is done. This analysis is used as a way to study public opinion. A brief summary of the media coverage is provided to show what the analysis is based on. The analysis distils these articles to show how left, right, and unaligned media tend to report on this subject and what points of the discussion they emphasize especially concerning their notion and descriptions of heritage. The full details of this method are explained further in the methodology chapter. This thesis looks to use the media analysis method to gather arguments useful for this case specifically to understand the interpretations of people interacting with the Confederate symbols. The analysis of media outlets to show different interpretations helps to define why the featured cases of the Confederate symbols are an example of dissonant heritage. After that, an interpretation of public opinion based on the media analysis is distilled using the media analysis and literature on the subject for cross-reference. The Confederate symbols cases are then compared to the theoretical framework and similar case studies to see similarities and differences between these. This thesis aids future discussion by presenting the concluding arguments for the Confederate symbols case study and a recommendation to address the increased tension that these symbols have caused. The used method of media analysis to shape public opinion is evaluated to see if it is a useful addition to the discussions of dissonant heritage.
One of the major issues right now is that the debate surrounding the Confederate statues and Battle Flag is heavily politicised. Especially the symbolism behind the statues and the modern-day interpretation of the Confederate Battle Flag seem to be more politically influenced and used than ever. It is therefore important to approach it in the most objective way possible, it is not ‘just’ about heritage. In this thesis, this political use of the discussion is helpful because it neatly separates two groups arguing against each other, namely conservatives and liberals. In the United States, media outlets usually have a strong political bias, although a concluded general bias, be it liberal or conservative, differs per study (Baum and Groeling 2008, 359-360; Groseclose and Milo 2005, 1192). This thesis makes use of that bias by comparing articles published by media outlets to make out the public opinion related to the political affiliation of the media outlets. How these distinctions are used is made clear in the methodology chapter. It should be noted that continued politicisation is overall harmful to the debate, but probably inevitable. This is addressed further in the discussion.
The discussion so far can be divided in two parts. First there is the chronology of events, able to be easily checked and interpreted. After that there are intent and interpretation. The intended message of symbols such as the Confederate Battle Flag and statues are intertwined with historical facts, such as
7 when or why they were established and what they represent. Interestingly, modern day interpretations do not always match the original intent behind the symbols. There are arguments stating that the flag is racist because it was reused in the 1950’s by groups that promoted racial segregation, but other arguments state that this is not the ‘true meaning’ of the flag and that it instead represents southern pride, identity and history (Strother et al. 2017, 296), as is discussed in depth later in this thesis. Arguments based on intent or interpretation can be very different from one another. Because of these differences in argumentation, this thesis makes clear distinctions between them.
Research Question
In order to work towards achieving the aim of this thesis, trying to help facilitate peaceful and productive (future) debates about dissonant heritage by employing an analysis of media coverage to explicate the different interpretations and arguments of the Confederate symbols case study, the following research question has been formulated:
“What are the different interpretations of the Confederate Battle Flag and statues based on media coverage and literature, and what can an analysis of these different interpretations teach us about heritage constructions, negotiations, and dissonance?”
To aid in answering the main research question, three sub-questions are formulated. These are:
1. What are the historical contexts within which the Confederate Battle Flag and statues in the American South acquired their significance?
2. How does the media express, contrast, and discuss the historical, sociological, and interpretive elements of the Confederate symbols?
3. How does the public opinion receive, understand, and explain the complex interaction between intent and interpretation of Confederate symbols?
For the historical context, the racial history that is associated with the Confederate symbols is also discussed. The descriptive overview of the articles used for the media analysis is dealt with in chapter five, whilst the analysis is presented in chapter six. The complex interaction between intent and interpretation is addressed in the discussion.
8 Methodology
The inclusion of public opinion is important because it illustrates how groups of people looking at the same object or symbol can interpret the message of heritage differently. The idea is that historical context would mostly provide intended meaning of the symbols, whilst the media analysis would provide different interpretations based on what the outlets report and how they report on it. To make sure this thesis features relevant new information most articles are from 2017, with some exceptions, but even then, the oldest article used is from 2015. This would show both the intent of selecting what information is presented and what is excluded, and how these articles contrast or align with the historical context. The selective or biased presentation of information could show the arguments that the political affiliation of the media outlet uses.
These different interpretations are acquired by using the political bias of the used media outlets and comparing the coverage of each media outlet to see how their coverage differs. Determining the political alignment of a media outlet therefore is the next logical step. This thesis gathers information on political bias of media outlets from an external source. The website allsides.com1 (www.allsides.com)
assesses the political bias of different news outlets in the United States and some foreign news outlets as well. Their methods for determining political bias can be viewed easily on their website and are not repeated in this thesis. However, it is considered that because of its easy accessibility and possible manipulation, it is not a perfect scientific reference. Still, a more workable representation of bias for media outlets than presented by allsides.com has not been found and therefore this media rating shall suffice. The media outlets are rated from ‘left> lean left> centre> lean right, to right’. During the descriptive chapter five, describing the contents of the articles the news outlets are addressed in this order too, whilst in the discussion and conclusion, the order is less strict.
For this thesis, one American media outlet was chosen for each category. The reason for this is that by choosing one media outlet per category the political bias will be evenly spread and, hopefully, clearly visible. In the same order as above these are: The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, Politico,
1
The methodology of www.allsides.com is based on ‘blind bias surveys’, where people suggest whether news is biased, and in what direction, based on the title of the article, not knowing what media outlet published it. For more information, the weblink is provided in the bibliography.
9 Fox News, and Breitbart. Lastly, BBC news shall also be viewed for this thesis. The reason for the inclusion of the BBC is that a foreign news outlet may provide interesting data and a different manner of reporting. The ‘allsides.com rating’ for BBC news is ‘centre’, which means there will be two unaligned news outlets. The reason for only analysing six media outlets instead of, for example twelve, is that by only having one outlet per category, the distinctions are more clearly visible. No news outlet is the same, and whilst two outlets may be considered ‘left’, one can still be more left than the other. Four articles will be cited per media outlet that concern the ongoing debate of confederacy statues and one article is featured that focuses on the Confederate Battle Flag.
