On the Emancipation Statue in Boston

Greetings all! Yesterday, I commented on Kevin Levin’s Twitter post asking for a response to the removal the monument commemorating emancipation in Boston’s Park Square. I wanted to elaborate a little here. When the last wave of monuments to Confederate leaders came down over the summer, a number of commentators decried the movement as a “slippery slope” that would lead the public to turn on any monument that anyone considered offensive for any reason. Expect over the next several days that these same commentators will use this as exhibit A: the removal of a monument to Abraham Lincoln - the “great emancipator.”

So here’s the thing: the commemorative landscape is not static. It changes over time and evolves to reflect the values of any given community which seeks to commemorate a particular person or event at any given time. Monuments are not “history” per se but rather iterations of “memory.” They tend to tell us more about how a community uses the past to reflect the values of the present rather than the historical event they depict. But values change - and so do communities. And so commemorative landscapes change, which is precisely what is happening here.

No one is saying that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible person (though he was certainly flawed, as are all humans…). And no one is advocating the destruction of this monument. But we should all understand why this is a problematic representation of the historical events: a partially clothed black man kneeling before the president - who is essentially gracing a supplicant race, begging for freedom. The depiction here does not take into account the human agency of enslaved people who forced the issue on the United States government - what we refer to as self emancipation. We should understand that when Bostonians dedicated this monument in 1879, the Lincoln as emancipator story was the dominant narrative in national commemorative culture…and that the narrative has significantly changed since.

Those who unanimously voted to remove the monument (legislative process is how things like this tend to work…) want to provide a public space for educational purposes, where the piece can be best interpreted. This seems like a reasonable course of action. So, to those who think otherwise, this is not an example or “erasing” history - rather, it is a case of broadening our understanding of the commemorative process - what we choose to honor, and when and how we choose to honor it.

With compliments,

Keith

For details on the removal see, CNN

For an excellent book on slavery, emancipation, commemorations and public spaces see Kirk Savage, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves