Having lived in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a student, I’m heartsick over Saturday’s events.
I hope we can agree that the violence is unacceptable, and that our freedoms of speech and assembly are sacred.
But clearly we do not agree on the nature of these protests. The organizers claimed innocuous goals: to preserve history, and to express cultural pride. Even if we ignore their weapons and slogans, we can’t accept their pleas of innocence.
First, removing a statue does not erase history. Robert E. Lee will always be a part of our history. His photo will appear in textbooks, his name will be memorized by students, his strategies will be studied by cadets.
But a statue in a public park is more than a record of historical fact, it is a symbol demanding reverence. Symbols that occupy public space are subject to debate and reevaluation, just like the names of public schools and the designs of flags. If an elected city council votes to remove a statue, so be it.
For that matter, if black residents had been allowed to participate freely in Charlottesville’s politics back in 1924, it’s unlikely the statue would have been erected in the first place.
Second, “white nationalism” is not Euro-American cultural pride. Everyone has a right to be proud of their ethnicity, their ancestors, their culture. But white nationalism asks us to ignore the problem of race in American history, the countless ways non-white people have been subjugated, the lingering effects of that history which plague us, and instead to imagine that the United States is a “white” country whose rightful owners are currently under siege.
The U.S. has never been a white country, will never be a white country, and would not be better if it were a white country. To suggest otherwise is unthinkably violent for its implications.
Let’s not pretend “all sides” are to blame. The organizers did not intend to preserve history or celebrate culture. They expected violence, because their message is violent by nature.
Mark Tenekjian
Northampton