Based on this overview of interpretations, an in-depth analysis of these interpretations is presented in chapter six, resulting in a clear view of different interpretations of these statues, grouped by political affiliation. After achieving the aim of obtaining the different interpretations of the Confederate symbols, the political affiliation aspect of these interpretations is no longer relevant, avoiding further polarisation of the debate based on politics as much as possible. These different interpretations of the statues are then referenced to existing literature on the subject of Confederate symbols to see whether the results are in line with what are generally assumed to be the arguments for this specific case.
The arguments featured in the debate about Confederate symbols are further processed and analysed in the discussion, using information from both the theoretical framework and the public opinion. Arguments based on interpretation are presented in a way that shows flaws, strengths, or possible future problems. These arguments are not shown with a sense of right or wrong. Again, this thesis is not meant to choose sides, but to merely address and explain the issues that exist within this debate. The literature about the Confederate symbols that is used to compare the outcome of the media analysis is used in conjunction with the media analysis to balance out subjectivity in the media analysis.
Concluding the case study is a neutral recommendation for handling this case. This recommendation is based on an analysis of the literature that was discussed and how it compared to the public opinion. In other words, the aim of this thesis is not to rate the different interpretations, but to supply the reader with the different interpretations and to analyse the argumentation and implications of these. Although different interpretations can be cause for violence and conflict, as can be seen in the case study handled in this thesis, it is important to be aware that differences do not have to result in violence. Different interpretations of the same piece of heritage will not go away, and this thesis does not try to
10 enforce a ‘correct’ interpretation. However, the ability to discuss a message that heritage can portray and how it is dealt with needs to be a possibility.
Lastly, this thesis is about the Confederate Battle Flag and statues, referenced together as the Confederate symbols. It was decided that the debate about renaming certain building, parks, streets, etc. should not be included because it is a subject that is hard to define as heritage. The naming of architectural objects can be just a sign or easily removable letters but can also be part of the building itself. Whether the names of buildings are heritage or not is still up for debate and, at least for now, seems to change with each individual case (Wahlers 2016, 2192-2194, 2196-2197). For the sake of clarity, it is not treated in this thesis.
11 Theoretical Framework
Before the specific subject of this thesis is analysed, the theoretical background that is featured in heritage studies should be addressed. This is done according to three articles: Cast in Stone: Monuments, Geography and Nationalism (Johnson 1995), the Uses and Abuses of Heritage (Graham et al 2005), and Heritage and Violence (González-Ruibal and Hall 2015). These three articles have been chosen because their writers are influential and often cited in heritage studies, and because these articles encompass three aspects that the Confederate symbols all feature. Johnson focuses on nationalism and forging identity, Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge focus on meaning and interpretation of heritage, and González-Ruibal and Hall focus on heritage as a result of conflict. These articles provide a theoretical basis from which to approach the subject of the Confederate statues and Battle Flag. In addition to the theoretical basis, case-studies are also presented that are similar to the confederacy case to serve as points of reference.
Defining Problems with Heritage
The purpose of monuments is described in Cast in Stone (Johnson 1995). Johnson hints that monuments are not self-explanatory, but that monuments are cleverly used to create feelings of cultural identity, resistance, or even to try to change history, or rather the memory of it (Johnson 1995, 51-54). The monuments often link to an idea of identity through a structured symbolism and feature a ‘heroic’ version of the past, not necessarily fitting the ‘factual narrative’ of history (Johnson 1995, 53-54). These ideas of monuments as ‘tools’ to achieve a set destination fit into Johnson’s goal of understanding geography and nationalism. By analysing monuments, he too uses them as tools but for a different goal. His work becomes especially interesting for this thesis when he discusses the idea of a ‘nation’ and how this is reinforced through monuments. He starts with a quote from Cosgrove, stating:
“The nation state sought to promote a single identity within the bounds of its territory.” (Cosgrove 1990, 564, in Johnson 1995, 54)
He then adds that this idea of a national identity may be sought after by the nation-state, but that it can also be resisted strongly in places where alternative versions of history are maintained (Johnson 1995, 54). A certain type of monument that is often used in this manner is the war memorial. War memorials should be seen as carefully constructed messages to never forget events and peoples that the creator of the memorial fears will be forgotten. In this way, war memorials show how the creator of the monument envisions the past and what parts should be remembered (Johnson 1995, 54). Part of this intentional
12 meaning is also the location of the monument, messages about identity differ depending on the specifically chosen public space. A monument that is visible in the capital is a message to every inhabitant of the nation. National, or even international, events can be, and often are, brought down to a local scale. Monuments that memorialise the Great War in France are often a balance between local and national remembrance, where a local memorial often features the larger event and the names of the locals that died in the context of the large event, contextualising the local perspective in the grander scheme of things (Johnson 1995, 55-56).
The case of the confederacy statues can benefit greatly from Johnson’s arguments. First of all, Johnson states that a Nation state aims to have a shared cultural identity within its borders (Johnson 1995, 54). It is important to keep in mind that the size and sentiments of nation states in Europe is not comparable to the United States because the scale is very different. From this realisation, the idea that a nation state seeks to enforce or promote a single identity but that this is often resisted by more localised population groups (Johnson 1995, 54) is interesting to apply to the different scale for this case; whether the resistance or the nation state is promoted using the Confederate symbols. Furthermore, the argument that some kinds of heritage, more specifically statues and war memorials, are used to achieve a specific goal (Johnson 1995, 53-55) can aid in the different interpretations that are presented through news article in this thesis.
The influential publication by Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge (Graham et al 2005, 28-40), also focuses on the use and function of heritage. Part of their analysis is the negative aspect of heritage. They state early in their contribution that heritage is historically used as an instrument, used to create and maintain the national identity. They discuss how the nation state as a modern ‘invention’ needs national identity and therefore argue that national heritage as a means to enforce the idea of belonging is a relatively modern invention as well (Graham et al 2005, 28-30). It is in this light that they state that the creation and maintenance of heritage is more often than not monopolised by central governments. Interestingly, the protection of heritage in the romantic period was often the result of individual citizens voicing concerns on the disappearing of legacy because of industrialization or urbanization (Graham et al 2005, 29-30), showing how heritage was used in the past as a means to remember.
It is after this ‘history of heritage protection’ that they delve deeper in the function of heritage. They state:
13
“…heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social.” (Graham et al 2005, 32).
In a social sense, heritage is all at once: a knowledge, a cultural product, but also a resource. More importantly, they state that there is no ‘right’ interpretation of heritage as the interpretation is mostly ‘zeitgeist’ dependent. With this, they wonder why it can happen that certain interpretations of heritage are deemed more important than others (Graham et al 2005, 32-33). They then continue their article by showing arguments made by Lowenthal, stating that heritage is helpful because it provides a feeling of continuity; it connects the present to the past, whilst also making it clear that what happened in the past is over. Lastly, it provides a sequence in which people can place their own existence (Lowenthal 1985 in Graham et al 2005, 32-33). Although Lowenthal meant these aspects in a positive way, providing meaning for people, it can also be interpreted as a way to validate and legitimize current socio-political inclusiveness or lack thereof, and a general distinction in comparison to others, ‘those who think and/or act differently than we do’. Whether these differences lie in ethnicity, religion, or political leaning does not matter, only that they are not the same. These distinctions between ‘us and them’ can even be fictional, as long as people believe in them. Heritage will always result in divisions of some kind (Graham et al 2005, 33-34).
“…dissonance, the discordance or lack of agreement and consistency as to the meaning of heritage.” (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996 in Graham et al 2005, 36).
Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge also address dissonant heritage. Their definition is shown above. They state that all heritage is dissonant because of the nature of heritage, namely as an object with agency. The interpretation lies with the observer, or consumer as they call them, meaning that there will always be inconsistencies and lack of agreement about the meaning of heritage. The second point they make is that heritage always belongs to someone, and therefore logically not to someone else. When this is related back to the nation state, dissonance results in the exclusion of people who do not adhere to the ideas of the nation state, making heritage exclusive. This seems very negative, but is sometimes used in a good way, when dissimilarities are not shunned but embraced and recognised (Graham et al 2005, 37). They end their theory about heritage by stating that ownership of the past and therefore heritage is not easily dealt with. When revolutionary heritage becomes the status quo or when heritage remains but its interpretation changes, the meaning or function of heritage changes too (Graham et al 2005, 37-38).
14 Just as Johnson stated in his publication, Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge argue that heritage is a tool for governments to promote a sense of identity or community when it is not naturally present (Graham et al 2005, 32-33). An interesting argument that was not made by Johnson from their publication is that heritage always is and always will be creating rifts between groups of people, as it is inherent to the nature of heritage. These rifts can also be used in a positive to way to understand and possibly embrace the existence of differences between groups of people (Graham et al 2005, 36-38). The subject handled in this thesis benefits from this view on dissonant heritage. Additionally, this thesis supplies the discussion with a case study to be able to refer to with new practical evidence to further the conceptualisation of this argument.
González-Ruibal and Hall in their article (2015) focus solely on heritage that was a result of conflict. This type of heritage can be further divided into two categories. The first category contains heritage that was formed as a result of war or conflict, like battlefields or memorials. The other category is harder to define, and consists of heritage that had its interpretation changed through war because of events that interacted with, or became connected to it, like targeted heritage destruction or being a specific location of a historical event (González-Ruibal and Hall 2015, 150-151). González-Ruibal and Hall state how heritage, even dark/bad heritage, is becoming commercialised more and more, becoming an example of capitalism (González-Ruibal and Hall 2015, 151). The authors make the case against normalised, generalised and passive acceptance of violence in human nature, and thereby heritage, denouncing the tone that is often seen on plaques and heritage descriptions as too general and accepting of inherent violence (González-Ruibal and Hall 2015, 152-153).
Important contributions from González-Ruibal and Hall are their ideas about heritage that can cause future instability. They give two examples of this. The first example is heritage of violence that is still ongoing, like a present civil war. The other example is heritage of violence where the outcome or the remembrance is still cause for conflict, the domination of conquered people through heritage of said violence for example. These different situations would result in different forms of heritage. The latter of these examples fits rather well with the subject of this thesis, and will therefore be exemplified by the case study this thesis presents. Even when the outcome of a conflict is not the issue, how the contemporary people deal with the actions of their (through identity related) ancestors can also be up for debate (González-Ruibal and Hall 2015, 153-156), which also fits in with the subject handled in this thesis.
15 These three articles offered multiple useable insights for this case. Monuments are tools used to promote identity by emphasising a specific narrative of the past. The promotion of a certain identity through ‘common’ heritage is sometimes resisted on a more local or regional level. This resistance to a message told through heritage is a form of heritage dissonance. Heritage dissonance is when heritage is interpreted differently by different groups of people. Interpretations of heritage differ depending on ‘zeitgeist’ and dissonance is inherent to the nature of heritage, although the severity and dealing with dissonance varies per case. This inherent dissonance and the dependency on ‘zeitgeist’ leads to the conclusion that no heritage interpretation can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. One type of heritage that is sensitive to heritage dissonance is heritage of conflict. Although causes may differ per individual case, commonly encountered causes are that the conflict is still ongoing, or that the outcome/form of remembrance is still contested.
Discussions about controversial symbols such as statues have happened before. Examples of these are found in Hoorn, the Netherlands; in Nairobi, Kenia; Budapest, Hungary, and South Tyrol, Italy, to name a few. The results and discussions from these case studies are presented below to further understand practical implications of the theory presented above, and to provide further background for the discussion presented in this thesis.
Similar Case Studies
These case studies explain for certain regions with different histories how statues have been controversial heritage. Some similarities can be observed with what is happening in the United States with the Confederate statues. These case studies feature a mention of the intent and interpretations of statues, and solutions achieved. These similarity of these cases to the Confederate case is also present and is elaborated upon in the discussion.
