On the statues of white men, and the white men who want to tear them down.

John Seitz
Aug 22, 2017 · 5 min read

I should start by saying that I am vehemently opposed to statues glorifying Confederate leaders. I am a rabid anti-Confederate, following in the footsteps of my great, great grandfather Simonton of the 6th West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry, who fought to preserve the Union, help free slaves, and liberate West Virginia from what we then called, “the Secession Traitors at Richmond.” I have long stirred the pot when it comes to the bizarre reality of our country where we have military bases, highways, and universities named for men who took up arms against the US government and killed US soldiers in the name of slavery. In the early days of Facebook I even started a group called “Robert E. Lee was a traitor and wasn’t even that good of a general anyway” that my friends and I used to troll angry college boys at Washington and Lee University. But my opposition to these statues is rooted in the hateful messages they send, and in the purpose these monuments serve: propping up white supremacy and intimidating Black people. I wish they were never put up, and I support taking them down through law or peaceful protest if possible, or through direct action if necessary.

However, in observing the verbal battle around the latest push to get rid of these monuments, I have noticed a tendency among a certain group of people who oppose these monuments. This group is mostly white, college educated men, who are politically on the left (a lot like me in short). They are very vocal in their criticism of these monuments and debate defenders of the monuments with vigor and facts. However, one of the main impulses that drives their criticism doesn’t appear to be a deeply held radical critique of white supremacy in the US, although they may believe in that too. What appears to irk and frustrate them the most based on the contents of their arguments is that the defense of these monuments is “factually incorrect.” The claims of the monument defenders about the war being about economics or General Lee’s supposed dislike of slavery are what seems to really get them going. I agree that these claims are wrong, and I see a lot of my younger self in these impulses, so I don’t want to just problematize this just to show that I now know better. This isn’t about constructing an ideologically pure social justice movement (whatever that even means), but I think there is something that white allies can learn about themselves by interrogating their impulses and by thinking about why they are involved. I think this can help us grow in our understanding of oppression and build a stronger movement and be better allies.

When you stop and think about it, it is striking that a big part of the emotional reaction by many white men to these symbols of hate and oppression is not about their actual oppression (though I think that plays a part too). Instead what appears most upsetting is how defenders of these symbols ignore facts. There is a similar element at play when a lot of this same group debates global climate change. Their righteous indignation sometimes seems to have little to do with polar bears dying or children in Bangladesh starving as a result of climate change. Instead, much of their anger comes from the fact that the person they are arguing with is factually wrong and refuses to see the true facts.

I think it is a strange side effect perhaps of Liberalism’s roots in the Enlightenment that ignoring facts is in some ways the highest affront to morality a human is capable of. I don’t want to argue that facts aren’t important. Clearly, they are. I also don’t want the people arguing for taking down monuments or against climate change to stop. I do however, want to point out the potential folly of this attitude, and want to encourage those who find themselves in this group to take a minute for self reflection.

We allies must recognize that the reason to take these monuments down is to further the cause of racial justice in the US. It is not to win an argument. In fact, it is possible that one could get so fixated on the argument and the monument, that it might be possible to lose the battle for racial justice while fighting about the monument. This is why it is important for People of Color to be in the lead in the movement for racial justice, so well meaning white guys like myself who find incorrect facts a mortal sin, don’t lose sight of the prize.

I believe taking down the monuments is part of a movement towards greater racial justice, however, I don’t think winning the argument and taking the monuments down on its own will achieve that. Therefore, it is important for those of us who are arguing in favor of taking them down to think about where we stand and why. Will we be just as angry, just as active, and just as vigilant when it is time to battle voter suppression and police violence? Perhaps, if our opponents are using incorrect facts. What about with less quantifiable or less clearly “data-driven” issues like prison abolition, reparations, or white men listening to marginalized people more and talking less?

The difference between these issues and monuments goes beyond just recognizing that our impulses aren’t just about racial justice. Taking down the monuments ( as well as potentially opposing police violence, and voter suppression) costs us white folks on the left nothing. It is not like reparations or affirmative action. These things actually have the potential to restructure white supremacy in the US in a way that is not “win win” but that is about justice, and that will “cost” white people something (although in the long run, I think it will save our souls). Are we willing to give up our privilege and get nothing in return? (In fact, getting something in return for giving up a privilege might be the height of privilege.)

I have been told by people wiser than me that as a white male ally I can’t lose. If I ignore my privilege, I can go on living as though I am right. If I recognize it and say so to my social justice minded and marginalized friends, I get positive reinforcement that I am doing something right. Arguing for taking down the monuments is similar. In opposing them in an argument, we actually get something at no cost whatever happens to the monuments. (Unless, like Heather Heyer and her 19 comrades we are willing to put our bodies on the line). By arguing against them we get the feeling we’ve done something, and we scratch that itch that we seem to constantly want scratched. We were factually right in an argument. Digging deeper about why we feel the way we feel about these monuments is important for us to do as allies. It is important because it helps us remain focused on the real goal of racial justice. This then raises the question of how far we are willing to go, and what we are willing to give up in the name of justice. If our indignation is more about us and our pet peeves than justice, we aren’t being a good ally, and we need to recognize and fix that.

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade