General Thoughts- Ian McDonald

Given the recent controversy in Charlottesville over the statue of R.E.Lee that was supposed to be torn down, I've been thinking a decent amount about memorials lifespans. One of the most intriguing readings we have had was the assignment about Anger. In it, Doss discussed complementary memorials, additions/vandalism to memorials, and what happens when you tear a memorial down. I've always found it strange that there are so many memorials built to traitors. It's one thing to have a memorial to Lee, or Stonewall Jackson, as W&L or VMI. After all, they are part of that institution's history. However, it is hard to imagine that part of their memory activation is not nostalgia for the past--a past in which the white male was unquestioningly superior. This idea was something I had struggled with before this class. On one hand, I think memorials like this are appalling and have no place in public. On the other hand, I don't think pretending atrocities didn't happen is the right approach. Doss' reading, to me, suggested that these are not mutually exclusive. Relocation or additions can change the meaning of a memorial. Further, if memorials exist in part to reflect collective memory and social priorities, removing memorials from their place of honor is no different than creating them. Relegating Lee or Jackson to a museum is not avoiding history; it is preserving it while indicating that society's values have changed.