I am a marriage and family therapist by training, a family psychologist if you will. We are trained to think systemically, about patterns, triangles, coalitions, contexts and meaning, and all manner of other things.
I am also a guy who grew up in Jim Crow South and its leftover vestiges in East Texas in the '50s. Many of my family and friends adhere to longstanding principles and practices such that Civil War monuments should stay in place and that they reflect, as does the flag, heritage and family. I have long thought that was nonsense, especially when listening to what my African American friends think about those things.
At the courthouse in Sumner, Mississippi on a recent trip with a group from Abilene
Christian University, I commented out loud while reading one of the monuments posted long after the Civil War that this should be relegated to a museum somewhere. A young Black man, over my shoulder to my left said assertively, "It should be blown up." I listened to him. I honor him. This was in the shadow of the courthouse where the murderers of Emmett Till were given a verdict of not guilty by an all white jury.
Then just a few days ago, a research project in a refereed journal came across my desk. Authored by profs from the University of Virginia, and its departments of Psychology, the Equity Center, and the school of Leadership and Public Policy, the article asserted that there is a statistical relationship between the location of monuments and lynchings of Black people. You can read the complete article here.
I can hear folks now dismissing their findings. I can hear folks denying the reality of what they discovered. I can hear people defending the South, the flag, and the monuments, and all the while, knowing that they are really defending the institution of slavery implicitly or showing their racist colors.
The authors located monuments across the South, the counties and states within which they were dedicated, and the number of lynchings during that particular time period. While honoring the South, the Confederacy, chivalry, women, and denigrating "negroes" and other invaders of their land, these monuments were dedicated a number of years following the end of the war. Some 1,500 were found to be celebrating white supremacy and other things, but, in fact, they "were intended to to intimidate Black Americans" (p. 2/6). The dates of the dedications were 1900 to 1920. Obviously, some were dedicated outside of that dominant window. The authors identified 1,135 counties across 11 Southern states and 1,744 lynchings.
Their findings are the following. There is a statistical relationship between the number of lynchings, lynchings among neighboring counties, the percentage enslaved in 1860, the percentage enslaved amoung neighborning counties, the population in 1880, and the percent of population change in 1930.
Their section entitled "Backlash against Black Progress: The Role of Violent Mobs and Lynching" deserves a close read.
This looks pretty compelling to me. One comment of note: "Unsurprisingly, the legacy of slavery is connected to memorials and to racial terror, but the later lynchings retain additional predictive power above and beyond this history, further evidence to support our hypothesis that Confederate memorializations reflect the backlash against Black progress embedded in lynching" (p. 4/6).
On a more personal level, Judge J. M. Crosson returned to Livingston, Polk County, Texas on October 10, 1901 to give the address at the dedication of the Civil War monument. This is area is where my paternal folks come from. Some of his comments include:
"Standing by this monument we will discuss the heroism of the Confederate soldiers—"how defeat does not always establish the wrong"—how the organic principles of constitutional liberty went down in a bloody night—how principle lost, and force won. This monument will keep alive in our own hearts the ties that can only be expressed by the strong grasp of the hand, the quivering lip, the falling tear, and can only die when our hearts lie mouldering in the grave.....They were politicians who never heard the wild rebel yell, and placed over us negroes, carpetbaggers (ghouls full of spleen and arrogance) and scalawags; hellish cormorants, who are named in the order of their respectability, and who have sunk so low in the depths of infamy that the eye of fancy scarce can reach them. There are two individuals I hate—the devil and the politician. Two classes I love—the old Confederates and the women. God bless them!.....Sons and daughters, you should be proud that you are the children of these glorious women, proud of their heroic virtues of the Confederate soldier."
In a nutshell, Black progress is linked to hatred, monuments, and lynchings.
On a connecting note, the window of time, 1910 and 1920 were the years in which African Americans owned and farmed the largest number of acres. Data indictates that some 920,000 Black farmers worked some 16,M+ acres, and thereafter begins a precipitous slide of land theft, much, much larger than white farmers and their land loss. Back in that day, Black farmers comprised 14% of the total number of farmers, but now, that percentage is something like 1.4%. I've provided those numbers in other posts.
So, my question for my readers is this: if there is a correlation between memorializations and lynchings, is there a similar relationship betwixt and between memorializations, lynchings, and land theft?
Intuitively that makes sense. Maybe there is a university that can take on that project while utilizing data from the University of Virginia.
No comments:
Post a Comment