On
September 13th, Rhodes hosted the lecture Monumental Problems: The Monumental Debate in Historical Perspective
to provide analysis into the ongoing arguments surrounding the historical
monuments. In the debate Professor Jackson noted that a major problem with some
of the confederate monuments is that they “sugarcoat” the past, simply creating
heroes and villains from complicated stories. One idea brought up by Professor
Jackson was that monuments should serve as “Memory Works,” (2). Where some
monuments traditionally give one-sided accounts, Memory Works allow for more
democratic thinking by displaying an “ongoing thought process of the past.” A
couple examples given were the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, Germany and the
Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. Jackson explains that as each invites the
visitor to engage in the memory of the holocaust and the Vietnam war, they are
enabled to contribute to a forward moving conversation. One such memory work
that best models the way the United States should approach thinking about the
past is the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Seeking to memorialize the Tulsa
race riot of 1921, the park’s presentation of the complex contextual
relationships between blacks, whites and natives exemplifies how monuments need
to provide a full story. By 1921, with its economy and population growing,
Tulsa was considered the “Oil Capital of the World.” A great reason for this
was the thriving African American Greenwood District, also known as “Black Wall
Street.” However, in May of 1921, white Tulsans rioted against blacks by
burning down buildings, looting, and even killing members of the black
community (1). The aftermath of the riots left thousands jobless and homeless,
and the Greenwood district is now one of the poorest areas of Tulsa. In 2009,
the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park was constructed to memorialize the
violence against the Blacks and Native Americans in the race riot. What allows
the park to provide a holistic view is the way it displays the violence and presents the importance of the
African Americans in the construction of the Oklahoma economy. In a section of
the park called “Hope Plaza,” there are statues of a white man with a gun, a
black man with his hands raised, and the red cross director holding a black
baby, each titled “Hostility,” “Humiliation” and “Hope,” respectively. These
images provide powerful memories that show to the visitor how the blacks were
betrayed by the whites that benefited from the Greenwood District’s success.
However, the statues also tell a complex story of how members of the Red Cross
assisted the victims, and how not all whites were behind the riots. Although
the history of the race riot may be complex, the parks founder, John Hope
Franklin, claims “will have the opportunity to confront the things that are
constructive and that are instructive,” and that “reconciliation its not as
simple as it sounds but it is very important that we develop these commitments
or efforts, for if we do we will make life easier,” (4). Because the
reconciliation successfully confronts the complex history surrounding the riot,
it may serve as a source for “forward moving conversation”
Ultimately, the race riot in Tulsa
greatly embodies the larger mistreatment of slaves who helped build the
developing United States. Just as the Reconciliation Park tells the entire
story and inspires forward thinking, so too should monuments or memorials that
come from periods evolving the mistreatment of slaves. Rather than just
removing monuments that “idolize” a specific side or party, the U.S. should
seek to replace these with monuments and memorials that tell the whole story.
Word Count: 594
“John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park.”
John Hope Franklin, John Hope Franklin Center for Reconciliation, 2013, www.jhfcenter.org/reconciliation-park/.
Word Count: 594
Ellsworth, Scott. “Tulsa Race Riot.” Tulsa
Race Riot | The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, Oklahoma
History Center, 2009, www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=TU013.
Jackson, Jeffrey. “Monumental Problems:
The Monument Debate in Historical Perspective.” 13 Sept. 2017, Memphis, Rhodes
College.
Loveladyandassociate. “JHF Center.” JFC
Center, 9 Nov. 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dSeBWo4OCk.
Right now, as the discussion of monuments is becoming more and more prevalent, and I really liked your example of the monument that was built in Tulsa. I think that this monument should serve as an example for future monuments. One thing that was not covered in your post was the idea of what to do with the confederate monuments that stand today. Most of these monuments were built during the civil rights movements in hopes that they would remind people of the good in the Confederate Army, and not leave a completely negative taste in people's mouths. They were not only built as a testament, but also as propaganda. The idea of building them as propaganda promotes racism, is the reason I believe they should be torn down. However, in our class decision, Professor McKinney told us that as a historian, he has a major problem with removing all of these statues. This got me thinking about the idea of removing history, which is something that must never happen. I know this sounds like a little bit of a weird idea, but what if near ever confederate statue or monument was one that would also counteract the racism that is embedded so deeply in the monuments (much like the one in Tulsa). I feel like this could work as a solution, so that the history doesn't disappear, but also, the proper ideas about the racist war are reviled.
ReplyDelete