Log in

View Full Version : The political issues behind the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans



ckaihatsu
27th May 2017, 13:39
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/20/nola-m20.html


The political issues behind the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans

By Tom Hall

20 May 2017

On Friday, contractors for the city of New Orleans removed a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from public display in the city’s downtown area. The Lee statue was the last of four city monuments to the Confederacy to be taken down. The other three commemorated P.G.T. Beauregard, a prominent Confederate general from Louisiana, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and the so-called Battle of Liberty Place, a race riot led by the White League that took place nearly a decade after the end of the Civil War and effectively ended Reconstruction in Louisiana.

http://www.wsws.org/asset/1d95b16d-7a3d-43d4-8320-d68a5529c69F/image.jpg?rendition=image240
Lee Circle in downtown New Orleans

The proposal to remove the statues was first made by Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu shortly after the 2015 shooting massacre at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina by white supremacist Dylan Roof.

At the start of the American Civil War in 1861, the port city of New Orleans was a vital conduit for cotton shipped down the Mississippi River from southern plantations worked by slaves. From New Orleans the cotton made its way to European markets. However, the city was retaken by Union forces only a year into the war and held by them until the end of the conflict in 1865.

The recapture of New Orleans, by far the South’s largest city, was a key strategic reversal for the Confederacy, which lost the entire Mississippi River after the Siege of Vicksburg by Union General Ulysses S. Grant in July 1863.

Contrary to some media reports describing the statues as “Confederate-era monuments,” all four of the statues were erected decades after the war, mostly during the period of legal racial segregation known as Jim Crow.

Particularly in recent months, the long-planned decision to remove the monuments was met with counter-campaigns organized by extreme-right circles, including white supremacists and fascistic elements. A rally led by the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke at Lee Circle earlier this month was promoted by Breitbart News, the internet watering hole of the “alt-right,” and by the neo-Nazi Stormfront website. Construction contractors throughout the region have been subjected to threats because of their role in removing the monuments.

Such forces, which have long had connections to the Republican Party, have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, who has appealed to them through his right-wing populist rhetoric and his elevation of figures such as former Breitbart head Stephen Bannon to his White House staff and his naming of the reactionary former Alabama senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general. However, these forces have not attracted widespread popular support, as evidenced by the small turnout to their demonstrations throughout the city.

The removal of these statues is no cause for mourning by any class-conscious worker. They stood for more than a century as symbols not only of slavery, but of the longstanding policy of the American bourgeoisie of utilizing racism to divide and weaken the working class.

Mayor Landrieu’s decision to remove the Confederate statues is not driven by concern for democratic issues, however. It is a tactical maneuver aimed at burnishing the Democratic Party’s image under conditions where it is widely hated for its attacks on the working class and its pro-war policies.

The decision to remove the monuments is bound up with the Democrats’ promotion of identity and racial politics, which are also used to divide the working class. Over decades, the Democratic Party has promoted identity politics to cultivate upper-middle class layers that see the rejection of class as the basic social category and elevation of issues of gender and race as an avenue for their personal advancement. This type of politics, falsely presented as “left-wing,” has served to cover up the Democrats’ abandonment of any, even minimal, program of social reform.

Landrieu recently published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post placing his decision to remove the monuments in the spirit of Barack Obama’s speech at the opening of the African American History museum in Washington last year. This only shows that his decision to remove the monuments has nothing to do with an honest reckoning with a “legacy of oppression,” as he claims. The conditions of the vast majority of African Americans deteriorated under Obama alongside the further growth of social inequality fueled by handouts for the rich and austerity for the poor. Obama was and remains the representative of a new financial aristocracy that is no less venal and reactionary than the old Southern slave-owning class.

Few American cities have more firsthand experience with the ruthlessness and greed of the American ruling class than New Orleans. The city was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a disaster that was itself the result of decades of official neglect, which left the city’s levee system unable to withstand the hurricane’s storm surges.