J.P. Coen Statue:
An interesting case study, the possible removal of the statue of J.P. Coen in the city of Hoorn, the Netherlands, was analysed by Johnson (2014). The reason for the controversy surrounding J.P. Coen was the genocide Coen had committed as the governor-general of Asia in the 17th century, whilst the statue
does not mention his war crimes, but only his hero status. In her article, Johnson describes discussion surrounding the statue of Coen. One of the first things she mentions is that the statue is:
16
“…approached as a heritage resource that has been used to create a sense of identity and place at a national and local level. The meanings attributed to the statue have changed over time and vary for different individuals, groups and institutions.”
(Johnson 2014, 584)
After this statement, she gives a couple of definitions. Heritage is described through academic literature from other people without her own opinion stated clearly. The segments used from other authors can be summarised by stating that heritage is not a correct representation of the past, but a construct to be interpreted for a meaning. That multiple groups of people interpret different meanings leads to dissonance, as mentioned in the theoretical summary above. Johnson also states through other authors that heritage is dissonant, and that there is no division between heritage and dissonant heritage (Johnson 2014, 584). The importance of monuments and statues lies in their change over time and can even negate the memory of the past altogether. Considering the idea that museums played a role in deciding what heritage will and will not be shown, museums have included the dark side of humanity more in their galleries since the 2000’s (Johnson 2014, 585). However, the inclusion of dark heritage was often accompanied by a sentiment that showed that the described dark aspect of human behaviour was now ‘behind us’, thus distancing itself from it (Johnson 2014, 584-586). The article of Johnson focuses on the part that museums can play in these heated discussions.
The replacing of the statue of Coen was first mentioned by citizen initiatives, and later picked up on by the local council. The discussion surrounding the statue was featured on regional and national media (Johnson 2014, 587-588). The local government debates were divided because Coen was born in Hoorn and seen as a local and national hero, which was why the statue was erected. The debates concluded that the statue to Coen had changed from a ‘remembrance memorial’ to a ‘warning memorial’, stressing that we should learn from history and see the statue and Coen’s actions in relation to their respective times that they were (Johnson 2014, 588-590). The result of these council meetings was the creation of a new plaque for the statue, describing Coen’s deeds that made him a hero, whilst also acknowledging his wrongdoings in Indonesia. Still, not all critics of J.P. Coen were satisfied, and some accused the government of covering up genocide (Johnson 2014, 590-591).
The actions of the local council happened at the same time as an exhibition about J.P. Coen and a ‘trial’ were featured by the local museum in which they asked visitors whether they thought the statue of Coen should be removed. More details about the museum and its exhibition/trial can be found in
17 Johnson’s publication (2014, 591-594) and are not described here in detail. The ‘trial’ resulted in a 63.9% vote in favour of letting the statue be, but with a note that stated that most did not, in fact, see Coen as a real hero, but rather as a ruthless and effective man in the time he lived. An argument was also made to keep the statue to not forget the ‘dark pages of history’ (Johnson 2014, 594). 35.5% of the people that voted stated that ‘murderers do not deserve statues’, with comparisons made to violent people from history, including Stalin, Kaddafi, and Hussein (Johnson 2014, 594).
Johnson ends her article by stating that the relatively quick ‘resolution’ of the discussion and the decision to add a new plaque made sure the discussion would not continue with the same vigour as it had started with, resulting more or less in the maintenance of the status quo (Johnson 2014, 594-596). She also mentions that the museum did not take stance in the debate but wanted to facilitate a neutral environment to promote peaceful communication, although she doubts whether the presentation of the exhibition was as neutral as the museum claimed it to be (Johnson 2014, 595). These aspects, relative quick action from the local government and a neutral environment where the public could formulate an opinion, helped to cool down the possible hot topic that was the Coen statue (Johnson 2014, 595). However, Johnson stresses that by distancing ourselves from the likes of the J.P. Coen statue and what they represent are a way of avoiding critically examining the past by stating that people from the past cannot be judged by modern standards (Johnson 2014, 596).
This case study seems to have a lot of overlap with the case study of the Confederate symbols. There are different points of view possible on whether or not the symbols are meant to evoke feelings of remembrance or feelings of warning of history. The dissonance was dealt with using a poll-like method and resulted in the contextualisation of the statues.
British Imperial Statues in Nairobi, Kenia:
Another interesting case-study is the analysis by Larsen (2012) that focuses on the importance of statues as symbols and translates opinions on the transitional phase between colonial- and independent Nairobi, Kenia. In Nairobi, the removal of statues that were linked to British imperialistic rule was investigated. The road to independence of Kenia was preceded with the introduction of an internal self-government. This local government was active for six months before Kenia achieved independence (Larsen 2012, 47). The introduction of this self-government sparked concern in British colonial authorities, which led to discussions about what statues were to be removed and which statues could stay. The most important
18 reason the British chose to discuss the removal of these statues before independence was granted to Kenia, was so that the statues could not become targets of vandalism and destruction in the period of independence (Larsen 2012, 48). The statues were placed as testimonies, visual links to the British Empire to enforce imperial and colonial power (Larsen 2012, 45). It was decided that statues of a modest or personal nature were unlikely to give offense. During the short period before the independence of Kenia became official, only one statue was removed. This statue resembled Hugh Cholmondeley, also known as Lord Delamere, an important symbol for the white settler population of colonial Kenia (Larsen 2012, 48-49). The removal of this statue was instigated by the son of Lord Delamere, who was concerned for its safety considering the ‘turbulent times ahead’. This move was supported in Nairobi. White settlers erected the statue only a short time prior removal as a rallying point for white settlers and its removal was cheered on by a crowd. Chants about togetherness and support for important political figures Kenyatta and Kimathi strongly ties to the ancestry Kenya’s African population wanted to remember (Larsen 2012, 48-50).
