The Battle for Our Memory Is the Battle for Our Country
Crews use concrete saws, jackhammers and excavators as they continue to dismantle the Black Lives Matter Plaza street mural on March 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images
On June 7, 2020, Representative John Lewis made his last public appearance at the Black Lives Matter mural, painted on the road adjacent to the White House. He was so moved by the mural that he wanted to see it in person. Lewis noted, 'The people in D.C. and around the world are sending a powerful message that we will get there.' The installation was commissioned by Mayor Muriel Bowser, who, at the time, recognized that "there are people who are craving to be heard and to be seen and to have their humanity recognized. We had the opportunity to send that message loud and clear on a very important street in our city.'
From the vantage point of the summer of nationwide protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, Lewis' appearance on Black Lives Matter Plaza felt like a coda to the unfinished business of the civil rights movement, a symbolic christening of the nation's renewed journey to a more equitable future. His words recalled the prophecy of his mentor, Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his own last public appearance, foretold a racially just future in his 'I've Been to the Mountaintop' speech—one that he might not see, but one that just as surely would arrive.
Unlike the public monuments scattered around the country that continue to trumpet the Confederate message that Black lives don't matter, the plaza reflected the opposite commitment. But if this hope-filled public declaration that 'Black Lives Matter' reflected the moral arc of the universe being bent toward justice, then the Mayor's capitulation in 2025 to Congressional Republicans' demands that she dismantle the plaza reflects a twisted spiral in a different direction—to a more-of-the-same future.
All too often, decision-makers concede what they deem as symbolic fights in hopes of living to fight another day. 'We have bigger fish to fry' was the beleaguered mayor's comment on being forced to erase a message that she had earlier proclaimed people were craving to hear. But for those who know the dirge, it was a disappointing but not unexpected verse to the chorus of race reform's retrenchment. The removal of Black Lives Matter Plaza was but one example of the erasure that has been the hallmark of the fraught history of African Americans in the United States. In fact, the abandonment of the reckoning it symbolized in less than five years is surprising only because of the speed at which the denouement of the movement arrived.
The much more disturbing reality is that the retrenchment is often deeper and more enduring than the modest and frequently symbolic reforms that the crisis engendered. Laws passed during Reconstruction to address more than a century of enslavement in and exclusion from the United States were gutted less than two decades after they were passed, while the racial tyranny of state and extrajudicial violence under which most Black Americans endured extended into the mid-20th century.
Following this pattern–not two steps forward, one step back, but the reverse–appears to be the goal of the factions that have recently grabbed power. Beyond reining in the promises surrounding the reckoning is a more profound effort to push the battle well behind the line of scrimmage that prevailed prior to 2020. The destruction of the plaza is of a piece with other efforts to bury any recognition of the past that continues to live in the present—from censoring words and banning books to defunding education and threatening museums. These are not mere excesses in cost-cutting. Wiping out our collective memory is part of their targeted strategy to suppress historical literacy, empathy, and our capacity to fight for a racially just democracy.
The protests that engulfed the nation in 2020 were spontaneous expressions of a broad multiracial, intergenerational, and bipartisan coalition of Americans who saw with their own eyes George Floyd's life extinguished with brazen indifference. The movement appeared to have reached far beyond the traditional constituencies that marched for civil rights protections in the '60s.
In that moment of horror, everyday Americans witnessed the inhumanity that had long been a feature of anti-Black police violence. Breonna Taylor's killing as a consequence of a botched no-knock raid further amplified that even the comfort of one's home provides no safe harbor from the ways that agents of the state can legally take an innocent woman's life. Black Lives Matter and #SayHerName became conceptual containers for the energies that these tragedies unleashed, finding expression in the protests and demands for accountability that followed. Heightened recognition that laws, institutional culture, and public opinion facilitated practices that disproportionately imperiled Black lives led millions of people in the U.S. and around the world to realize that the endangerment of Black life was not some one-off occurrence expressed by a singular bad actor. Nor was racism a past-tense problem.
This confrontation, as one of the largest civil mobilizations in American history, drove new conversations across the country. From the streets of protests to the boardrooms of corporate America emerged a variety of commitments ranging from concrete police reforms to efforts to break the decades-long impasse on improving the life chances of Black Americans. Congress introduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to enhance police accountability; corporate America embraced the imperative to rethink practices that contributed to its glass ceilings; Hollywood expanded its efforts to curate a wider template of cinematic storytelling; media and publishing gave voice to perspectives that had been marginalized; and philanthropy sought to expand the fraction of all its dollars directed to addressing racism's continuing consequences.
