This idea has some support in Congress. Thomas Sowell argues that it’s a bad idea, because it would be racially divisive, it would encourage race hustlers, it’s unnecessary, and it’s unfair to the US:
Is the idea of a National Slave Memorial as bad as Sowell thinks it is?
The Mall already is getting overcrowded. For that reason I think any such mem. should be elsewhere.
Sowell’s argument is… stupid. Memorializing the horror of slavery hardly means the US was unique. The fact there was some tiny % of black slave holders in the Americas (some rescuing family members, some smaller minority esp pre 19th cent. engaged in real for profit slave holding) harldy is an argument against a memorial. The same regarding race hustlers are what not. It’s an idiotic argument.
His argument re non-Western countries is almost as specious. A vast over simplification, it rather ignores signific institutional differences - but regardless it’s not particularly relevant to memorializing the end of slavery here. Might be relevant to the style and content of the memorial but not to the decision itself.
I wonder at this man’s thinking capacity.
Collounsbury nailed it in one. A memorial is a good idea (though a museum would be better IMHO), but cluttering up the Mall with anything new is a bad idea.
Well, the “west” might have led the charge against slavery, but the US was not exactly in the forefront. IIRC, slavery was outlawed in many European countries long before the US enacted the 13th ammendment. Seems like Brazil was one of the few (non-African) holdouts that ended the practice after the US.
I’m not sure that a momunemt could be kept non-political, but there should be some place in the Smithsonian or other National museum where this episode in American history is explored. It should be possible to put this in historical context and not simply paint the US as the only evil in the world at the time.
I can certainly see where Blacks would feel insulted that we have a Holocaust Museum while not having something similar to deal with the slavery issue.
Strikes me that this guy would object to a Holocaust memorial in Germany because it would be too “divisive”.
I think that demagogues will find places to “spew venom at American society on TV,” whether or not the slave memorial is built. They do now.
I’m not immediately aware of the inherent divisiveness of the memorial. So that objection strikes me as sort of odd.
We have memorials to all sorts of people whose grave sacrifices helped build, maintain or strengthen the US. It just doesn’t strike me as any big deal.
While the idea, like any other, has a downside to it, i’m not convinced that it is as bad as Sowell thinks it is.
I don’t understand Sowell’s argument that slavery was unique to the United States. War is not unique to the United States, but war memorials are erected. Civil rights struggles are not unique to the United States, but civil rights memorials are erected. The Holocaust didn’t even occur in the United States at all, but Holocaust memorials are erected with great support and fanfare. Hydroelectric dams are not unique to the United States, but there is still a memorial plaque next to the Hoover Dam for the workers killed there. Something being “unique to the United States” has obviously never been a prerequisite for erecting a memorial, so why does Sowell trot it out now?
Slavery was the greatest evil in American history, and cost the lives and freedom of millions of people, a great many if not the majority of them Americans. The fact that other countries had slavery too is irrelevant; other countries fought in the Vietnam War too, but there’s a Vietnam War Memorial. Remembering the country’s greatest human tragedy strikes me as being a PERFECT subject of a memorial, and I find Sowell’s argument transparently illogical and rooted in sheer pride and chauvinism.
“Racially divisive”? That’s stupid. Tell me; do Civil War memorials cause division between North and South? Does the Vietnam War memorial cause division between people who supported and people who opposed the war? Does the Korean War memorial cause divisions between Korean-Americans and everyone else?
Maybe so, Mace, but that’s beside the point. I don’t think anyone is objecting to a Memorial or a museium, per se - just the putting it on the Mall part.
You hit my hot button, since I am such a fan of Sowell. Sowell’s accomplishments speak for themselves.
I agree with Mace’s comments but note Spanish and Portoguese possessions were also quite tardy, and engaged in illegal trade as well.
In general, having developed probably the most horrific form of a nasty if long standing human institution, I don’t see much space to pat ourselves on the back. But at the same time as Mace notes, neither should the US nor the West be demonized.
Well, his analysis, if I can abuse the word in this context, speaks for itself.
Want to try again?
It’s a bad habit to imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be a drooling idiot. Sowell was raised in Harlem. Got his undergraduate degree and PhD in Economics at Harvard, long before affirmative action existed. Taught at the University of Chicago. Has written over a dozen books. Has been a nationally synicated columnist for years and years. He is an intellectual leader for conservatives of all races.
Collounsbury, your insults diminish you, not him.
Did I call him a drooling idiot? No. I did not.
However this particular argument is illogical, poorly framed and largely incoherent. I don’t follow him and can only judge by what I see in terms of these op eds you love. They are not impressive. That’s that.
Dec:
For what it’s worth, I have been impressed with Sowell in the past, and agree with you that he is generally a thoughtful guy worthy of a “listen”. In this case, though, he seems to be bending too much to the political winds (of conservatism) rather than just looking at the matter objectively. And it’s unclear that Coll has disparaged him in general, other than just dis’ing this particular article. But I’ll let Coll speak for himself on that,
I know Sowell only through several, maybe two op eds that december has lovingly recreated here. They and this one in particular, do not impress. He may well be a wonderful economist etc, but this was shit, pure and simple.
Put me in the camp of supporting a memorial, but not on the mall. They’re already doing enough damage with that WWII memorial (which, again, is fine, just not on the mall. The mall was better when it was empty. I hate to see it get cluttered up with statues that obstruct the view.
Sowell’s argument is idiotic. The American chattel slave system is an inseparable part of our history. It is our greatest historical shame and while slavery may not have originated here, the American system was uniquely vicious and brutal. Not too many otehr cultures acheived the dehumanization that we did.
december:
Rather than focusing on Collounsbury’s one-off remark, you could try addressing the substance of his two paragraphs of criticism preceding it. Or the criticism of others, like John Mace or RickJay (who I think offers a particularly cogent rebuttal).
Would you oppose a National Slavery Museum for the same reasons you oppose a National Slavery Memorial? Did you oppose the National Holocaust Museum for those reasons?
I don’t know which is more dispositive of Sowell’s not being a drooling idiot, being raised in Harlem or being a nationally syndicated columnist. They’re both impressive, certainly. :rolleyes:
Hunh, we don’t seem to worry too much about whether memorials to Confederate battle successes might be ‘divisive’.
Slavery was a vile practice, that, whether we wish to recognize it or not, shaped many of the most important events of the first hundred years’ of this country’s existence. I say, if the people want a memorial commemorating the end of slavery, let there be a such a memorial (though I think a museum would be more useful). If the Mall is deemed too crowded to accomodate such a memorial, find another spot, cram it in anyway, or hold a referendum to choose which current memorial will be razed to provide the needed space. Jeez, people, I’ve got solve every little problem around here.
Hmm, obviously I’m getting off on the wrong foot.
Here, I’ll try again. Anyone have any idea how many nations, in addition to the US, still permitted slavery as late as 1860? I’m asking seriously, as I have no idea myself.