Can we limit the changing of names, and removal of statues, to blatantly racist phrases, or Confederates?
Because I have seen desires to tear down a statue of Theodore Roosevelt from the Museum of National History. I have seen desires to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from the University he was President of.
Can we limit the removal of statues and changing of names to actual traitors, and names of roads or schools which are actually offensive?
I don’t support Trump or the violence as of late, but my fear is that there is a very Jacobin urge to “burn it all down”. I don’t want to see Roosevelt torn down.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were Confederates?
I saw a cartoon/meme today. Two buttons: One says ‘Confederate monuments are important’, and the other says ‘Losers shouldn’t get participation trophies’. A guy in a MAGA hat is sweating over the dilemma.
They weren’t, but that hasn’t stopped people from wanting their statues torn down as well. I’m saying can we limit the removal of statues to actual traitors like the Confederates? I’m fine with that.
Yeah, but no. Your first link is over a year old and has nothing to do with statues of the traitorous individuals who fought for the Confederacy.
Your link about Woodrow Wilson is from 2015. It also has nothing to do with the Confederacy.
The only calls at present to remove statues are of those who took up arms against the United States, thereby committing treason.
This isn’t about Founding Fathers who owned slaves. It isn’t about other leaders who held views we would consider racist today.
This is about individuals who took up arms against our government (rebels) and after the fact have been memorialized when they were actually** traitors**.
Suppose I come along and say, “Why should that be the rule? Anyone who owned slaves is a traitor – a traitor against humanity. And why should we ever keep a statute honoring someone who actually owned slaves? It’s repulsive!”
What’s your defense against that argument, assuming you disagree?
That might be how you view it, but there really indeed are activists who advocate removing statues and displays of honor for anyone who owned slaves or who might have engaged in behavior that wouldn’t be acceptable by today’s standards. I fully support removal of confederate statues because I understand the real reason they were erected in the first place, but it’s worth asking ‘How far is too far?’
I would say the critical distinction is between memorializing flawed human beings in spite of their moral failings; and memorializing them because of their moral failings.
The attempt to destroy the Union and organize the Confederacy as a new country was undoubtedly driven primarily by the desire to protect white supremacy and the institution of chattel slavery. We aren’t talking about memorials to the improvements to the campus and curriculum at West Point during Robert E. Lee’s tenure as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, or commemorations of the increased effectiveness of the United States Army thanks to the leadership of Jefferson Davis during his service as Secretary of War under the Franklin Pierce Administration. The various memorials to specific Confederate leaders, or to Confederate soldiers in general, are memorializing their contribution to a failed struggle to establish a new country explicitly based on the perpetuation of white supremacy and black slavery.
Whatever skill the military leaders of the Confederacy showed, and whatever bravery and fortitude the regular soldiers of the Confederate Army displayed, there were still all fighting for a political system and a would-be country whose “cornerstone” was slavery and the propositions that “all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights” while “the servitude of the African race” was “the revealed will of the Almighty Creator”.
Monuments and memorials have always been, occasionally, moved, removed, or altered. There’s nothing new with this. The Germans got rid of all the Nazi monuments, but didn’t remove all other historical monuments. Removing some has always been done, and always will be done, and each generation will decide for itself whether or not they want certain monuments to remain, based on their own values. No matter what we do.
In 200 years our descendants might decide that Jefferson and/or Washington no longer meet their standard for honor and memorializing. This will be their decision, not ours, and it won’t be because we did or didn’t remove Confederate monuments today.
The defense is that all of civilization is a matter of drawing lines. All controversial issues are compromised with some lines that have been drawn. Abortion is neither completely legal nor completely illegal; a line, better, a series of lines have been drawn about what can be done at different trimesters and different circumstances. Marriage is neither completely legal nor completely illegal. Heterosexual couples can marry and now hemosexual couples can but more than two people cannot nor can people under certain ages or within certain limits on consanguinity.
Since every single issue without exception involves drawing lines, this one can’t be dismissed because a line is being drawn. The line today is actual traitors who fought a war to sustain slavery and white supremacy. That’s a reasonable line that the overwhelming majority would support. Perhaps the line will move in the future. Likely it will, in fact. Either way, the discussion then will be about whether that line is appropriate and overwhelmingly agreed upon, not whether no lines should exist.
I would look at the balance of what that person contributed to society versus what they cost society, and come up with an opinion on that calculation.
Currently, if someone’s main impact on the world is that they killed a lot of people to protect slavery, and they were pretty efficient at it, I don’t think that is something worth honoring.