And yet the sentiment-driven promises of the moment have rarely been sustained beyond the memory of events that produced them. For example, the great conflagration that gave rise to the promise of equal citizenship and equal protection—the Civil War—was momentarily realized in biracial governments in the formerly slave-holding South. But those promises were so thoroughly dismantled that the American story that most people learn overlooks or denigrates it.
As the five-year anniversary of the George Floyd protests approaches, not only have Lewis' hopes expressed on Black Lives Matter Plaza not materialized, they have faced stronger headwinds than many among us could have ever imagined. Police reforms that were negotiated as consent decrees have been indefinitely paused. Congressional proposals to enact a range of reforms have been whittled down to bare minimums and never passed. In Kentucky, Breonna's Law—limiting the use of no-knock warrants that put Taylor in harm's way—was passed and yet, no one was held accountable for her death. And despite the chants of #SayHerName, available data suggests that race remains a significant factor in Black women's vulnerability to police violence. While women overall are far less likely than men to experience violence at the hands of police, Black women experience everyday violence in routine interactions with police at rates that match or even exceed the violence encountered by white men.
Not only are many institutions stepping away from their unrealized commitments, they are conceding that the impulse to respond to the inhumanity that the world witnessed was flawed. Initially targets of (and now collaborators in) the so-called 'war against woke,' they are now bedfellows with those seeking to ensure that this response to racism will never happen again. In addition, some educators, elected officials, pundits, and others have capitulated to the right-wing defaming of critical race theory and anti-racist education as unpatriotic; they have readily relinquished the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and some have even demurred in the face of efforts to censor or distort the stories of slavery, the Montgomery bus boycott, Ruby Bridges, and even King's 'Letter From Birmingham Jail.'
One need only consult the recent list of words that are unacceptable throughout the federal government and its tentacles into civil society to understand how following these repressive orders would ensure that the stories of Floyd and Taylor cannot be accurately reported, remembered, or meaningfully addressed. Consider trying to teach, research, commemorate, acknowledge, or build any kind of response to the tragedies of 2020 without the essential concepts that convey the meaning of the story: discrimination, racism, bias, Black, oppression, prejudice, systemic, historical, intersectional.
In the opening months of the second Trump Administration, we have seen efforts to release police departments from modest efforts to roll back practices that have been proven to harm Black citizens. We have also seen the erasure of Black history from our shared context (including the National Park Service removing references of Harriet Tubman from its webpage for the Underground Railroad, only to reinstate it after massive public outrage), Black leaders from our government, Black students from our universities, and Black employees from corporate America. The very presence of Black people in positions of authority has been associated with a derogatory embodiment of DEI, which has, in turn, been weaponized to undermine what gains from the civil rights movement remain. Even "safer" objectives like combating Black maternal mortality, and environmental racism are at great risk. There is no case to be made for reform, of policing or any other policy, when fighting discrimination itself has been framed as discriminatory.
In the years since 2020, it has become evident that neither Floyd's nor Taylor's lost lives could gain lasting traction until a stark and persistent truth was confronted: Americans have always been and will continue to be willing to accept a certain degree of racial injustice to make them feel safe. The failure to sustain meaningful efforts to protect Black Americans from this violence is a feature of our society, not a bug.
We merely have to look to Congress's unwillingness to pass legislation criminalizing lynching for more than a century to see the enduring association of Blackness with threat, one which was a bitter harvest of a society founded on the forced and stolen labor of Black bodies. Attempts to curb the lawlessness that reigned in the South had to be balanced with claims that Black populations were in need of discipline and control—an oppressive compromise that stretches into the present.
The groundswell of public support for race reform following the Floyd protests gave reason to hope for something different. This echoed similar inflection points in our history. In his biography, John Lewis revealed how Emmett Till's lynching, and Mamie Till's courageous demand that the world bear witness to the profound savagery of white supremacy was a pivotal moment in awakening an entire generation of young Black Americans. Similarly, in the aftermath of Floyd and Taylor's killings, murals of their faces, banners of 'Black Lives Matter," and demands to #SayHerName invited a new generation of young people to reckon with the very real, very human costs of our racist policies.
Lewis and his contemporaries—the Freedom Riders, the sit-in demonstrators, and the youth-led wing of the movement that really pushed beyond what we had seen before—were part of the Emmett Till generation. Nine years after Till's death, the movement this generation went on to advance gave us not only the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicaid, and other civil rights advances, they also poured a foundation upon which the rights of other marginalized groups could be legally enshrined. These hard-fought victories chipped away at the legacy of slavery and the infrastructure of Jim Crow, while widening the democratic imagination to include indigenous rights, the women's liberation movement, marriage equality, disability rights, and many others.
