Put yourself in the position of the mayor of a city with Confederate monuments that have become controversial because “people of color” in your city find them demeaning to their identities. They lose Identity Utility (i.e., feel insulted) every time they walk by a symbol of the times when people of African descent were slaves, when official census practices counted them as 3/5 of a human being. Consider this.
On the other hand, many people of European descent are offended by the suggestion that these monuments be removed because to them, those monuments are reminders of a heroic past, before the Confederacy was defeated by the Union (those “damned Yankees”) in the US Civil War (1861-1865). They see men of courage, who fought for a cause they believed in. They may not even think about “slavery” when they see these monuments. Perhaps they see the kind of character/determination that they would value in their sons. Perhaps they imagine that they are like the characters represented in those monuments, or they simply want to remember history, thinking that the statues are a reminder to not go back to that type of mindset. In any case, they associate their identities with these monuments and would lose Identity Utility (feel insulted) by their removal.
So, your city is bitterly divided on the issue: Whether to remove these monuments or not. Each side has its own compelling narrative (see Lessons 4 and 5 Power Points). Now address the following questions in your primary post:
- Can you think of a compelling narrative that would respect everyone’s point of view? What would be the common ground?
- Can you think of a “learning narrative” that might reduce the resistance of one side or the other? (See the Lesson 5 Power Point.)
- Suppose you cannot find common ground on which to build a narrative that would be compelling to everyone involved. You still must make a decision. What would you base your decision on?