After the removal of the statue of Lord Delamere, members of Kenia’s African population used the spot were the statue had stood as a small marketplace (Larsen 2012, 49-50). Using this example of the Lord Delamere statue, Larsen introduces an interesting argument by Stephen Legg. Legg argues that spaces of memory and forgetting are not opposites, but more fluid and linked (Legg 2007, 456-466, as seen in Larsen 2012, 50), which Larsen then connects to the example of the Delamere statue (Larsen 2012, 50). After independence of Kenia was achieved, a statue of King George V and a memorial plaque for King George VI were removed. Although British authorities thought that these statues were personal and not linked to colonial activity, the Kenyan population and new government decided that the statue and memorial plaque also resembled colonial oppression, concluding that the only satisfactory resolution was removal (Larson 2012, 51-52).
Another interesting aspect of the road to independence of Kenia was the message to its white settler population. They were told they were welcome to stay, but if they did, they “were forced to
re-examine their identity and their relationship with the newly independent state.” (Larson 2012, 50). Settlers
were conflicted on this, as some had lived nowhere else in their life, but they were told that Kenia was not going to be their home after it would become an independent African nation (Larsen 2012, 50). The replacing of Imperial statues strengthened this message. Whether this ‘reinventing’ of identity reinforced by placement or removal of heritage is present in the Confederate symbols case is addressed in the discussion.
19 The author concludes the article by stating that:
“The removal of colonial monuments from the Nairobi landscape shows how the new
ruling elite had the power to control what was forgotten and what was remembered in the landscape…” (Larson 2012, 56).
This means that the removal of aspects of the past is done in order to replace it with a new narrative, at least in historical colonial nations like Kenia.
Budapest Communist Statues:
Similar trends are described following the arrival of communism under the U.S.S.R. and the later dismantlement of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev (James 1999, 291-311). In her introduction, James mentions statues, names of streets and parks, symbolism in architecture, and propaganda in schools. She then states that changes in these can be more politically charged acts than the original placement. She then continues by stating the meaning of the heritage placed by the soviets changed over time. When the statues were placed, they were meant as a way to unite the country in which the heritage was present, and also unite the Soviet Union in general. When Hungary became free of communist influence of the Soviet Union, the statues that were placed by the U.S.S.R. were relocated to an ‘open-air museum’ on the outskirts of Budapest in 1993 (James 1999, 291-293).
When discussing the specific topic of the communist statue park in Budapest, James first states how heritage is used to help define cultural identity and, in the case of the Soviet Union in Hungary, how it can be used to show the local population how to think or react to the new system. She also describes how this Soviet Union heritage became to be seen as symbols of oppression, considering the shift in collective identity following the fall of the U.S.S.R. (James 1999, 292-293). She describes the relocation of the statues from inside Budapest, from parks, public squares, and street corners, to a park outside to be a political statement. Removing the statues from their context takes away the power that the statues had (James 1999, 294).
The statues feature communist leaders from the U.S.S.R., Hungary, and nameless metaphorical characters (i.e. Red Army Soldier Statue). They are carefully presented in a way that their original message is no longer clear, nor is there a contemporary lesson to be contrived from it. The creator chose not to ascribe meaning, because he thought it would be hypocritical for him to counter propaganda with
anti-20 propaganda (James 1999, 296). James then further states that the relocation of the statues was to forget or break with certain aspects of the past, and to create room for an ulterior past replacing the old one (James 1999, 296). She describes further what happened in Hungary during Soviet occupation and how the events following the freedom from communism were linked to an earlier revolution in 1956 (James 1999,297-301). The removal of the communist statues was a political move by the two parties that ruled Hungary after 1989 to distance themselves from this communist past and denounce the harsh treatment that was done in the communist period (James 1999, 301). The move to a ‘prison or quarantine like’ park with brick walls and barbed wire are two interpretations to describe the sentiment to keep Hungary and communism symbolically separate (James 1999, 302-303). Even though the post-communist movement breaks with communist Hungary, the statue park designer stated clearly that he does not place blame on the creators of the sculptors and creators of the statues, although James herself states that this is a statement in itself, emulating a feeling of mutual survival of the communist era (James 1999, 304-305). James ends her article by stating that the statues are kept in the museum to serve as a memory or warning system for past crimes and possible future dictatorial regimes (James 1999, 306).
Interestingly, this article by James touches on how the interpretations of statues changed as a reaction to changes in the social and political situation. This article does not aid in attempting to deal with dissonant heritage because the removal of the statues was a bipartisan way to gain support from the people following the fall of communism (James 1999, 300-301). The article does not go into detail about how remaining communists reacted to the relocation. The article does provide an example of how to deal with negative heritage. The placement of the statues out of their original context makes sure that power that the statues emulated was removed, whilst the placement in an open air museum resembling a prison or quarantine was meant so that future generations would not forget the dark pages of history. This article can benefit the discussion of the Confederate statues by showing the effects of replacing the statues to a different location, taking into account that this article features an event that had bi-partisan support, which does not seem the case with the Confederate symbols.
Fascist Statue in Tyrol:
Another case study that deals with dissonant heritage in the shape of statues is an analysis of the Victory Monument in South Tyrol, Italy by Johanna Mitterhofer (2013). The Victory Monument was a statue erected by the monarchists and fascist party to celebrate the victory of Italy over Austria-Hungary during the First World War and celebrates the moment when South Tyrol was annexed by Italy in the aftermath.
21 It’s constructing was both a proclamation of victory, but also intended to remind the local German population the South Tyrol was now Italian. The Victory Monument became the centre of fascist organisation in the region and was widely despised by the local German population. Debates about removal or contextualising of these statues have been had but to no avail. Fascist statues throughout Italy, she argues, have become symbols for the clash between left and right-wing politics. She ends her introduction by stating that it is not expected to provide a solution, but it is desired to at least provide an environment where discussion is possible and disagreements acceptable, if not solvable (Mitterhofer 2013, 48-49).
The region of South Tyrol is ethnically diverse. It was annexed by Italy after the first world war and the German speaking population was subjected to policies of ‘Italianisation’ throughout the 20th century.