In the aftermath of Katrina, New Orleans was turned into a testing ground for social counterrevolution. Nearly all of the city’s public schools were converted into privately operated charter schools, which serve as a mechanism for the transfer of funds from public education to the coffers of the corporate-financial elite. Over a decade after the storm, whole working class neighborhoods such as the Lower 9th Ward remain depopulated ruins, and tens of thousands of former residents have yet to return.

Five years later, in 2010, the coastal waters near New Orleans were made toxic by the BP oil spill, the worst environmental catastrophe in American history. From the beginning, the Obama administration worked on behalf of the oil company to mask the true extent of the spill, shield the firm from financial responsibility, and protect BP executives from criminal prosecution. Not a single company official has been convicted on charges stemming from a disaster made inevitable by the company’s reckless pursuit of profit.

The campaign to remove the Confederate monuments in New Orleans, which has become a national news story in recent weeks, allows the Democrats to posture as popular opponents of the right-wing layers that Trump has drawn around himself. The importance of this for the Democrats is indicated by speculation last week by the New York Times that Landrieu, whose term as mayor ends next year, could be in the running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

There is a great deal of historical revisionism behind the campaign to remove the monuments, aimed at excising the class content of slavery and Jim Crow and presenting American society as being fundamentally divided by race. A programmatic statement by the Take ’Em Down NOLA Coalition, a pseudo-left organization that acts as a pressure group on the local Democratic Party, declares that “white supremacist ideas, represented by these symbols … permeate USA society.” The statement argues that this, rather than the capitalist system, is responsible for mass unemployment and police violence. It criticizes Landrieu and the Democratic-controlled City Council only for having “belatedly decided to join this progressive trend.”

The basic dividing line in American society is social class, not race. The promotion of racism is a class policy whose aim has always been the prevention of a mass social movement uniting workers of all races against capitalist exploitation. Jim Crow segregation, in particular, was enacted after the emergence of the Populist movement in the rural south and labor struggles in Southern cities that threatened to accomplish just such a unification of the working class and oppressed farmers.

Perhaps in no other Southern city was this danger for the ruling class as acute as in New Orleans, home to the region’s largest working class population. On the city’s docks, workers regularly crossed the color line during labor struggles, even during the height of Jim Crow. In the course of an investigation by the state legislature in 1908, after a successful New Orleans dockworkers’ strike that united black and white workers, lawmakers declared New Orleans “the worst nigger-ridden city in the south.”

“Echoing [these] sentiments,” labor historian Eric Arnesen later observed, “steamship agent Alfred LeBlanc denounced New Orleans as the ‘worst labor-ridden city in the country.’ Commission members had no difficulty discerning the connection between the two observations.” [1]

Because the working class remained tied politically through the trade unions to the Democratic Party, the party primarily responsible for enforcing Jim Crow in the South, it was unable to mount a political challenge capable of toppling the regime of segregation. Nevertheless, through their own experiences, workers began to grasp the class character of racism and the need to unite across racial boundaries in the face of a common enemy.

Socialists have always fought against racism. But they have always sought to do so by exposing its roots in a society based upon class exploitation and by uniting the working class of all races on the basis of a common revolutionary program. This must become the basis for a mass movement to defeat the Trump administration and secure the democratic and social rights of working people today.

Notes:

[1] Eric Arnesen, Waterfront Workers of New Orleans: Race, Class and Politics, 1863-1923 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 60.

Copyright © 1998-2017 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

ckaihatsu
27th May 2017, 13:51
NYT on St. Louis Confederate Memorial controversy


Dear Chris Kaihatsu,

Sometimes it's useful to get some outside perspective on a local controversy, don't you think?

So I hoped you might be interested in this article in the New York Times about how the Confederate Memorial contoversy that has been raging in the Deep South has spread to St. Louis.

Few in St. Louis Knew Confederate Memorial Existed. Now, Many Want It Gone. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/st-louis-confederate-monuments-south.html)

Please read the NYT article and share on social media.

And, if you're so moved, please help the effort to find the memorial a new home however you see fit.

