The title of this blog article includes (2) because in August 2017 I posted an article using the same two words (see here). I ended that post with this statement, “Maybe the time has come just to make decisions that will rid our nation of monuments honoring the racism of the past.” Now I think that is definitely the case.
Necessary Decisions
From the U.S. Congress down through state and city legislatures, decisions must be made now about what to do with monuments, statues, and names honoring people intimately connected with the racist past of this country.
Earlier this month, Speaker of the House Pelosi called for the removal of 11 sculptures in the Capitol, for they all have definite Confederate ties. (Here is the list of those sculptures.) This seems to be the right place to start in making decisions to rid the nation of the commemoration of its persistent racism.
 |
| Lee statue in Richmond, Va. |
On state levels, monumental decisions also need to be made, as was done in Virginia with regards to the imposing statue of Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in Richmond. Here is the link to an informative article about taking down that and other monuments in what was once the capital of the Confederate States of America.
On the city level, there are also important decisions to be made. In Kansas City, the central issue is not of a monument but of a fountain. The J.C. Nichols Memorial Fountain stands in a prominent place near the Country Club Plaza.
Today (June 30) the KC Parks and Recreation Board of Commissioners will be deciding whether to recommend the removal of the current name, for J.C. Nichols was not only a brilliant businessman and developer of Kansas City—and Johnson County, Kansas—but also the instigator of redlining and a clear malefactor of African Americans in the city.
Wrongheaded Decisions
In my “Celebrating Juneteenth” blog post, I averred that racist monuments should be removed in a legal and orderly manner, not by “lynching.” (I used that highly fraught word metaphorically with the broad meaning of “premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group.”)
So, yes, the rash decisions of anti-racists to unlawfully deface or destroy monuments are wrongheaded, most likely hurting their cause far more than helping it.
But is it not also wrongheaded for DJT to seemingly be more interested in punishing the anti-racists (“10 year prison sentences!) than in dealing in constructive ways with the racism that has spurred the defacing or toppling of statues?
Further, the decisions of legislators to do little, if anything, now are also wrongheaded.
For example, Sen. McConnell recently rejected efforts to remove Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol building, calling House Speaker Pelosi’s efforts to remove the 11 sculptures with Confederate ties “nonsense” and an effort to “airbrush the Capitol and scrub out everybody from years ago who had any connection to slavery.”
Missouri Senator Roy Blunt also opposed the efforts of House Democrats to remove those offensive statues—and was denounced by a sharp 6/22 op-ed piece in The Kansas City Star.
Desired Decisions
Removing offending monuments, statues, or names does not erase history. Those acts, whether done by legislative decisions or rash, wrongheaded decisions of angry protesters, are simply removing the honor and prestige given to those men of the past who advocated or perpetuated an unjust social system.
There is good reason, and ample opportunity, to learn about those men of the past (and note that there seem to be no objectionable monuments/statues of women) in history books and in museums.
So, let’s support and actively advocate for the swift removal of monuments and other public acclaim of historical figures who were promoters of white supremacy to the great detriment of people of color in this country.
Those are the decisions strongly desired by those who have suffered, and are suffering, from the bitter poison of racism and by those of us who seek to be their allies.
*****
For those who are interested in my 8/17 blog article about the monument in Brandenburg, Kentucky, here is an update from activities there this month as reported by Newsweek. Sixty years ago (!) I was the pastor of a nearby church; I wonder what I would say and do if I were the pastor there today.
Well said. I've reposted on FB.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anton! (And for some reason I hadn't seen this when I posted Vern's comments.)
DeleteHere is the first response received this morning; it is from local Thinking Friend Vern Barnet, who is a much respected religious leader in Kansas City:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for this! And you may also see that The Star is suggesting a commission to recommend decisions about monuments. I would be so grateful if there is any way you can alert your readers specifically to the desecration of Martin Luther King's memory if Nichols Fountain were renamed "The Dream Fountain" in his honor, by citing the photos, text, and comments at http://www.cres.org/fountain.htm."
Thanks, Vern, for your comments and especially for linking to your strong objection to the nature of the fountain itself and not just to its name.
DeleteAt the online discussion of the KC Parks commissioners last week, they emphasized that the removal of Nichols' name and giving a new name to the fountain were issues to be considered and decided separately. I agreed with several African Americans who thought renaming the Fountain and the Parkway, which is just a few blocks long, was insufficient for honoring MLKing.
And you have made a good and important point about the objectionable nature of the fountain itself, which makes it a poor candidate for honoring anyone.
And here are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago, who long lived in the Kansas City metropolitan area:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for addressing this issue. I agree fully with what you have written.
"The president wants to ban flag burning. Although I have not seen in the news any instances of the U S flag being burned, I suppose it has happened in recent weeks. My own feeling is that if protesters want to burn flags, they should burn Confederate ones since the U S flag and the Confederate flag represent two contrasting views of what America should be."