On the other hand, let’s say a hundred years in the future, society gets to a place where any association with slavery is viewed by most people as an indelible stain on that person’s character. How are you going to argue with future generations that they are wrong, and that such statues must remain in place?
My first thought is to agree with this, pretty much 100%. However, my knowledge of history is not quite good enough. Did Washington and Jefferson take affirmative actions to ensure the continued existence of slavery in the newly minted USofA? I’m thinking they did, which if so, is one gigantic flaw to gloss over. Shouldn’t there also be a point where we say: This one flaw is so large that we cannot in good conscience ignore it while celebrating this person’s legacy?
What do we make of the person of Thomas Jefferson-- a man who enslaved his own children? Would you be happy to continue celebrating FDR if you found out that he had a child out of wedlock whom he kept as a domestic servant, and who was unable to live the life of a free person?
I don’t even know the answers to these questions myself. I just don’t think it’s quite so easy to compartmentalize these things and celebrate the “good parts”.
Way I look at it is to ask - what is being honoured by a public display of a statue or the like? Is it something that we, today, feel ought to be publicly honored?
I’m not fussed by the moral failings of the individual in question - if (say) we have a statue to the inventor of a cure for cancer, it is this accomplishment we are publicly honouring - if she was a horrible human being, that doesn’t really figure into the equation.
For monuments that are really old and whose significance has passed into history, different criteria apply: like any issue of historical preservation, in such cases the issue is whether the thing has inherent artistic or historical merit, so as to be worth preserving - but the location isn’t usually important.
In the case of the Confederate monuments, they are publicly honouring things that most of us agree ought not to be so honoured, so I see no reason not to remove them. They are not so ancient as to become themselves of inherent historic significance.
I think you’re missing the point. The reason we celebrate Jefferson is not his actions regarding slavery. It’s not about weighing his life choices. It’s about which choices we are celebrating.
Of course, there is probably a separate point to be made that no matter what quality is being celebrated, it’s possible that the celebrant has other negative qualities so publicly associated with him that it is unwise or disingenuous to celebrate whatever thing you are choosing. Maybe that is the case with Jefferson, but I think it’s a separate argument from the point being made by MEBuckner.
Way I see it is this: the point of erecting a statue of (say) Washington is generally to symbolize or to publicly honour his role in the foundation of the nation.
He was a slaveowner. He therefore supported slavery. This is undeniable, and an indelible mark against his character as a person - but that doesn’t change the reason why his statue is placed in a public space.
I’m not against having public statues of people who have done evil things - as long as the very purpose in so honouring them, is to honour some outstanding good thing they also did. I don’t think it would be a good idea to vet such memorials for personal morality.
That’s certainly a reasonable question, and one we could ask about, say Woodrow Wilson.
My point is that we didn’t carve George Washington’s face into the side of a mountain to commemorate his role in preserving the continued existence of slavery in the newly-independent nation. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, had his face carved into the side of a mountainentirely because he was the first and last President of the Confederate States of America. And, while there have been a lot of attempts to obscure the fact that being President of the Confederate States of America was tantamount to “led the faction that started and fought a bloody war to preserve slavery”, that’s all fundamentally revisionist bullshit, and is far more of an attempt to “erase our history” than tearing down some statue is.
All humans have done good and evil alike (though some have done more of one or the other). It’s perfectly acceptable to put up statues commemorating the good things that people have done, and not acceptable to put up statues commemorating the evil things. If someone wants to put up a statue commemorating Washington’s role in creating our nation, and his insistence on not being a king, well, that’s fine, because those were both good things he did. If someone wants to put up a statue commemorating Washington’s ownership of slaves, that’s not fine, because that’s evil. And if someone wants to put up a statue commemorating Washington’s defeat of the evil Martian vampires, then that’s absurd, and we should question the real motives of the person wanting that statue. The same statue can be acceptable or not, depending on why it’s erected.
Most statues of Lee are commemorating his treason, which is not fine. Some claim to be commemorating his loyalty to his state, but that’s as absurd as the Washington vampire statue, because he committed treason against his state, too, and so we should question the real motives behind those statues. And unlike Washington (or either Roosevelt, or Wilson), I’m having a hard time thinking of anything Lee did that really does warrant commemorating.
If Virginia chose to secede how is Gen. Lee committing treason against Virginia? That’s like saying George Washington committed treason against the colonies.
-3_new.jpg){kind=link}