Thanks for all you do to help make America more just,

Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy






This message was sent to Chris Kaihatsu by Robert Naiman through MoveOn's public petition website. MoveOn Political Action licensed and paid for this service, but does not endorse contents of this message. To unsubscribe or report this email as inappropriate, click here:

Want to make a donation to help support petitions on MoveOn.org? Hundreds of thousands of people chip in each year to support MoveOn—which is how we're able to keep our petition website free and support campaigns like this one. You can become a monthly donor by clicking here (https://act.moveon.org/donate/support_moveon_petitions?donation_type=recurring), or chip in a one-time gift here (https://act.moveon.org/donate/support_moveon_petitions).


---


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/st-louis-confederate-monuments-south.html

U.S.

Few in St. Louis Knew Confederate Memorial Existed. Now, Many Want It Gone.

By JULIE BOSMANMAY 26, 2017

Share This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Photo

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/27/us/27STLOUIS-01/27STLOUIS-01-master768.jpg
Workers from the St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry cleaning paint off a Confederate Civil War monument on Wednesday in Forest Park. Credit David Carson/St. Louis Post-Dispatch

ST. LOUIS — The angry, divisive fight over public symbols of the Confederacy has swept through Columbia, S.C., Birmingham, Ala., and New Orleans. This week, the debate made its way some 600 miles north, up the Mississippi River, to St. Louis, the home of a Confederate memorial many residents did not know was in their midst.

Here in a graceful public park stands this city’s own grand monument to the Confederacy, a 32-foot-tall granite column adorned with an angel and bronze sculpture of a stoic group of figures. It rises in a thicket of trees, next to a trail teeming with runners, bicyclists and wanderers.

Many residents said that until very recently, they had no idea that the 103-year-old memorial honored Confederate soldiers.

“Not till they started making all that hoopla over it,” said Larry Randall, 54, who was setting off on a bike ride one afternoon this week in front of the memorial. “I’ve been coming out here for years. I never paid it no mind.”

RELATED COVERAGE

Stories of New Orleans: As Monuments Go Down, Family Histories Emerge MAY 24, 2017

From Lofty Perch, New Orleans Monument to Confederacy Comes Down MAY 19, 2017

Tempers Flare Over Removal of Confederate Statues in New Orleans MAY 7, 2017
Race/Related
Review: Small Mistakes With Big Consequences in ‘The World My Mama Raised’
MAY 24
New Orleans Mayor’s Message on Race
MAY 24
Jury Is Selected for Bill Cosby Trial
MAY 24
Stories of New Orleans: As Monuments Go Down, Family Histories Emerge
MAY 24
More Corporate Sponsors Abandon Puerto Rican Day Parade
MAY 23
See More »

ADVERTISEMENT


Mr. Randall, who is African-American, said he understood why some people are now calling for it to be removed. “If it’s causing problems, then they should get rid of it. Or maybe just polish the words off,” he said. “I could give a hoot.”

This monument has emerged from obscurity in the last few weeks, as four prominent memorials to the Confederacy and its aftermath in New Orleans were pulled down amid protests. The debate has rippled across the South. On Wednesday, Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama signed a measure that blocked the “relocation, removal, alteration, renaming or other disturbance” of “architecturally significant” monuments that have been on public property for at least 40 years. In Hampton, Ga., a museum said on its Facebook page that it would close next week after a county official asked that it remove all Confederate flags from its building.

Here, a vocal group of activists has turned its attention to this city’s Confederate Memorial, arguing that it, too, should be carted away, out of its prominent place in Forest Park, one of the most beloved public spaces in St. Louis.

The antimonument activists have a powerful lineup of city officials on their side, including Lyda Krewson, the newly elected mayor of St. Louis, who said that she favored removing the Confederate Memorial from the park permanently.

“My own opinion is that it is hurtful,” Ms. Krewson, who is white, said in an interview on Thursday. “It reveres something that, you know, we’re not proud of.”

Tishaura O. Jones, the city treasurer, started a GoFundMe page to raise money for the monument’s removal. In about a week, she has gathered more than $11,000.

