Don’t purge history

The most contentious historical monuments represent the once state-sanctified idolatry to slavery. They are offensive yet should not be removed. Rather, a contrary artwork should be created, an opposing visual narrative adjacent to the other.

By comparison, pre-Civil War documents condoning slavery need to be preserved, read, and contextualized to understand the pernicious racist reasoning that justified this “peculiar institution” and contrasted with documents of the dissenting voices of abolitionists. With the proposed “patriotic” sanitizing of American History, perhaps now more than ever we need these reminders of our dark past lest our children be told fairy tales.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, statues of Stalin were destroyed, yet removing those statues arguably contributed to a low-grade popular amnesia and perhaps rendered a post-Glasnost generation more receptive to Putin’s rehabilitation of Stalin’s cult. Censoring Mein Kampf, restricting textbook references to and prohibiting visual symbols of Nazism did not prevent and may have even contributed to its present re-ascendance. Similarly in the U.S., the purging of the past can come from all ideological sides.

Historical memory is predicated on tangible reminders of our past, even if reprehensible. If we permit the destruction of artifacts from the past which offend, we establish a precedent by which other controversial historical monuments can be removed. If we sanction with impunity this destruction, then the same license can be used to justify destruction of any artistic representation which offends and thus we are not exceptional.

John B. Hagney

Spokane