The Abusive Relationship Between Memory and Movements

There is a major difference in the treatment of figures who are deemed “ahead of their time” and “a product of their time”. This difference is something necessary to explore if we are to understand the relationship the public, especially the Southern US, has with our own history. Figures are termed “ahead of their time” when they exhibit more “modern” or “advanced” ideologies that support the progression of a marginalized group of people who are usually excluded from mainstream movements. In other words, these figures believed in philosophies that align with more contemporary standards than expressed by mainstream movements and countermovements. As such, these people are deemed “ahead of their time”. Conversely, figures who are “a product of their time” usually exhibit the values of their time period.

While the former requires proof of ideology, such as records of actions that promote “unpopular” progressive ideas, the latter requires no direct evidence of their work or words, and may only be their participation in what today’s standards would be considered oppressive groups/events. This difference derives from the fact that it is easier to condemn than to celebrate, meaning that progressives must be unwavering while regressive have more room within heir definition. As such, these defining constraints colloquially favor figures as “a product of their time”. Furthermore, the fact that the actions of regressive figures can be excused while progressives are subject to intense scrutiny further marginalizes minority groups and devalues progressive movements. This differential treatment is due largely to the fact that, as a society, we are uncomfortable with social progress that threatens the hegemonic majority. As such, the framing of history and historical figures is one that seeks to make oppression more acceptable than progression. While it is true that an imperative aspect of socialization is normalization of oppression at the expense of marginalized peoples, the actions of historical figures should not be excused. Rather, more critical historical work should be demanded and veneration of such figures “in spite of their faults” should be discouraged.

This is particularly significant as we look at the presence of public memory expressed in public spaces. By celebrating and commemorating problematic figures, we normalize their actions in addition to excusing their abuses. While there is a balance between ignoring or rewriting the unsavory aspects of American past, actively commemorating and educating instead of celebrating regressive figures needs to be emphasized. Continuing to normalize oppressors prioritizes saving face over the safety of minorities. The South needs to take a hard look at their figures and the excuses used to maintain authority long after the (supposed) demise of oppressive ideals.