She passes the memorial during her weekly drive to the grocery store, usually with her 9-year-old son in tow. “What I’m trying to do is set the record straight,” she said. “The Confederates, in my opinion, were traitors. And in this country, we honor patriots.”

Other St. Louisans are resisting the move, arguing that removing it would be tantamount to blotting out the history of the Civil War. Some have said that the enormous monument is too heavy and expensive to move, particularly when it doesn’t have an obvious new home. Still others say that the monument has rarely attracted attention for more than a century — why should St. Louis be caught up in a debate that, in their view, belongs to the Deep South?

“My first choice would be that everyone forget it was there, like before,” said George Stair, 77, who paused at the monument on an evening walk with his wife, Jane Yu, who agreed that it should stay.

Mr. Stair gazed at the sculpture. “I feel like it’s O.K. to honor ordinary soldiers,” he said. “People went to Vietnam even though they didn’t agree with it.”

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Race/Related Newsletter
Join a deep and provocative exploration of race with a diverse group of New York Times journalists.


Enter your email address
Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY


Missouri, once a slave state, was torn between North and South during the Civil War, a border state where families and neighbors sympathized with warring sides and were often pitted against one another.

“It was a divided state, which explains why we have so many of these problems here today,” said Mark L. Trout, the executive director of the Missouri Civil War Museum outside St. Louis. (Mr. Trout said his museum would be happy to accept the memorial as a gift, though he did not have a place for it to be displayed at the moment.)

Divisions over the Confederate Memorial turned especially sharp this week, when demonstrators calling for its removal gathered in the park on Tuesday evening. They were joined by a handful of counter-protesters, men who told reporters that they were from outside St. Louis and who carried a Confederate flag.

One opponent of the statue, Amy Maxwell, said that people from both groups were carrying handguns, and at one point someone snatched the Confederate flag and ran off, instigating a chase from the pro-monument group.

Sometime during the night, the monument was spray-painted in blue with the phrases “This is treason” and “Black lives matter.” Workers were seen on Wednesday morning removing the words.

Out for a run on Wednesday, Ms. Maxwell, a 22-year-old student at Saint Louis University, paused in front of the memorial, stepped around the metal barriers and spat on it.

Ms. Maxwell, who is white, said she planned to demonstrate every week until it is removed. “It would be nice to have some black abolitionists memorialized in this city.”

Dorothy Bohnenkamp, 51, a psychotherapist who was born and raised in St. Louis, was taking her usual run in the park on Wednesday, directly past the memorial.

She said she had rarely given the monument a thought until recently, when it appeared in the news, and was not cheering for its removal.

“Personally, I don’t see where it represents anything specifically related to racism,” Ms. Bohnenkamp, who is black, said. “So they take it down. What does that represent? It’s still the same history.”

Ms. Krewson, the mayor, said she would like to act quickly, drawing up a plan for removal within the next three weeks. She has seen cost estimates of close to $130,000, and envisions using a mix of public and private money for the project.

For now, the memorial has become an object of curiosity in the park. Passers-by stopped to inspect the monument, snapped cellphone pictures and traced their fingers over the worn and stained surface.

Ayana Parker, 12, was exercising with her mother, Shalonda Bolden, in the park when they paused to read the lettering on the memorial.

“It’s nice that it’s honoring soldiers,” Ayana said. Her mother gently explained that the memorial was honoring Confederate soldiers in particular.

“It’s for the people who wanted to keep slavery?” Ayana said, her eyes returning to the monument. She grew quiet. “Oh.”

Ms. Bolden said she didn’t believe the memorial should be destroyed. “They should put it in a museum so people can get an explanation of what it is,” she said. “It just shouldn’t be here.”

Alan Blinder contributed reporting from Atlanta.

A version of this article appears in print on May 27, 2017, on Page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: In Popular Park, a Point of Contention. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

© 2017 The New York Times Company HomeSearchAccessibility concerns? Email us at [email protected] We would love to hear from you.Contact UsWork With UsAdvertiseYour Ad ChoicesPrivacyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite Information Navigation
Site MapHelpSite FeedbackSubscriptions Go to the previous story Go to the next story