The debate about Confederate monuments has expanded since my last post, and now has begun to include anyone who owned slaves, or is perceived to have held racists views. Since pretty much everyone prior to the twentieth century held racist views, (Same as they believed smoking was good for you, and all sorts of other things) that pretty much provides a wild card to justify attacking any part of America's history or heritage. Even Abraham Lincoln, famous for fighting to end slavery, still expressed extremely racist views by our modern standard. Instead of that fact providing people with a little more perspective on the realities of the past, it led someone to deface (literally) a statue of Lincoln in Chicago. There are people calling for changes to Mt. Rushmore, because it honors people who were "racist" (all of them) and slave owners (Washington and Jefferson). ESPN even removed a sports commentator to avoid offending people who might be bothered that his (Asian) name is Robert Lee. Seems kind of racist to me to remove someone from their position due to their last name.
Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing. But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone. But let's examine both sides of the original issue:
There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists. Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage. They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today. So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left. And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes. If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed? Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end? As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans. Who are we to "unforgive" them now? Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations. While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War. The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost. But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.
The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery. While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective. And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home. I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.
The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy. Why now and not five or ten years ago? The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history? The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment