More than 150 years after the Civil War ended, Americans are removing statues and monuments celebrating Confederate figures to erase memories of a painful past – and the US is far from alone in doing this.
Ukraine has removed all 1,320 statues of Communist revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin to distance itself from its 72-year occupation by the Soviet Union, The Independent reports.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Controversially, however, US President Donald Trump is among those in favour of preserving the historic monuments to Confederate icons, calling plans to remove the statues an attack on America's "history and culture."
Is Trump right? Or is there justification for removing monuments that trigger painful memories of a difficult era?
Consensus or rebellion?
The removal of historical monuments is an issue that often causes division and – as in the case of Charlottesville, Virginia – extreme violence.
Earlier this month, Charlottesville erupted into rioting between white supremacists and counter-protesters over the removal of a statue of Robert E Lee, the American general known for leading the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Those who favour tearing down such statues argue that they symbolise an unacceptable prejudice in a progressive era.
"Most of the people who were involved in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past," Jane Dailey, an associate professor of history at the University of Chicago told NPR. "But were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, however, 54 per cent of Americans want the statues to be left alone and only 27 per cent want them removed.
Perspective and time
The removal of Lenin statues from Ukraine has created similar divisions among the population.
The regime that Lenin represents – the Soviet Union – was, to some, a brutally oppressive state, particularly in Ukraine where experts agree that later leader Joseph Stalin deliberately imposed a famine in 1932 (the "Holodomor") that killed as many as 10 million Ukrainians. To others, it was a period of stability under a communist economic framework they deem superior to present-day Ukraine's adoption of capitalism.
Similar controversy arose over Spain's destruction of monuments to dictator Franco and the removal of a statue to English settler Cecil Rhodes from the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
Some, like Trump, feel tributes to these figures should be preserved.
"Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments," wrote Donald Trump in a tweet last week. "You can't change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!"
Sal Mercogliano, a history professor at Campbell University, agrees.
"You can never erase history, just by removing a memorial you don't remove history. The history is always there."
Others are less convinced, arguing that taking away the most controversial monuments is justified. Esquire describes the removal of Confederate statues as a "fumigation" of history, rather than an erasing of it. "The fact that we're arguing over whether or not we should end the free ride through our history that treasonous racists have enjoyed for 150 years is a very salubrious moment," says Esquire writer Charles P Pierce.
Salubrious, perhaps. But in the US the debate has also proved to be divisive and deadly.
-
The IDF's manpower problemThe Explainer Israeli military's shortage of up to 12,000 troops results in call-up for tens of thousands of reservists
-
Quiz of The Week: 16 – 22 AugustQuiz Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?
-
Can Soho House get its edge back?Talking Point The private members' club has lost its exclusive appeal – but a £2 billion buy-out could offer a fresh start
-
What will security guarantees for Ukraine look like?Today's Big Question From boots on the ground to economic sanctions, here are the measures that might stop Russia taking another bite out of Ukraine
-
Russia tries Ukraine land grab before Trump summitSpeed Read The incursion may be part of Putin's efforts to boost his bargaining position
-
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: flirting with authoritarianism?Talking Point Ukraine's president is facing first major domestic unrest since the Russian invasion, over plans to water down the country's anti-corruption agencies
-
How China uses 'dark fleets' to circumvent trade sanctionsThe Explainer The fleets are used to smuggle goods like oil and fish
-
Why are Ukraine's anti-corruption issues roaring back into focus now?TODAY'S BIG QUESTION A new bill curbing anti-corruption bodies prompted Ukraine's first mass protests against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in years. Where are the roots of this domestic unrest, and what could it mean for Ukraine's future?
-
Trump threatens Russia with 'severe tariffs'speed read The president also agreed to sell NATO advanced arms for Ukraine
-
Trump U-turns on weapons to UkraineSpeed Read Unhappy with Putin, Trump decides the US will go back to arming Ukraine against Russia's attacks
-
Ukraine scrambles as Trump cuts weapons deliveriesSpeed Read The halting of weapons shipments was driven by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, a Ukraine funding skeptic
