Now who’s being naive?
What exactlywere the standards of 1915? I am not quite clear on that, because I get the impression that the treatment and behavior of the likes of Stepin Fetchit was broadly considered normal into the 1930s. The idea that black people should be on an equal footing with whites was daring talk in much of the US even four decades after Tom W. Wilson, from what I can tell.
Birth of a Nation (which was used as a recruiting tool by the KKK) was denounced at the time as racist.
As to the mentality: ‘They may not be our equals, but they are human (of a sort)’ would sum it up.
As to Stepin’ Fetchit: the story I got was that he was acutely aware of the damage his character was doing - but he took that concern all the way to the bank - he was the first black actor to make a million dollars.
Compared to Paul Robeson - who played ‘Joe’ in the 1936 version of Showboat and made ‘Ol’ Man River’ his trademark - he performed it as written for the movie, then bastardized it to be ‘progressive’ later.
There is something to be said for integrity - no matter how embarrassing it might be.
Well, the fact that Wilson actually turned back policies aimed at empowering black people and in doing so, generated outrage, indicates he was operating against the will of the majority.
One could argue Wilson himself contributed to this by significantly setting back race relations. Presidents have a lot of influence in changing public perceptions towards minority groups. Obama and gays are a good example. Wilson used his power to further the cause of racism, not dismantle it.
That European civilization was moribund and corrupt. The World War was proof of this.
That North America was the domain of Anglo-Saxon man, a race in the sweet spot between the original uncivilized but energetic Germanic tribes and the decadence into which the the Latins and Greeks had slid.
The fiction of that “sweet spot” justified all kinds of crazy, nasty shit:
North America kept that Anglo-Saxon blood energetic by contesting itself against the savage Indian tribes, and by lording it over the uncivilized Africans who were only fit to perform labor for the worthier race. Because the white race was civilized and enlightened, its rule would be just and beneficial. But if any of the lesser races stepped out of line, they would receive their wrath in a way that would get through to their savage natures.
Wilson was a horrible rascist, even by the standards of the time. He was also one of the nation’s worst presidents. There is no reason to honor him for anything as a man or a president.
However, he seems to have been a good college president, and presumably that is what they are honoring him for. MLK was an awful husband and father but a great civil rights leader, when we honor him we do not mean that it is honorable to cheat on your wife or to be a plagiarist, but we are honoring the civil rights leader. We honor George Washington as a general and politician, not as a civil rights leader.
If we wait for someone to be perfect in order to honor them, then we will end up honoring nobody.
We have a long tradition of revoking tributes when ugly truths come out.
A good example is Bill Cosby. What do rape allegations have to do with an honorary degree? Absolutely nothing. But it’s not unusual for institution to do something like this.
The biggest issue people were arguing about around 1915 was segregation. The “progressive” view at the time was that black people might be inferior to white people but they should still be allowed to live their lives alongside white people. They should be allowed to do things like go to school, hold jobs, use facilities like parks and public transportation, etc.
Some people, like Wilson, were saying white people shouldn’t have to associate with black people. That it wasn’t right to make a white person work in the same workplace that a black person was working in or go to the same school that a black person was going to or ride on the same train that a black person was riding on. They wanted a society where things were set aside exclusively for use by white people.
In following this principle, Wilson fired black employees who had federal jobs (mostly in post offices) so white employees wouldn’t have to work with them. Wilson also instituted segregation policies in many federal offices that had been un-segregated. This was pretty much the limit of what Wilson could do directly as the head of the federal government but he also supported any state or local efforts to spread segregation.
Oh crap, do I have to change my user name now???
(It’s actually from the neighbor on Home Improvement, not the president. Or the volleyball.)
Any thoughts on Wilson getting the US involved in World War 1? When I was in high school, we were taught that the US getting involved was the pivotal event that turned the tide in the Allies’ favor. I’ve since heard alternate views that the tide had already turned against the Central Powers by then, and Wilson was basically just jumping on the bandwagon at point.
