Peeling back the layers of history

So much public debate today is focusing on how we Americans remember the past. Whether discussing the merits of moving Confederate statues and memorials nationally or, here in New Mexico, coming to grips with our own tributes to a violent past, there is much to consider.

Erasing history should never be the goal, even when the history being discussed is treason. After all, the decision of Southern states to leave the Union and launch a civil war was treasonous, made particularly ugly because it was fought in defense of the right of one man to own another. The wounds of that war still fester, whether monuments stay up or are torn down.

In 2015, a young man committed mass murder in Charleston, S.C., his goal to start a “race war” and the Confederate flag his symbol. His actions began prompting states and governments to take down at least some of the symbols. Then, when a white supremacist group decided to march in Charlottesville, Va., to protest a planned removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee earlier this month, the subsequent violence led to more discussions and, importantly, overnight removal of some statues.

That today’s white supremacists are latching on to these tributes are perhaps the best reason to take them down — or perhaps move them to museums or places where they can be placed in context. The monuments, it turns out, were less about paying tribute to the ideals of the Confederacy and more about establishing white supremacy.

Vox.com explains, that, “in fact, most of these Confederate monuments were built during the Jim Crow era and in response to the civil rights movement — a sign that they were meant to explicitly represent white supremacy in the South: Given that America is now trying to make amends for the racist policies of its past, it seems natural that the monuments that celebrated this horrific past come down.”

According to an admittedly “not comprehensive” study from the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 1,503 Confederate “place names and other symbols in public spaces” across the nation. Moving them takes time, even if everyone agrees on what should be done. An orderly process is necessary, or more chaos could result.

Consider that in Durham, N.C., protesters earlier this month pulled down a statue of a Confederate soldier. Not a general, just a soldier. Many foot soldiers in the Confederate army were not there by choice; they were conscripted and forced to serve. That’s a statue to the common man, even one on the wrong side of history. We need more of those tributes to ordinary people and their struggles.

What really matters is how we can reflect the fuller history of the past — including right here in New Mexico.

Statues to soldiers and to war focus too much on the violence in our past. In the South, other men and women besides Stonewall Jackson or Gen. Lee deserve honor. Schools can be named after local heroes, the people who improve communities close to home. The military bases named after Southern generals need new names, too; why honor men who committed treason against the very United States these bases are obligated to defend?

In Santa Fe, the obelisk on the Plaza, with its tribute to Union soldiers and also “to the heroes who have fallen in various battles with savage Indians in the Territory of New Mexico” has received deserved criticism over the years — the word “savage” has been scratched out.

Wisely, there is a new plaque telling onlookers: “Monument texts reflect the character of the times in which they are written and the temper of those who wrote them. This monument was dedicated in 1868 during the close of a period of intense strife which pitted northerner against southerner, Indian against white, Indian against Indian. Thus, we see on this monument, as in other records, the use of such terms as ‘savage’ and ‘rebel’. Attitudes change and prejudices hopefully dissolve.” Explaining monuments and putting their placement in context is another way to deal with our racist past. (Moving the monument from the Plaza, by the way, is not a city decision because of its status as a National Historic Landmark.)

Mayor Javier Gonzales is asking for a review of Santa Fe’s monuments on public ground and of city support for events or organizations that celebrate or recognize historic events or people, including financial and logistical support. Finally, Gonzales wants a process through which the public can submit comments on events, memorials, monuments and markers that commemorate our shared history. Eventually, he plans to ask the City Council for action, depending on what City Manager Brian Snyder finds as he conducts the review.

This is a sensible first step. If a community doesn’t realize what exists, its members cannot decide what they want. Putting up monuments or memorials is an incremental process, done over decades. The collective weight of monuments that have been put up over the years, for whatever reason, might not reflect the totality of a community’s history. In Cathedral Park, for example, there is a statue of Don Diego de Vargas and a sculpture reflecting the contributions of the Spanish explorers. Perhaps this park would be a fitting place to pay tribute to what was here when those explorers came, adding a new layer to the history already there.

Whatever emerges from this discussion, the process is a positive beginning to determining how we in Santa Fe will honor the past. No one should want to erase history — whether of the Confederacy, European settlers or the coming of the Americans. But to present history in context, providing different viewpoints? That is worthwhile, both for Santa Fe and for the nation.