Could Banning Films and Statues of Slavery-Linked Historical Figures Be a Form of Deleting History?

History, once lived, cannot be erased. Every event that has shaped our world is an integral part of our understanding and growth. Yet, the discourse on revisiting our past and the memorials it commands has been heated. Some argue that the banning of films and statues linked to historical figures with ties to slavery is an act of erasing history, while others see it as a necessary step towards context and education.

The Complexities of Historical Revisionism

One of the most contentious topics in modern American discourse is the question of whether to revise or remove historical memorials that honor figures associated with the Confederacy. The Lost Cause mythology, which romanticizes the Confederacy and questions the outcomes of the Civil War, has often been criticized for perpetuating a skewed narrative of history.

Many argue that historical figures like the Confederate generals, who fought against the United States, and supported the institution of slavery, do not deserve to be celebrated in public spaces. While some see their memorials as symbols of past injustice, others argue that these monuments are necessary for understanding the history of the United States.

The Case of "Gone with the Wind" and "Song of the South"

A recent development regarding these memorials has been the decision by streaming services to add contextual introductions to certain historical films. For instance, HBO MAX has removed "Gone with the Wind" from its streaming library, replacing it with a new introduction that addresses the film's problematic portrayal of the Confederacy. Similarly, "Song of the South" has been sitting on the shelf since the 1940s, and a renewed effort is being made to add a proper introduction before re-releasing it.

The reason for these actions is clear: both films present narratives of the Confederacy that are not historically accurate, and framing them without context can lead to a misunderstanding of the events they depict. The primary aim is to ensure that future viewers understand the true nature of these historical artifacts and the contexts in which they were created.

The Question of History Versus Veneration

A poignant quote from an anonymous source sums up this debate: "Best not let them build a statue of you. Best they ask why they didn't." This captures the essence of the issue: while history cannot be altered, the context and narrative surrounding historical figures can be revised to provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past.

However, it's crucial to differentiate between erasing history and contextualizing it. In the collapse of the Soviet Union or the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, no one suggested that removing statues of historical figures was an act of erasing history. Rather, it was seen as a necessary step towards deconstructing veneration and fostering a new perspective.

Similarly, if we replace the statues of Confederate figures with those of abolitionists and freedom fighters, we can honor the past without glorifying its violators. This approach ensures that we do not forget the past but learn from it, making clear what happened and why it matters.

Recommendations for Handling Slavery-Linked Properties

For places such as Monticello, Arlington House, and Mount Vernon, where the builders and owners were slave owners, a more educational approach is required. These sites could be transformed into historical museums where the lives of the enslaved individuals and the broader context of slavery are thoroughly explored. This approach would allow visitors to understand not only the legacies of these prominent figures but also the harsh realities of their slave-owning practices.

Other recommendations include:

Removing all memorials glorifying slave owners and presenting them alongside memorials of abolitionists and those who fought against slavery. Erecting explanatory notes that provide historical context and shed light on the complexities of the past. Creating dedicated educational programs that visit these sites and offer a comprehensive look at the history of both the memorialized figures and the enslaved individuals.

Ultimately, the goal should be to preserve the learning opportunities presented by these historical sites, rather than permitting uncritical glorification of figures and events that contributed to systemic injustices.

Conclusion

While it's understandable that some argue against the removal of historical memorials as an act of erasing history, it is equally important to consider the responsibility we have to educate the public. By contextualizing and preserving these historical sites, we can foster a deeper understanding of our past and ensure that future generations are better equipped to confront and learn from the challenges of the past.