I am from
Brentwood, TN (around Nashville). Up until recently, Brentwood was a bedroom
community; traffic was minimal and shopping consisted of the grocery, a few
restaurants, and boutiques. This, former, bedroom community is also known by
others as a rich area. Most people who are familiar with Nashville assume a
person is rich when they say that he/she lives in Brentwood. Off of I-65
between exit 74 and 78 there is a large statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest
surrounded by multiple confederate flags visible off the highway, it is also
proudly lit by lights at night, so that it can still be seen.
In order to
hide this “blemish” the Brentwood community has tried to plant trees or bushes
tall enough to high the statue, but the owner of the land, Bill Dorris, claims
that he has even taller poles he would be happy to put up so the confederate
flags will still be visible. The man will not budge. Previously, Dorris has
claimed that he is not racist, but states also that, “slavery was a form of
social security for African Americans.” Just as most people living in the
Brentwood community, Dorris has power and money. There are many stories similar
to this one. For example, at the University of Maryland, students demanded that
the name of the stadium be changed because it honors a man who not only
represents the success of the school, but the racist past of the school as
well.
Though the
stories are similar, there are differences between the two. In Brentwood, an
article concerning the statue claims that it depicts the town in a certain
light, an unwelcome portrayal of the community. While students at the
University of Maryland are fighting to change what part of the university’s
history that is celebrated. In looking at Brentwood and the language used in
the article I question the motives. Is the community more concern with the
implications that the statue brings to the town, or are the residents morally
distressed about the statue? Comparing these two stories makes me consider what
is happening throughout the United States. I end with a question to consider.
How often are people more worried about being politically correct and their appearances rather than
truly believing in the cause they’re fighting to change?
Being an East Nashville native and living there my whole life, I am very familiar with the Brentwood area and all of the stigmas that are connected with the people that live there. I saw the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue every time I made the trek down I-65 either on my way to school (Ensworth High), or simply going to connect with my friends who live in Brentwood or Franklin. Having talked about this statue with my family and friends many times, I am forced to agree that although Dorris is legally correct in that he is simply representing history, that same history does not represent today’s culture. As rights have become equalized, and societal customs are no longer based on race, the need to represent a separate history that does not fall in line with these standards has become obsolete. I cringe every time I see the horse that Forrest is riding on, and the flags surrounding it because I am forced to think of a time in which my ancestors suffered at the hands of those who Dorris so strongly supports. I believe that the appearance of that area of Nashville has a scar because of the beliefs of one man who firmly supports a culture that no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteSarah you bring up some interesting points, but I think in both instances the people trying to take down the statue and change the name on the stadium are making a statement far greater than just political correctness. They are supporting an end to a society that celebrates people who were fundamentally corrupt; doing away with a “payment of indulgences”. They are casting aside the idea that paying for one good can overcome a life of corruption or societal malice. By taking the statue or name of the stadium down, I believe we are doing much more than simply insuring people are not being offended. I think we are creating a level of awareness that just because we may have been passive to an issue at one point in history does not mean we are forced to ignore it today. By recognizing and openly acknowledging our past was not a beautiful narrative of progress and freedom, we stand the chance of generations to merge the good of those lessons into their lives. Slavery, segregation and oppression were neatly woven into the underside of the fabric of our society. Thus, we must pull apart the good and bad of our history and deliberately distinguish them. We must recognize that the more our youth grasps the horrors blacks endured over our history, the less likely they are to encourage any conversation or actions that prevent us from potential progress and equality. In looking at those honored or idealized, it is important to realize a student should be exposed to all aspects of the honoree’s life. These people’s flaws must not be overshowed by a check or by their role as a pronounced leader. Palmer Hall at Rhodes college is a prime example. Dr. Palmer was a preacher in the south who was beloved by many white southerners. Therefore, they felt the need to honor him because of his contributions to society. We tend to ignore the fact that he was a devout supporter of slavery, and felt it was the Christian duty to continue this torturous act.
ReplyDeletePeople believe things such as taking down the names and statues of these individuals is an overreaction. What those criticizers fail to realize is that if we allow our past to be “whitewashed” and allow for “payment for indulgences” then we will never be able to solve the bigger issue still facing our generation, namely institutional racism. Others also might argue that we should leave these honors intact because they are a part of our history and by taking them down we are trying to block out the past. This is simply not true. Tearing down these statues and names is not an elimination of history but rather a change in perspective from celebration and honor to awareness and understanding. By allowing the name of the Maryland stadium to remain Byrd stadium, you are thus condoning that what he did in his life was okay; that segregation of school was a valiant issue to fight for. Thus perpetuating this endless cycle of approval for morally corrupt issues. To truly attempt to resolve the issues of slavery, we must get rid of the constant reminders of white supremacy that has deeply rooted themselves into our society and foster a dialogue of good will and equality.
Sarah you bring up some interesting points, but I think in both instances the people trying to take down the statue and change the name on the stadium are making a statement far greater than just political correctness. They are supporting an end to a society that celebrates people who were fundamentally corrupt; doing away with a “payment of indulgences”. They are casting aside the idea that paying for one good can overcome a life of corruption or societal malice. By taking the statue or name of the stadium down, I believe we are doing much more than simply insuring people are not being offended. I think we are creating a level of awareness that just because we may have been passive to an issue at one point in history does not mean we are forced to ignore it today. By recognizing and openly acknowledging our past was not a beautiful narrative of progress and freedom, we stand the chance of generations to merge the good of those lessons into their lives. Slavery, segregation and oppression were neatly woven into the underside of the fabric of our society. Thus, we must pull apart the good and bad of our history and deliberately distinguish them. We must recognize that the more our youth grasps the horrors blacks endured over our history, the less likely they are to encourage any conversation or actions that prevent us from potential progress and equality. In looking at those honored or idealized, it is important to realize a student should be exposed to all aspects of the honoree’s life. These people’s flaws must not be overshowed by a check or by their role as a pronounced leader. Palmer Hall at Rhodes college is a prime example. Dr. Palmer was a preacher in the south who was beloved by many white southerners. Therefore, they felt the need to honor him because of his contributions to society. We tend to ignore the fact that he was a devout supporter of slavery, and felt it was the Christian duty to continue this torturous act.
ReplyDeletePeople believe things such as taking down the names and statues of these individuals is an overreaction. What those criticizers fail to realize is that if we allow our past to be “whitewashed” and allow for “payment for indulgences” then we will never be able to solve the bigger issue still facing our generation, namely institutional racism. Others also might argue that we should leave these honors intact because they are a part of our history and by taking them down we are trying to block out the past. This is simply not true. Tearing down these statues and names is not an elimination of history but rather a change in perspective from celebration and honor to awareness and understanding. By allowing the name of the Maryland stadium to remain Byrd stadium, you are thus condoning that what he did in his life was okay; that segregation of school was a valiant issue to fight for. Thus perpetuating this endless cycle of approval for morally corrupt issues. To truly attempt to resolve the issues of slavery, we must get rid of the constant reminders of white supremacy that has deeply rooted themselves into our society and foster a dialogue of good will and equality.