Thanks, Eric, for your comments.
DeleteI am not in favor of burning anyone's flag, for even the people we strongly disagree with deserve respect. But further, if there are people so angry that they want to burn a flag, even a U.S. flag, I think we need to listen to their complaints and to seek to understand why they are so angry. In most cases there is probably some legitimate reason for that anger that needs to be dealt with constructively and not just condemned.
It's difficult for me too understand why you would want to ban and/or remove History(especially when we living today were Not a part of it)?
ReplyDeleteIf we ban and/or remove Every bad and questionable thing in our past, that wouldn't leave us with much.
I could go on and on, but I will leave it to you more intelligent and Liberal Souls.
I suggest we All read and apply Romans 12:9-21.
Monuments are erected to praise the people to whom the monument (or statue) depicts and the values thought worth acknowledging publicly. Removing monuments/statues do not remove history, but it does remove the public acclaim of values we do not hold as a people.
DeleteFrom what I have heard, there are no statues/monuments in Germany today in honor of Hitler or the Nazis. And during my many years and wide travels in Japan, I never saw any statues/monuments to General Tojo or other militarists of the Japan of the 1930s and early 1940s. The thoughts and actions of Hitler and Tojo are not the values of the German or the Japanese people today, even though they were a part of history that most people living in those countries today were not a part of.
So, why would we want to honor the Confederate generals and political leaders, who were not only traitors to the United States of America but also advocates/proponents of slavery and the unjust treatment of Black people in this country? If they did not espouse the values we want to uphold today, then let's remove the statues honoring those people and learn about them in history books and museums.
Thanks for citing one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. And note that verse nine says, "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." That is relevant to the discussion about monuments, I think.
I would also suggest that we give attention to this verse from Philippians 4:8 -- "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
Still disagree because seems Only you educated people know it honors those depicted, while the New younger people just look at it as History.
DeleteI don't understand the sensitivity to some of these situations you Liberals raise?
Let's let History be visible for All to see so Hopefully we won't repeat that History.
Amazing the different interpretations of Scripture!
DeleteInteresting comments this morning from local Thinking Friend Bob Leeper:
ReplyDelete"Leroy, thanks for your well-studied writing here. As my name is Robert Lee, I have some idea about which side my ancestors were on; we came from Missouri where you made a conscious decision about whether to name the kids Robert Lee or Ulysses (as a child, I had a neighbor named Ulysses.) I agree that removal (or not) should be a well studied, well calculated decision of grown up decision-makers; not the antics of a mob. . . .
"If we remove and re-name, where do we start???? and where do we draw the line??? Do we then go on to folks who broke the sabbath? Or folks who are alleged to have committed adultery??? Coming from a Prohibitionist family, my father would have wanted to defame anyone who had consumed alcohol. Thanks again for bringing up the topic for adult-level-review and decision making."
Thanks for your comments, Bob. I didn't know you were Robert Lee Leeper, but you probably didn't know that I have a relative whose name was Robert E. Lee Seat. He was born in 1866 and is buried in the cemetery where June and I will have some of our ashes inurned. Littleton and Elizabeth Seat, his grandparents, were my great-great-great grandparents.
DeleteAs I see it Bob, the issue is one of public policy and support of systems that are injurious to groups of people and is not just a matter of personal unethical behavior. Admittedly, the latter does often injure others to some extent. But the scope of harm done by breaking the sabbath, committing adultery, or drinking alcohol is far narrower than the system of slavery which was detrimental to millions of people--or engaging in wars of aggression as did Nazi Germany and militarist Japan.
Here are comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"A thoughtful blog, Leroy. I fully agree with you about the need to remove monuments that celebrate our racist past. Louisville and Kentucky have made good progress, but there is a lot of tension in many communities. Removal of some statues, e.g., Castleman’s on Cherokee Drive, is not as clear-cut as others, e.g., Jeff Davis from the Kentucky Capitol."
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. I think the progress in Louisville is much more prominent than in other parts of the state. The Aug. 2017 article I wrote was about the Confederate monument that was moved from Louisville to Brandenburg, the county seat of Meade Co. During all of my B.D. work at Southern, I was pastor of the Ekron Baptist Church in Meade County, just a few miles from Brandenburg. I had to deal with racist attitudes—and with criticism of some of what I said and did—then, 60 years ago! And from the Newsweek article I linked to at the bottom of the post, it sounds as if the situation is as bad, or worse, there now than it was in 1960.
DeleteJust a few minutes ago I received these pertinent comments from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"Leroy, the statues honoring slave owners and those who espoused the concept need to be removed; however, they should not be defaced or damaged. Museums and other places that relate to that part of our history should be given the task of informing those who come there of the history, such as the information presented in conjunction with Nancy' Pelosi's letter.