During the second world war, about a third (37%) of the South Tyrolean population migrated to Nazi-Germany, and after the second world war, Austria and Italy signed an agreement that ‘German’ South Tyrolians were not to be discriminated against. However, a part of the German population of South Tyrol still sought secession, and targeted symbols of Italian oppression and government during the ‘50’s and ‘70’s (Mitterhofer 2013, 49-50). In most places in Europe, these heritage remnants of fascist occupation are contextualised and condemned, but for the Victory Monument, this is not the case (Mitterhofer 2013, 50). Whether the Italian government has been unwilling or unable is at this point irrelevant. What is relevant however, is that these memories of fascist thoughts and power are now claimed by fascist groups around which to rally. Although most of the residents of South Tyrol do not wish to get rid of these statues completely, the action required to deal with the dissonance of these symbols is still discussed (Mitterhofer 2013, 50-51).
The Victory Monument in South Tyrol is a major cause of dissonance because of its intent. It serves as a memory of the victory over Austria-Hungary. This monument may invoke feelings of pride in the Italian population, but for the German population, some of whom fought on the Austrian side during the First World War, this monument resembles their subjugation and oppression (Mitterhofer 2013, 51-52). With multiple Italian and/or fascist statues and monuments in the region, the local government maintained the status quo, although some competitions were put up to historicize and contextualise, but as of 2013 nothing has really changed around these monuments (Mitterhofer 2013, 53-54). This is mostly because there is an uneasy stability in the region between complete removal, letting the monuments be and maintaining them with public funds, and the contextualisation of the monuments. Mitterhofer notes that
22 the latter argument is gaining ground, and explains more in depth the views and persons associated with them in her article (Mitterhofer 2013, 55-58).
She ends her article by calling for the contextualising approach as it enforces the continuation of the debate, whilst also taking away some of the causes for extreme escalation in the short term (Mitterhofer 2013, 58-59). It seems that what she thought was best for the region and the monument happened in 2014. The monument was reopened and featured an exhibition on fascism and Nazism in addition to contextualisation.
Heritage is, as Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge state, inherently dissonant (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996 in Graham et al 2005, 36). This would mean that a definition of dissonant heritage could be as follows: “heritage dissonance is what happens when the message that is communicated by a monument is interpreted differently by at least two groups of people who are confronted with the message”. This definition does not attribute to the gravitas of dissonant heritage, why it is discussed with vigour and fierceness, and is therefore too general. A better definition of dissonant heritage should entail the severity of the dissonance and take into account why it is discussed (as vigorously and fiercely). In the cases mentioned, resentment comes from a feeling of injustice, represented by the statues. This trend is visible in the case studies: the reverence of someone who committed genocide in Indonesia is opposed in Hoorn, symbols representing colonial oppression are targeted by (newly independent) Kenyan nationalists in Nairobi, and in Budapest people were taking a stand against communist oppressors after years of hardship. In South Tyrol the humiliation of a large part of the population of an area is opposed, as well as the congregation of fascist and extreme right-wing groups that see the statue as a symbol to rally around. The feeling of injustice can be further strengthened by a historical powerlessness against these symbols. When the powerlessness disappears, debates arise about what the intended meaning of these statues was and what to do with them. This is most visible in Nairobi and Budapest. These actions are but one aspect of the dissonance. The other side in these examples is initially not receptive for issues with these symbols and argues that rewriting or white-washing history is unnecessary and would hurt knowledge of history and how it is presented. The Budapest case study is an exception to this, because the statues were opposed by most people.
Incorporating these complexities in a new definition results in the following definition: “dissonant heritage is heritage that is interpreted at least in two ways. Firstly, it is perceived as a local, regional, national, or supra-national representation of history, and secondly it is interpreted as a representation of
23 injustice, actively debated when the ‘powerless’ become ‘not powerless’, but not necessarily powerful.” Action against heritage is sometimes spearheaded by local minority groups, such as in Tyrol and Hoorn, hence the addition of “not necessarily powerful” in the definition. This definition is workable for the subject in this thesis, but not perfect because it focuses only on historical heritage; it is too specific. The case studies provided but some examples of causes of dissonance, but this definition should be applicable for all cases of dissonant heritage.
Putting the two definitions together results in the following: “dissonant heritage is heritage that features two or more interpretations that are mutually exclusive. The (original) intent of the symbol is actively resented by at least one group of people, interpreting the symbol as representing suppression of a minority by the dominant group at the time of construction. Another group of people interprets the same symbol in a positive way.” This definition is used for the further comparison between these case studies and the subject of the Confederate symbols later in this thesis.
24 Historical Context
What follows is a very short summary of the events after the American Civil War that led to the racial divide of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A fully historical analysis is an entirely different subject, and thesis material on its own. Here, the general timeline and some implications that are important for the analysis of the heritage is described.
The American Civil war happened between 1861 and 1865, and the major cause for it was the abolition of slavery by Lincoln (Blight 2002, 28). It is in this context that the American Civil war is often remembered as a tragedy with a happy ending, where the veterans ‘returned to their farms to continue life as normal right after’ (Blight 2002, 121-124). The period after the civil war may appear to have been a ‘happy ending’ of division of America and the return of unified American nationalism, but the period directly following the civil war saw a rise in racial tensions that is often not directly associated with the civil war that came before (Blight 2002, 124-127). During the Reconstruction, racial equality was promoted in the entire United States, under force of arms in the South (Blight 2002, 128). After the civil war, the South still resented the ‘Union’, and the reconstruction became a battle of ideologies concerning black rights (Blight 2001, 50-54). This clash of identity and ideology is visible in how the Confederacy was promoted and remembered. One example of this is the prominent southern poet Henry Timrod (Henderson 2013, 19-38). Timrod describes the Confederacy as a bastion of faith and honour, fighting against a tyrannical, God-opposing North (Henderson 2013, 24-25). Timrod was active before, during, and after the Civil War, shaping the support and remembrance of the Confederacy (Henderson 2013, 19-24). Timrod’s work shows the resistance of the reconstruction and the ‘peaceful continuation’ of the Civil War (Henderson 2013, 33-34). Even now, the causes of the Civil War are still debated, and the memory of it disputed (McCardell Jr. 2014, 297-300), even going so far as to describe it as the war that does not go away (McCardell Jr. 2014, 300).