It is precisely this intergenerational and cross-issue transfer of ideas that those pushing the anti-woke agenda aim to suppress. The erasure of both symbolic tributes and tangible policy gains in the aftermath of 2020 not only strikes a blow to the objectives of the great reckoning but also is perhaps the most dangerous, radical attempt to reverse course since the massive resistance to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.
This spells worrisome signs for a multiracial democracy that has faltered on its Achilles' heel yet again. The painted-over Black Lives Matter murals are not so different from the erasure of the database of facts and evidence of January 6 from the Department of Justice, the dismantling of the Department of Education, and the firing of thousands of federal workers dedicated to a functioning bureaucracy to support our rights. These are all part of a widespread effort to move away from the possibility of a diverse democracy by making people forget the stakes, challenges, and capacity to overcome.
The forces who would want us to forget Floyd and Taylor's names would love nothing more than to dismiss their memories—the same way their killers dismissed their lives. There will be those who will demand more than the erasure of these stories, and the destruction of a public monument that claims that they mattered.
We refused to look away then, and we should refuse the invitation to do so now. The battle for our memory is the battle for our country. And for America to matter, Black lives must matter. There is no paving over that truth.
Crenshaw, a pioneering scholar and writer on civil rights, critical race theory, Black feminist legal theory, and race, racism and the law, is the Co-founder and Executive Director of the African American Policy Forum, and the founder and Executive Director of the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies at Columbia Law School.
This project was supported by funding from the Center for Policing Equity.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Palestinians travelers detained at SFO airport, denied entry despite valid visas
The Brief Supporters of the visitors gathered at the airport's international terminal. A San Francisco supervisor said the detention was an "unprecedented suppression of speech." Supporters protested at the airport for over eight hours, demanding their visas be reinstated. SAN FRANCISCO - Two Palestinian travelers were denied entry into the United States despite having valid visitor visas. Supporters gathered at the San Francisco International Airport on Thursday, protesting the detention of the Palestinians, including San Francisco Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. Supporters of the visitors gathered at the airport's international terminal. The pair arrived on Wednesday after being invited to participate in a Bay Area interfaith speaking series. The visitors were detained for over 18 hours, according to the nonprofit Arab Resource and Organizing Center. The nonprofit said the travelers were an educator and an artist with a "longstanding relationship" with Piedmont's Kehilla Community Synagogue and Alameda's Buena Vista United Methodist Church. The organization said they were on a humanitarian mission to thank their supporters at the synagogue and to fundraise for a summer camp in their village, Masafer Yatta. What they're saying "They had valid visas on entry and yet they were revoked on entry," Mahmood said. "According to the public defender's office, when I talked with them earlier [Thursday], and were the first to notify me of this issue as well. They haven't heard of this type of issue happening in over 10 years at SFO." Mahmood said the detention was an "unprecedented suppression of speech." "This overreach to deport peace activists sets a dangerous precedent for the direction of our nation. Now more than ever, it is important for us all to speak out against injustice and fight to defend our civil rights," he said. Supporters protested at the airport for over eight hours, demanding their visas be reinstated. However, the pair were eventually booked on a 4 p.m. to Doha, Qatar by officials. It's unclear why the pair was denied entry and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has not commented. "While we weren't able to reverse this unjust detention today, we did demonstrate that we will mobilize by the hundreds at a moment's notice to defend our people," said Mohamed Shehk with the nonprofit. "The genocide against our loved ones in Gaza is still raging on. We must also resist the fascist ICE raids on our immigrant communities and end the attacks on Black and brown people everywhere." KTVU reached out to Kehilla Community Synagogue and Buena Vista United Methodist Church for comment but did not hear in time for publication.


