Robert E Lee and the Charlottesville: The Harm to the Public Peace

Robert E Lee, a Chief General in the 19th century American Civil War was fighting with the South against the North, A statue of Lee was put in Charlottesville in 1924 to commemorate his achievements in the War. However, in recent years discussions on Lee’s commemoration and several other confederate figures sprung up debates on the symbolism of confederacy statues. Confederacy statues are argued to be glorifying Americas “troubled past and present.” (Forest, Johnson, 2019:128). It has received a lot of backlash from the public and many statues are susceptible to vandalism because of public backlash. Lee’s statue was also vandalised with the term ‘black lives matter’ sprawled over it to signify how the commemoration of Lee does not resonate with all Americans. In 2015 the Charlottesville City Council advocated for either the relocation or additional transformation of the Lee statue (Fortin, 2017) but later advocated for the removal in 2017 (Fortin, 2017) Many responded to the council’s appeal by protesting against the removal/relocation arguing it went against laws that to remove War monuments/memorials (Economist, 2019). The protest occurred in August 2017 where the world witnessed the Far-Right rally in Charlottesville. Various groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, the Alternative-Right, all associated as White supremacist groups joined the rally which led to 19 injured in a car-ramming attack and protestor Heather Heyer killed. Although the statue still stands, the Park, named after Lee which holds the statue, had its name changed to Emancipation Park in June 2017.

The Charlottesville the City Council were appealing for the full removal of the Lee statue from the Park. In advocating for the removal of statue linked to racism allows us to understand that the campaign was conducted in an anti-colonial manner. Wherein the statue is simply removed from the public eye, rather than a de-colonial manner. De-colonising can be defined as a process of disengaging and detaching from the attributes that colonisation left behind and seeking structural transformation as well as changing of frameworks and ideologies. Albeit the removal of confederate statues cannot exactly decolonize the space, it is decolonising by igniting more conversations on the unjust history of America and the glorification of these historical events, whether it is morally right to do so or not. The campaign of Lee’s removal simply detaches a figure that represents racism away from the public. Academics Forest and Johnson highlight that often, removal of a figure from central locations still has the effect of acting as reminders of history (Forest, Johnson, 2019:130). Here we can understand that appealing to remove Lee’s statue does not weaken the truth that slavery existed, nor does it help forget history which Forest and Johnson argue is an ineffective way to “confront” (Forest, Johnson, 2019:128) the past and present.

Elaborating on that, the unjust past in this case study is referring to Western colonisation of Africa and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, but also the continuation/justification of enslaving African Americans (one of the reasons the Civil War was fought). Removal of Lee’s statue suggests a desire in forgetting the past, however, Forest and Johnson articulate the complexities surrounding forgetting to exemplify this they look into two definitions; Firstly, Repressive Erasure, which includes forgetting/diminishing an event/person from history and getting rid of anything that symbolises them. One problem with repressive erasure is that it requires full conformity and often silence because it is a top-down method. Conducting this is “problematic” (Forest, Johnson, 2019:128) because it is exactly what American elites were doing when speaking of the Antebellum Era, selectively choosing what is talked about when mentioning historical accounts thus manipulating what is important and what is not according to their personal choice. Secondly, Prescriptive Forgetting includes the act of collectively forgetting, often openly, rather than in silence, to move on. This is often better for society as it involves forgetting to move onwards this method is often “used in post-conflict societies to stop cycles of injury and revenge” (Forest, Johnson, 2019:129). Lee’s appeal for removal is more tied to prescriptive forgetting (as it involved collectiveness and also a public appeal for removal), this form of forgetting acknowledges that a Confederate figure has been memorialised, but emphasises that removal is a purposeful choice “necessary for post-conflict reconciliation” (Forest, Johnson, 2019:129).

Following on from that, the broader politics of forgetting figures and also the past is not always applicable because as Schulz argues, some figures are remembered both in a positive and negative light. Using the figure of Abraham Lincoln Shulz articulates how he was known to be against slavery and aimed for reformation but at the same time was disadvantaging the indigenous community in the USA (Schulz, 2019:175). Similarly, we see the figure of Mahatma Gandhi as one that is remembered for his peaceful activism, but he held racist views against black people, which led to the Gandhi Must Fall Campaign in South Africa. As articulated earlier, the concept of forgetting is not ideal these two figures have had their controversy but have also advocated for some form of reformation, whereas Lee was advocating for the continuation of injustice. Despite this, it is arguably better to embrace the past.

The broader sense, in understanding why the past is better embraced than forgotten can be explained by Schulzs who uses German Philosopher, Adorno’s ideas to not “close the books on the past” (Adorno,1998 cited in Schulz, 2019:177) but rather be more engaged. What can be understood is that we can learn from the failures and ultimately aim to gain a collective identity by incorporating the dark history to better oneself. Schulz argues that “A collective that knows of its past failures and has morally condemned them is less likely to repeat them in the future and more likely to establish respectful relations in the present” (Schulz, 2019:178).