The Civil War in the United States was over on the battlefield but not in the hearts and minds of its people. To balance this resentment, reconciliation of the North and South was necessary. The reconciliation promoted by some prominent Americans was supposed to bring the ‘South’ and the ‘North’ back together by ignoring past grievances and altering the memory of the Civil War from treasonous secession to an inconvenience of a nation. This reconciliation was promoted in a way that emphasised forgetting the bad parts of the past, seeing former enemies as brothers and countrymen who fought valiantly and bravely for their freedom, and focus on togetherness and patriotism for the future (Blight
25 2001, 50-63). The 1874 midterm election saw a large win for democrats, ushering in the ‘counterrevolution’. Fuelled by government corruption, economic depression, and increased unrest in the American South, the reconstruction was replaced with a resurgence of racially motivated violence by ‘American whites’, predominantly in, but not restricted to, the American South (Blight 2001, 130-139). The Reconstruction ended with the 1876 election, which could have easily ended in a new Civil War, but was decided in favour of the Republican candidate with concessions of increased autonomy to the American South (Blight 2002, 135-139).
In the southern states, the steady rise of racial tensions since the reconstruction resulted in a rise to prominence of the ‘Lost Cause’ movement. The Lost Cause movement consisted of white southerners that romanticised and mythologised the southern efforts during the American Civil War to try to unite the white inhabitants of the region politically (Leib and Webster 2015, 12). This movement was based in part on the 1867 manifesto also called “the Lost Cause” (Blight 2001, 51). The Lost Cause movement also embraced the idea that the Confederacy lost not because of lack of bravery, but because of unfair advantages of the Union, like industrial capacity and army size. These views increased in popularity in 1880, and paired with these views resentment of the what was lost in the Civil War economically rose. This resentment culminated in targeting African-Americans, resulting in further increased racial tensions. During the 1890’s these racial tensions resulted in a clear segregation and the further empowerment of southern white democrats in the American South, resulting in frequent lynching and the passing of legislation that abolished racial equality and promoted segregation through a legal doctrine known as ‘separate but equal’. Increased segregation culminated in what is known as Jim Crow laws. These laws used the idea of ‘separate but equal’ to distribute funds and facilities unevenly in favour of ‘whites’, and to suppress the political voice of black voters (Blight 2002, 131-143). This racial segregation got worse in 1913, when then President Woodrow Wilson enacted further segregation laws (Blight 2002, 143).
Racial tension lingered but got distraction by the World Wars, but rose again after the Second World War. It took until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950’s and 60’s to aim for a resolution for racial issues. Still, racial tension has not disappeared. Between the end of the Civil Rights Movement and the 2000’s there were multiple instances of racially motivated uprisings, for example in Newark in 1967, Miami in 1980, Los Angeles in 1992, and a spike in attacks on African-American churches in the 1990’s (www.huffingtonpost.com 2015a). In the new millennium, racially motivated uprisings did not disappear. The Cincinnati riots in 2001, the riots following the shooting of a black man in Ferguson in 2014, the 2015
26 racially motivated Charleston church shooting, and violent protests in Charlottesville in 2017 are but some of many.
Confederate Battle Flag
In a 2015 article, Strother, Piston and Ogorzalek tried to answer the question of whether the Confederate Battle Flag and statues can be seen as southern pride without also evoking a dividing racial aspect in their supporters (2015, 295-312). Their research was done through an analysis of surveys of individual information and preferences like education, political views, place of upbringing, and social economic standing, to see if racial prejudice can be linked to the support for the Confederate Battle Flag. In their article, they also addressed the history of the flag and how it came to be seen as the symbol that it is today. In addition, Webster and Leib covered the subject of southern symbols on multiple occasions and in multiple publications and are also referenced.
Since the American Civil War, the Confederate Battle Flag was not prominently used until the 1948. Before the 1948, it was sometimes used during tributes to civil war veterans, and the flag made minor appearances during the Second World War (further referred to as WW2) as a symbol of pride for southern regiments. After WW2 the flag gained popularity because of the Dixiecrat movement in 1948. This movement was a one-off splinter party consisting of southern democrats opposing civil rights legislation and supporting racial segregation. It ceased to exist after the decisive democrat victory in the election of 1948. Not only did the popularity of the Confederate Battle Flag rise, the connection between the Confederate Battle Flag and racism also became stronger. In the 1950’s, the Confederate Battle Flag made a reappearance in several state flags of several southern states and was displayed at several important state-sponsored locations (Strother et al. 2015, 298-299; Webster and Leib 2001 274-275).
In Georgia, the Confederate Battle Flag was incorporated in the official state flag in 1956. ‘The preservation and presentation of southern heritage and tradition’ was one of the major arguments in 1955, and a year later a statement was issued by Denmark Groover, the then house leader, that: “Anything we can do to preserve the memory of the Confederacy is a step forward” (Strother et al. 2015, 300-301). Since then, the flag has been changed twice, where defenders of the Confederate Battle Flag viewed its inclusion in the state flag as heritage and not a symbol of hate. The current state flag is the same as before 1956, without the Confederate Battle Flag incorporated in it, and was officially reinstated in 2003 (Strother et al. 2015, 301).
27 The Confederate Battle Flag was not adapted to fit in the South Carolina state flag, although the Confederate Battle Flag was raised over the capitol since 1962. Following spurs of violence in 1996 against black churches and the boycott of tourism in 1999, the NAACP moved it to a Confederate memorial in front of the capitol building in 2000. Following the racially motivated violence of the Charleston church shooting in 2015, most states and counties have removed the Confederate Battle Flag from government buildings and seals.
