… Informal Inquiries: A Modest Proposal.
What about those ancient Greeks and Romans? They had slaves, too. So did those Egyptians back then. Given how awful most of our forebears seem to be in our 20/20 hindsight, why do we care about them at all? Perhaps we should abandon all the knowledge and skills they pased along.
Okay, so let's put up statues of mass murderers. They've been around forever too. We'll put up statues of our nations great rapists. They've been around forever.
ReplyDeleteFact is, it was murderous treason what the confederates did, and it was not in the name of states rights, although there might be a wink or to here and there to insist it was somehow constitutional. The documents show that for each state, it was so that people could continue to enslave other people on their property.
Is it really so "progressive" or anti-"conservative" to say no, that was a heinous thing to do, to kidnap people, mistreat them so horribly that many would perish before being enslaved, and then to force them to work on someone else's property. If that's not enough, children, fathers, and mothers could be separated, and bought and sold. And other heinous deeds we all know about.
This is vicious and heinous, and such history ought to be taught as such. Why pussyfoot around with the PC language, "People have always held slaves." What? People have always burned their own children. People have always mugged people and left them for dead. What? Statues?
This has always been the 20/20 hindsight, that people have always brutalized other people. That's why the 10 commandments, to say NO, don't do it, a savior who says to love one another. Hindsight is heinous. We don't glorify despicable deeds with statues.
Murderous treason? Really? The southerners were fighting in self-defense. Lincoln is the one who called for troops to invade the south, not the other way around.
DeleteSurely adults are capable of nuance. South Carolina and a few other states seceded to protect slavery. This is true. But the millions of men who fought for the Confederacy did not do so to defend slavery. They were fighting for their homes. Did the soldiers of the Great War fill the trenches to defend Serbia's honor, to defend Austria's? Hardly!
People forget -- they place in the Memory Hole -- that more states seceded only AFTER Lincoln called for troops. That included Virginia, and with Virginia went her faithful son, Lee. When we erect statues of men like Lee and Jackson, we are not honoring any despicable deeds. We are honoring their bravery, their patriotism, their wit, etc.
I am not surprised, however, that we are taking down statues of Lee. This society is too decayed to appreciate anything other than cheap and easy virtue. How brave are we to declaim slavery -- now. But do those who call men of honor wicked names really care about slavery? Hardly. They do not fight human trafficking as it exists today. Easy virtue. Pretense, smoke, vanity.
Yes, Stephen, murderous treason. And the statements from each state that turned on the USA and its laws of the time, each was that they wanted to continue enslaving fellow Americans on their Southern properties. That's what they each had in common. That's what drove their insurgency against America. This is not the same as being conservative, which would allow for states more latitude than a liberal attitude. Thus, it is not a right versus left thing. It's about human decency versus heinous crimes what we have governments to protect us from in the first place. Did some self-righteous white supremacists die as a result? Did some who thought it was about states rights die as a result? Granted, but it took the Civil War to dig this country out of the shame, insanity, the holocaust evil of human enslavement. Nowadays, your Lee guy would be called a terrorist, a Nazi killer. Indeed, Hitler patterned his propaganda after how America was able to keep races out of power. We need to stop candy coating these horrific crimes. You up to being enslaved for the rest of your life? Anyone here up for being enslaved on another person's property for the rest of their lives, forced labor, raping your children, selling your family? Anyone? Then Robert E Lee is your hero! This is what was against the law: the enslavement of others into a lifetime of forced labor.
DeleteI leave you to argue with your mirror.
DeleteHistory is what happened, whether you like it or not. And lots of times it has been pretty bad. Editing reality, however, is fool's errand.
ReplyDeleteFrank, history is always being edited and re-edited. Ever read much about black history when you were at school? In my textbooks there was nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnd though I can understand both sides in the statue issue, removing such symbols is not editing reality. It's at most editing our version of reality.
To take an extreme example: school children in Germany are taught quite a lot about the Nazi period, and classes are often taken on excursions to former concentration camps, holocaust memorials, etc. But no one would ever allow a statute of Hitler to be erected in public. History is confronted, just not glorified.
On the other hand, the statue of Livingstone at Victoria Falls (Zimbabwe side) has never been removed, thoough there was an undertaking by war veterans to do so about 15 years ago. The local people objected.
I didn't mention editing history. I mentioned editing reality. As Somerset Maughan pointed out, people are not of a piece. Even saints and blackguards are a mix of good and bad. What the hell makes this generstion so well qualified to weigh all previous generations in the balance and find them wanting?
DeleteBut that's my point, Frank. Removing a statue is not editing reality -- if there is such a single, fixed, objective thing. It's editing a version of reality, the past of which is history.
DeleteLee existed. Lee did what he did. But how we interpret those actions, and their consequences, is a good part of the reality we internalise as a culture.
Was Stalin a monster or a needed strongman?
Your point about the generations is valid and, again, central to my argument. This generation (though I would prefer a plurality here) will have its say about history, as will the next, and the one after that. And will erect or tear down whichever statues, and symbolic statues, it chooses.
Right, RT, people who disagree with you are fools. Well, I quite enjoy being the Fool. Why else would I write fiction?
ReplyDeleteErasure vs. glorification: those are the extremes. Surely there are other alternatives.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the piece is accurate, Robert E. Lee's own views are relevant:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/18/robert-e-lee-discouraged-monuments-they-keep-open-the-sores-of-war-he-wrote/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cd2821900435
If the memorials were in the context of such things as Holocaust memorial sites. As in Germany, the horrific history must be told. It's not a good feeling, and it's not so much for healing either, it's to tell the horrible truth.
Delete;-)
ReplyDeleteTo put things another way: I don't see the discussion about statues as really about history. It's a discussion about the nature of race relations in the US today.
ReplyDelete