"Those military leaders who graduated from West Point or other federal military training centers and then fought for the Confederacy were traitors; that fact should be stated for each one. Those who owned slaves, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, should also be known as such.
"We cannot change the past. One of my great grandfathers fought for the Confederacy, was severely wounded, but lived in SE MO until my grandfather was 15 yrs. old. Another great grandfather fought for the Union and once told of some of the brutal things they did "but it was war." A grandson of the former served in the fledgling Army Air Corps (WWII) in the Pacific until his plane went down in a horrific storm. To date, neither the plane nor human remains have not been found. Similarly, several grandsons of the union fighter served also in WWII; some of those made a career of the military. I doubt any of them would think it correct to glorify the socially constructed system of racial injustice. I certainly don't. But just as my family tells the stories we have heard, so the facts of history should be accurately publicized as we attempt to correct some of the wrongs previously enacted."
Here is the latest news from KC:
ReplyDelete"J.C. Nichols — lauded for 100 years as one of Kansas City’s most influential figures — will have his name stripped from the memorial fountain and street alongside the Country Club Plaza that he created, the Kansas City Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners decided unanimously Tuesday."
Board President Jack Holland, before the vote, noted the contributions of Nichols to land use and planning.
Delete“But the use of racial restrictive covenants led to segregated neighborhoods in Kansas City which led to racial isolation and resulted in a severe concentration of poverty,” Holland said. “This action is not about erasing history, it is about responding to history.”
Holland recognized the “enormous generosity of the Nichols family.”
Thanks for your thought-evoking remarks on this topic!
ReplyDeleteI have been wrestling for some time with Isaiah 56:1-5 as a basis for a sermon on including the disinherited; on restoring the legacy (future) of those we have exploited for our future only. Short point: YHWH tells all of us to “Maintain justice and do righteousness,” and for those without a future or whose future is not acknowledged and is taken from them; YHWH promises “a monument and a[n] (everlasting) name” which cannot be eliminated.
It occurs to me that perhaps when a monument [yad (hand)] becomes a “pointer” toward a more just future for all people more than a “marker” [tsiyyun] of past injustice it serves God’s purpose. Shalom.
Thanks for your comments, Dick. I always am glad to hear from you and to consider your erudite comments. But while I really like Isaiah 56:1, I am not sure what is meant by the reference to a monument in verse 5--or what you mean by a monument being a pointer rather than a marker.
DeleteSince Isaiah 56 was written during the time of the Israelites' exile in Babylon, I can't conceive of the monument mentioned in v. 5 being of a Babylonian ruler, which would be similar to erecting a monument for Robert E. Lee.
Please tell me more about how you think a monument can be a pointer.
Leroy,
DeleteI am sorry for over-excitedly throwing my thoughts out! Isaiah 56:5 has the phrase ‘yad v’shem’ [Hebrew: “hand and name”] which lies behind Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. The theme of verse five is that eunuchs who have no offspring and thus no family to remember them will not be forgotten or erased from history because YHWH “will give them . . . a monument and a name” [Jewish Publication Society TANAKH translation] which will be better even than posterity (“sons and daughters”) because YHWH (!) will not let them be “cut off” from God’s people [“disinherited” as Howard Thurman put it].
Inspired (?) by noting that the NRSV (and RSV and NAS) has “monument’ for ‘tsiyyun’ at 2 Kings 23:17 and JPS has “marker”, I rushed to play on the idea that a “yad” as “a pointer” for reading Hebrew Bible without touching the manuscript could be usefully contrasted with a “marker” or “road sign”. The pointer moves along the text; the marker is in a fixed place.
Perhaps (recognizing my haste to say something) it would be more fruitful to say that building monuments to be pointers toward God’s justice rather than mere markers of persons/events is more wholesome [Shalom].
Thanks for asking, hope this is better,
Dick
About J. C. Nichols Parkway in Kansas City, note that it was NOT renamed for MLK. The parkway will now be Mill Creek Parkway, and the fountain name will be decided later. So Kansas City has struck out twice trying to rename something for MLK.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fountain, I was shocked to discover how much I had never noticed about the imagery of the fountain. I mostly had just seen the splashing water. However, that might be a good thing. The sculptures are mostly just sitting in the fountain, and could be removed while leaving the fountain still recognizable. Perhaps Nelson-Atkins or some other gallery or museum could provide a new home and appropriate historical signage for the art, which has only been there since 1960. For instance, at the World War I Museum, it could become a symbol of the horror of war. That would be a subversive twist! Then Kansas City could begin re-imaging the fountain and its symbolism; maybe with a contest to pick a new design. Then the Dream Fountain might truly earn its dream name.