“Due to its association with both the 19th century Confederacy and racist post-World War II pro-segregation groups, the Confederate battle flag today inflames regional sensitivities and passions like no other symbol” (Hitt 1997, as quoted from Webster
and Leib 2001, 275)
The above citation indicates nicely how the flag is so divisive. The intended meaning behind the embracement and promotion of the symbol of the Confederate Battle Flag has two distinct versions. The first is the Confederate, military, and remembrance intent, whilst the other is the use of this symbol as a rallying symbol against civil rights and for racial segregation. The separation of these two different intents are visible in the opinions of a majority of white southerners, state Webster and Leib. The majority of white southerners see the flag as symbolic for heroic struggle and the fight against tyranny (Webster and Leib 2001, 275). This distinction is not universally accepted. For example, Webster and Leib state that most African-Americans see these different intents as one, as an icon of hate because of its use whilst defending slavery and the later pro-segregation use (Webster and Leib 2001, 275). It is therefore no surprise that the Confederate Battle Flag is highly divisive. On the one hand, the flag is interpreted as a symbol of southern bravery and idealism, a symbol for the fight for freedom based on the romanticised vision of the Civil War embodied by the Lost Cause movement. The opposing interpretation is that the honouring of Confederate symbols rectifies traitors and slavers, and enforces continued disregard of African American opinion (Strother et al. 2015, 297-298).
Confederate Statues
In an article by Leib and Webster (2015) they analysed multiple publications by Winberry about Confederacy statues in the landscape. The first Confederate statue was erected in 1867, but before 1890 the number of statues erected was still limited. Statues erected between 1865 and 1890 were predominantly obelisks and in lesser amounts statues of soldiers, but almost exclusively on cemeteries.
28 After 1890, statues commemorating the Confederacy were increasingly placed in courthouse squares and urban centres and were more and more depictions of soldiers or important named figures from the Civil war. Most of the Confederate statues were constructed between 1890 and the First World War (Leib 2012, 401). According to Winberry, this was for a multitude of reasons. The first reason for an increase in statues was for remembering the veterans that fought in the Civil war, as by 1890 the number of veterans started to decrease. Secondly, the statues were erected as a symbolic celebration of the successful rebuilding of the south after the devastation brought about by the Civil war. The third reason was the increased prominence of the Lost Cause movement, followed by the fourth and final reason, namely a change in racial and political issues brought about by the turn of the nineteenth century (Leib and Webster 2015, 11-13).
This increase in erected statues is also mentioned by Wahlers in her review of North Carolina heritage laws. She also mentions that most Confederate statues were erected between 1890 and 1930, a time of racial tension and segregation in the South of the United States, at least 25 years after the end of the Civil War (Whalers 2016, 2176). A map from DocSouth, an online publishing platform for southern history sponsored by the University of North Carolina, shows monuments on a map where the visitor of the site can ‘scroll’ through time (www.docsouth.unc.edu). This map also supports this notion, that most statues were constructed between 1890 and 1930. After the violence instigated by white-nationalist in Charlottesville in 2017, the debate surrounding the statues has reignited with new intensity.
As mentioned by Johnson (1995), statues that celebrated Confederate generals and ‘heroes’ are often presented as people who fought out of loyalty to their home. Even in the Northern part of the United States, Union statues often depict white soldiers, neglecting to depict the black representatives in the war (Johnson 1995, 55). This already indicates that the statues were never intended to be for all citizens of the Unites States who fought in the civil war, but rather to honour and celebrate a select few ‘elites’ and to evoke a feeling of pride in only the white part of the population for fighting for liberty. It is already mentioned in this thesis that racial inequality was still prevalent after the Civil war had ended.
Confederate statues come in a variety of shapes in varying locations. Winberry (1983) distinguishes between battlefield monuments, cemetery monuments, courthouse and urban monuments commemorating people from a specific county usually situated on the courthouse lawn or on main streets and public parks, and large impressive monuments aimed at remembering soldiers and/or heroes from a specific state usually raised on state capitol grounds. The kind of monument placed and the placement
29 date differ for each location and type. Winberry considers four main types of monument, the soldier atop a column with weapon at rest or no weapon at all looking in the distance is mostly prevalent on courthouse squares, a soldier with his weapon at the ready, obelisks which are mostly present at cemeteries, and a miscellaneous category. In addition to the location type of monuments is their erection date. Around 51% of the obelisks were erected before 1900, whilst 80% of ‘the soldier at rest looking in the distance’ monuments were erected only after 1900. Of all the statues erected on courthouse squares, 93 percent were raised after 1895 (Winberry 1983, 108-111). Winberry gives multiple explanations for the increase of Confederate monuments, ranging from remembering the dead, honouring those who fought, the quarter of a century commemoration, or battlefield memorials. The one explanation that stands out the most is that Confederate statues at courthouses meant to symbolise the unified south, meaning poor and rich white southerners. This symbolism was a reaction to a popular movement targeting rich landowners, splitting the democratic party in the American South. This popular movement consisted of poor white and black southerners making a stand against the rich white elites (Winberry 1983, 117-118). The intent was thus the promotion of a ‘white’ American South, which went together with discrediting and suppression of non-whites in the south. These statues were intended to represent increased racial inequality and segregation (Leib and Webster 2015, 13-15).
Conclusions
The Confederate Battle Flag its original meaning was more functional, being distinguishable on the battlefield. After the Civil war, the flag was used sparsely, most commonly during memorial services to Confederate soldiers. The Dixiecrat movement of 1948 changed this use. The Battle Flag was used as a symbol to resist civil rights and promote segregation. Others focus more on the racial connotations that the flag has. It was carried in defence of slavery and was used as a symbol to promote segregation. In extremis, supporters of the flag see it as a remembrance of honour and ‘remember’ the intent of honouring Confederate soldiers forgetting or neglecting the reuse of the flag in 1948, instead focusing on the military aspect of the Battle Flag. The other end of the spectrum sees the symbol only as defending slavery from the flag its conception, only added upon by the 1948 re-use.
The Confederate statues differ greatly in style, location, remembrance purpose, and what message was intended. There are vast differences between monuments at cemeteries and monuments at courthouses, for example, as there are vast differences between the depiction of a soldier with weapon at the ready and an obelisk. It is therefore not strange that interpretations of these statues vary greatly
30 depending on which statue is discussed. Most divisive of these statues are the courthouse statues, which often were the result of intended promotion of racial inequality and segregation. Considering the failure of the reconstruction and the rise to prominence of the ‘Lost Cause’ movement around the same time could support such an intent.
