Recently, new University Chancellor Jeffrey Vitter made a tremendous step forward in attempting to contextualize the University Greys Monument.
I applaud his move and I agree with what the plaque is currently slated to read. However, there are other people on this campus, namely the NAACP, who believe that this language is not “enough.” Though I may disagree with some of the stances of this organization, I hold no animosity or disdain toward them.
I would like to address three things in this piece: my slight disagreement with the NAACP’s stance on the language, the problem with contextualizing history on a small plaque, and the University’s plan to address possible changes.
Though I understand their reasoning in wanting the addition of slavery in the language of the plaque, simply stating that fact does not wholly describe the intentions behind this monument.
If that addition is added, to which I do not outright object, it leaves out numerous reasons why people fought in the conflict. The purpose of the monument is to honor the University Greys, and if the NAACP would like to add a reference to slavery in the plaque, then I would like for the motives of the University Greys to be added as well.
Yes, the Confederacy fought to defend the institution of slavery; I do not deny that — but individuals joined the war effort for far more personal and complicated reasons than simply defending that institution. In order to perfectly contextualize history, one would need to not only add the reasons why the men died, but also add why the monument itself was erected. Without addressing these issues, then it is not truly contextualizing history, but simply making these men seem far more villainous than may be reality.
This leads to my second point about contextualizing history — it is extremely difficult to contextualize history on a small plaque. There is not enough room to put an adequate amount of information to please the NAACP and those that may disagree with their stance.
Adding the one addition of “The Confederacy fought to defend slavery,” although correct, ludicrously oversimplifies the compulsions change to motivations of these individuals. This monument touches so much history that it may be difficult to determine what deserves a voice and what does not.
My last point deals with the University’s current plan to re-evaluate the plaque language. As stated in the article published on the front page of the DM on Monday, Vitter, the UM NAACP and the council appointed by contextualization committee appointed by Provost Morris Stocks will meet on Thursday to address the language.
I am in contention with this decision because not only does it not include the ASB senate, but it also disregards the University population at large. I have complete confidence in the contextualization committee to address these issues, but I find it questionable that there is not some sort of open forum or at least some attempt to incorporate the University at large.
Dalton Capps is a senior history major from Coldwater.
