The role of the Alliance Monument in American society has sparked ongoing debate. Some believe they should be deleted, while others believe they should be preserved as historical relics. In a recent study, John Jameson of ICOMOS ICIP, an international organization focused on cultural heritage conservation, looked at how people’s perceptions of these monuments changed over time and explored different ways communities are dealing with. His research, published in the journal Humanities, examines how these statues affect public memory and what to do with them.
Jameson explained that the monuments were for different reasons – some were to commemorate the fallen soldiers, others celebrated military leaders. But many statues built during Jim Crow and the civil rights era, the times marked by apartheid and the fight for equal rights, were statues that deliberately strengthened racial inequality and intimidated black communities. “For years, these monuments have been closely related to changing social and political beliefs,” Jameson said. His research explores how Americans view these memorials today, and the different ideas of preserving or reinterpreting them.
The study found that while some communities want to eliminate the confederate statues altogether, others suggest alternative solutions. These include changing its meaning by adding context, transferring it to a museum or turning it into an educational display. One example is Richmond, Virginia Monument Avenue, after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, the statue was removed after protests nationwide. Some of these monuments, once regarded as representatives of the pride of the South, became the backdrop of the art of protest, highlighting the racial justice movement. “We should not regard them as symbols of oppression, but rather consider how they are used to encourage reflection and learning,” Jameson said.
This problem is not unique to the United States. Similar debates have also taken place around the world, such as colonial statues in South Africa and Soviet-era monuments in Eastern Europe. Colonial statues often respect historical figures related to European imperialism, while Soviet-era monuments commemorate the leaders and ideology of the former Soviet Union. In some cases, deleted statues (such as bases) remain in their historical locations. Jameson suggests that the community should have an open discussion on the meaning of these monuments and how they can be used to educate future generations, rather than simply eliminating the past.
The study also highlights how technology changes the way history is remembered. Online tools such as interactive maps and augmented reality experiences superimpose digital information on real-world images, allowing people to participate in historical events in new ways. Jameson noted that while many support the complete demolition of the Alliance statues, others believe that retaining some of them can help society cause past injustice and encourage a deeper dialogue about history.
Ultimately, Jameson’s research encourages people to rethink how to deal with controversial historical artifacts. Is the Alliance Monument a symbol of oppression or can it be reused to promote more inclusive discussions about the past? Jameson’s work invites policy makers, historians and the public to carefully consider how these monuments shape public memory and social change.
Image reference
Photo courtesy of Richard Veit 2020.
Journal Reference
Jameson, John H. “Artifact of Glory and Pain: A Cultural Narrative on Alliance Symbolism and Memorial in a New Era of Social Justice.” Humanities, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/h13060153
About the Author
John H. Jameson He retired from the National Park Service, and he is a leader in archaeological and cultural heritage interpretation, and received the NPS Sequoia Career Achievement Award. His work covers a wide range of projects in the management, preservation and interpretation of cultural heritage in multiple regions of the United States and Europe. He has edited and contributed to several groundbreaking works that the cultural heritage public interprets. He is a founding member of the ICOMOS Interpretation and Demonstration Committee (ICIP), and holds leadership positions and most recently served as a member of the UNESCO Whipic Working Group to draft interpretation and speech principles. He is a member of several editorial boards and review teams and is the author/editor of more than 40 academic books and articles. His latest work focuses on promulgating heritage narratives related to the latest and related topics such as “Art and Archaeology” and “Monuments and Memory.”
