Defending the city's decision on Forrest statue
A Mississippi state lawmaker who called for the lynching of Louisiana officials who removed pro-slavery era monuments has apologized on Monday. The move came after his comments sparked a firestorm of criticism. Republican Representative Karl Oliver took to Facebook on Saturday to criticize the removal of monuments in New Orleans, which city leaders deemed racially offensive. The last of the four statues of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, was taken down on Friday. The Confederacy was made up of mostly Southern States, who attempted to preserve slavery in the South for economic and power reasons. Wochit
Most of this city’s leadership and citizenry, it is safe to assume, want to project the image of an inclusive community. Prominently displaying a tribute to a slave trader who was a leader in the war to preserve that cruel institution is an insult to the descendants of people who once struggled under the yoke of white supremacists.
To argue that the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest should be removed from its prominent place in Health Sciences Park, it’s not even necessary to rehash the competing accounts of the Fort Pillow Massacre. However one interprets Forrest’s role in the battle on April 12, 1864, his defense of an oppressive society can’t be questioned.
Moving the statue would also show that Memphians understand the difference between acknowledging one’s history and honoring an indefensible cause. Artistic representations of important historical figures such as Forrest are fine in museums and the like — not in a public park.
Finally, the decision to move the statue was reached, after decades of public debate, by this city’s duly elected representatives on the City Council. The state of Tennessee might have been a member of the Confederacy, but it has no legitimate interest in what should be a local decision.
Just as offensive as the statue’s prominent display is the notion held by some state legislators and members of the Tennessee Historical Commission that they know what’s best for Memphis.
It has been nearly two years since the council voted to remove the statue of Forrest and his horse from its prominent perch, a decision that prompted lawmakers and the Tennessee Historical Commission to block the move.
Meanwhile, Memphians have had to watch from afar as New Orleans, a place with no shortage of devotees to the lost cause, removed four Confederate monuments from prominent display.
This is a path that Memphis should be on, as well.
Of course, the city has other problems to solve, in areas such as public safety, blight and economic development. Some may argue that including more participation by minority contractors and vendors in local government contracts would mean more than removing an offensive statue.
But the image the city wants to convey — to its own citizens as well as to the world at large — is not a trivial matter. It should leave no doubt that the city sees itself as a place that has not forgotten the past but cares greatly about the future.