It wasn’t specifically the United States entering the war. There was nothing American troops could do that British, French, Italian, and Russian troops hadn’t been doing. But by 1917, the European powers were already fully engaged in the war effort. Having a new major power enter the war with fresh resources tipped the balance against the Central Powers.
There’s an Op Ed piece in the NYTimes - won’t try to link behind their paywall. The writer’s grandfather was an accomplished black man - the son of a slaveowner and his housemaid - who rose to a leadership role within a Federal office. When Wilson took office, within weeks he was demoted and written up; part of Wilson’s move to re-segregate Federal jobs. He ended up having to sell his farm and “died a broken man.”
Effective example.
There was also a letter they printed - it basically asked if it is reasonable to expect all leaders to be perfect, and instead, how can a fuller view of their achievements and blemishes coexist in how we view leaders? How can someone like Wilson be respresented on a campus (in this example) with a balanced regard and a discussion about what we reject of his worldview?
Unfortunately, icons on building names and statues don’t handle nuance or complex very well.
Another democrat racist KKK member. Who knew ?
Pretty much everyone – until the 1960s, the Democratic party generally supported the interests of white racists in the US. After Civil Rights, most of these white racists shifted their support to the Republican party, which utilized the Southern Strategy to benefit electorally from the white racists who felt aggrieved by the “betrayal” of the Democratic party.
I have known for a long time as well.
However, the tenor of some of the questioning seems to reveal some kind of misunderstanding about the left/liberal/progressive/Democratic side.
Just speaking personally, I don’t have heroes. There is no political figure on “my” side who I hold up as the shining beacon for all to love and emulate. We live in a society that progressively gets better, through fits and starts, which means that everyone in the past was less good in one way or another.
Thomas Jefferson had slaves, Woodrow Wilson was a racist, FDR interned Japanese-Americans, Lyndon Johnson did the whole Vietnam thing … I don’t admire those things about those people, but I do know what I like about what they did.
It’s not about finding a paragon of virtue in the past or the present … they don’t exist. It’s about finding what’s good and running with it, and finding what’s bad and discarding it. That’s progression.
In the real world, that is what happens; politics = sausage after all. Look at Clinton getting his policy agenda moved forward while coming across as a morally-challenged horndog. Humans will always be Human - and a Big Accomplisher is typically saddled with Big Blemishes. So it goes.
Politicians, War Generals and Freedom Fighters (e.g., MLK’s history as a horndog) - I suspect Humans will always be Human and have blemishes to go with the accolades. Now what? I doubt there is a Litmus Test - the line being crossed is relative to the honor being given or threatened with removal.
In Wilson’s case, he accomplished a lot and was also actively racist as he held office. Should that cancel the building and other campus honors? Can his racist blemishes be held up and discussed - so his history is used to further discussion, while honoring his accomplishments? I wish that were the case.
I think an honorary degree is honoring the person. if the person turns out to be horrible then it is fine to rescind the honor. OJ Simpson is still in the Pro Football Hall of Fame because killing two people had nothing to do with being a running back.
Naming a building after someone falls in the same category of honors. There’s also politics.
For instance, I can’t imagine a college naming its gymnasium after Lance Armstrong, because his name is now associated with lying and cheating. It doesn’t matter that Armstrong accomplished a lot and still has a lot of fans; branding a facility with that name means making a controversial statement: “We think this guy is a hero regardless of what he’s done”. So now the gym loses the appearance of neutrality.
For Wilson, do you feel is it possible to "honor with full disclosure, pointing out he was wrong in that regard’? I am sincerely asking - can a nuanced approach be considered?
If not - does that mean Washington and Jefferson aren’t too far behind? I am not trying to clutch my pearls; it seems like a reasonable question. They are the ultimate Big Accomplishers in our history; and their Big Blemishes related to slavery are clear and understood.
Jefferson is up already.
But…the man invented the dumbwaiter!!!