New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
After Trump restores fort names, it's time to end the silly renaming wars
After President Donald Trump restores the names of military bases that once honored Confederates, the left and the right need to call a name-change truce. During Tuesday's speech at Fort Bragg (formerly Liberty, and before that, Bragg again), Trump announced that his administration would be reviving the names of Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Lee. Those forts were renamed during the left's crazed push, in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests in 2020, to purge public-property references to any figure it deemed controversial. Advertisement Much of the frenzy was a ridiculous exercise in woke revisionism: The hysteria got so bad that not even Teddy Roosevelt, a once-hero of progressivism, was safe. Trump has made his disdain for the whole gambit clear: One of his first acts as president was giving Mount McKinley its name back. But both the left and the right made the argument for nixing the names of traitorous Confederates from public property, especially in cases where the names were picked during the 1950s and '60s, purely out of hostility toward the Civil Rights movement. Advertisement So both sides should be happy to learn that the restored fort names technically won't honor Confederates. During Trump's first term, Congress passed the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which required the Pentagon's newly established Naming Commission to remove Confederate-linked names from Defense Department-owned property. So in order to give the forts their names back, the DOD is nodding to service members with identical surnames. That silly trick doesn't might go a bit too far: For instance, Fort Bragg is now named after a relatively unknown World War II private, Roland Bragg, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters But many of the new honorees do merit the recognition: Fort Rucker will now be named after heroic World War I Capt. Edward W. Rucker, instead of Confederate brigade commander Col. Edmund Rucker; Fort Robert E. Lee will now be simply 'Fort Lee,' paying tribute to Army Private Fitz Lee, a black Medal of Honor recipient who served in the Spanish-American War. This seems a fair compromise: The bases no longer reference men who fought against the Union, but locals will be able to call the forts by their long-held names. And Trump's move makes a point — the ever-escalating, Orwellian push to scrub flawed men from the history books needs to stop. Advertisement Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were shelled out to change the fort names once, and a similar amount will presumably be spent changing them back. 'Round and 'round we go. In fact, every time any publicly owned building, street or base goes through this process, it's a costly, divisive mess. Without a cease-fire, it'll never stop; any man or woman deemed worthy of honoring today could be vilified tomorrow, as the standards and values of the time change. Enough is enough: By finding a solution that should satisfy both sides, Trump is offering an opportunity to end the expensive, renaming war the left started. An opportunity neither side should miss.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
WA Medicaid data shared with federal immigration authorities, report says
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images) Washington is one of a few states whose Medicaid data has reportedly been shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which could use it to potentially track down immigrants without legal status. The shared information, including names, addresses, and social security numbers, is from California, Illinois and Washington D.C., on top of Washington state, according to the Associated Press. This comes as the Trump administration seeks to ramp up deportations. Washington provides benefits that mirror Medicaid to immigrants in the U.S. without legal authorization. Enrollment is capped based on available funding, and only state dollars are used to pay for the program. The other states with data handed over offer similar benefits. The agency that runs Washington's Medicaid program, known as Apple Health, wasn't sure 'what information was disclosed or how it may have been used.' 'We've seen the reports and are deeply concerned about the potential misuse of personal health information belonging to Washington Apple Health clients,' state Health Care Authority spokesperson Katie Pope said in an email on Friday. 'We are currently working closely with the Governor's Office and the Attorney General's Office to understand the scope of what occurred, including what data from Washington has been shared and how many individuals may have been affected,' Pope continued. As of this spring, nearly 2 million Washington residents were enrolled in Apple Health, including over 850,000 children. Medicaid, primarily funded by the federal government and run by the states, provides health insurance to low-income residents. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from accessing Medicaid, but states can shell out money for programs that cover immigrants. Washington state lawmakers this year earmarked $150 million for this purpose, enough to continue coverage for about 13,000 people. California and Illinois have moved to freeze or shut down their similar programs. Republicans in Congress have proposed reductions in federal Medicaid reimbursements for states that provide this kind of coverage to immigrants. In a statement, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said, 'President Trump consistently promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries.' 'To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans,' McLaughlin continued. In light of a February executive order from President Donald Trump, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services late last month announced it was reviewing state Medicaid data to ensure federal funds weren't being used on immigrants without legal status. 'Medicaid is not, and cannot be, a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders,' Mehmet Oz, the agency's administrator, said in a statement at the time. 'States have a duty to uphold the law and protect taxpayer funds.' California, Washington and Illinois shared information about noncitizens receiving health coverage, according to the AP, citing a June 6 memo. 'Protecting the privacy of our Apple Health clients is core to our mission, and we take these concerns very seriously,' said Pope, of the Health Care Authority. 'We'll continue to coordinate with state and federal partners to determine the facts and will take appropriate action as we learn more.' The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are within the Department of Health and Human Services, run by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose advisers ordered the Medicaid data shared with the Department of Homeland Security, the AP reported Friday. They reportedly shared the information despite pushback from federal Medicaid officials. The sharing came as federal immigration agents conducted immigration raids in California that led to protests. Trump has deployed National Guard troops and Marines in response to the demonstrations.