Tuesday, July 07, 2020
Drawing the line on statues
Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners, and Lincoln didn't really believe that black people were equal, though he opposed slavery. Yet these people's contributions seem to make it worth keeping their statues up. But the same kind of argument can be made on behalf of Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee, though there is a difference of degree here. Nevertheless, this does raise the question, where do you draw the line, and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The entire idea of the US is racist, so it's not a matter of degree but a matter of kind. The entire structure must be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up in order to build a just and verdant society.
With the proviso that the nature of the statue and it's context can matter, so some statues of Washington or Lincoln might less appropriate than others.
If after 240 years we are still a racist nation, then everyone has to admit the "all men are created equal" slaveholding founding fathers got it wrong. Time to level it and get it right.
Teddy Roosevelt was a racist.
Abe Lincoln was a White Supremacist.
OP
" where do you draw the line, and why? "
Simple.
Traitors to the USA do not get monuments on American public soil.
The flag of traitors to the USA does not fly on American public soil.
Why? Because millions have fought and worked and often died to build up our nation. We honor those who made progress in the correct direction, the direction of increased freedom and defense against tyranny. We do not honor those who actively attacked and killed American soldiers while openly declaring their traitorous intentions.
Every person is flawed. Yet we honor their best days. We run the risk of canceling those heroic moments by disqualifying based on the flaw.
There is no idiocy in honouring both sides in the aftermath of a civil war. If the nation is to survive, the broken bonds of national unity need to be healed. In victory, magnanimity.
The statue to King Charles I who lost both the English Civil War and his head has an interesting history. It still stands in Whitehall.
The debate about Lee's treason is actually interesting: https://athenaeumreview.org/essay/did-robert-e-lee-commit-treason/
Those most inclined to hang him did not.
David,
Thanks for adding your perspective. Good to see an opinion from the other side of the pond.
The Confederacy was certainly fighting to preserve slavery but were they actually traitors?
The Confederate states argued they had the right to secede and some Northern states agreed.
In fact This was partly why James Buchanan, Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, had allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace.
Neither Jefferson Davis nor any Conferderate soldier was tried for treason. There was a reason they weren't tried for treason.
It seems the British are much more civilized than some of us Yanks when it comes to tolerating statues of traitors.
Nevertheless, this does raise the question, where do you draw the line, and why?
The reason statues are being torn down is due to racism. Period. So the line seems to be that all statues need to be torn down unless it can be proven that the person the statue honors was not a racist or did not support a racist system. That pretty much means anyone that did not call for the destruction of America.
I don't necessarily think poorly of Erwin Rommel as a human being. However, he fought against in WWII and tried to kill American soldiers. So I am not about to name any forts after him, nor do I want to see a statue of Rommel in the Glendale town square.
Well Rommel was a racist after all, so there's that.
It seems to me that there is a difference between honoring people whose career was spent sustaining a racist system, and people whose primary contribution lay elsewhere but whose racial attitudes may have been deficient in some way. Thus one could defend eliminating Confederate statues, or statues to someone like John C. Calhoun, but still keep Washington and Jefferson. Slippery slope, you know, is a fallacy.
Victor,
Washington and Jefferson were founders of our system. If our system is racist, then they are responsible for establishing racism. That's the reason their statues are targeted.
Thank you, Hal and BM. I do look in from time to time.
I should think there is a liberal argument for retaining these commemorations and namings. They are all historical enactings of our grandparents' and earlier generations and so reflect their politics and how they saw things, not ours. But they also teach a valuable lesson about human nature. Namely that when faced with what they see as an existential threat to their way of life people are prepared to fight. We see this now in Hong Kong. Thankfully we in the West have evolved ways of achieving peaceful constitutional separation. The Czechs and Slovaks have divorced, the Brits have rejected continental hegemony and are negotiating a settlement with our one-time partners. If the Scots want to leave the UK we English will have to let them go, though we may yet have to bail them out once again. But eliminating memorials of earlier discord is tantamount to a lie, a whitewashing of history. Some of the good citizens of Bristol recently took it upon themselves to topple the statue of their city's benefactor Edward Colston, who enriched himself and the town through the 17C Atlantic slave trade. If they go on to erase Colston's name from streets and buildings there will be no publicly visible reminders of the city's unsavoury past, a communal forgetting of history. Though we don't need our noses rubbed in the misdeeds as we see them of our predecessors we should not allow ourselves to ignore them either.
From where I stand it rather looks as if there is a mood in the USA for rerunning the Civil War. There is to be another March to the Sea to sweep away symbols of the confederacy. This will contribute nothing towards raising up the descendants of slaves. On the other hand, there will be people who have grown up within the culture of the one-time confederate states who will see this as a threat. Whether or not an existential threat will depend on how many businesses are ruined and homes invaded. People are arming themselves.
My hope is that the current iconoclastic madness is a side effect of the conditions imposed in response to covid-19 and that as the pandemic abates so will the fraught politics. Otherwise Xi Jinping will be rubbing his hands with glee.
Last point: Slippery slope may be a fallacy in logic. In politics it's the principle 'if you give an inch they will take a mile'.
David,
My hope is that the current iconoclastic madness is a side effect of the conditions imposed in response to covid-19 and that as the pandemic abates so will the fraught politics. Otherwise Xi Jinping will be rubbing his hands with glee.
I think this particular madness at this particular time is due to a confluence of factors. There is a certain domestic Marxist/anarchist element that has always been here, a certain European imported Marxist element but also, now, a real incentive by the CCP to achieve a particular result in this election. China has never seen this much global resistance since the 1960's.
I expect it will all dissipate after the November elections are over.
David Brightly,
There is to be another March to the Sea to sweep away symbols of the confederacy. This will contribute nothing towards raising up the descendants of slaves. On the other hand, there will be people who have grown up within the culture of the one-time confederate states who will see this as a threat. Whether or not an existential threat will depend on how many businesses are ruined and homes invaded. People are arming themselves.
First, there's an internal inconsistency here. The people who see the removal of these statues as a threat must feel justified by those statues in some way, which allows them to justify what those statues represent. Removing those internal feelings of justification will certainly contribute to improving the culture for the descendants of slaves, both the biological and cultural descendants.
Then, we have the sudden veering from removing statues to closing of business and home invasions. Where did that come from?
I think what we have here is a failure of perspective.
Basically, I'm against iconoclasm, especially the iconoclasm of the mob. I gave an argument that I hoped would appeal to a liberal mind that, in general, we should (be allowed to) keep whatever public monuments we find in the culture in which we grew up, regardless of the reasons and attitudes of our predecessors who installed them. We may now find those reasons and attitudes disreputable but removing the monuments is a metaphorical whitewashing of history---an attempt to hide or cover up a failing or blemish.
Hal, you said, Many of the Confederate monuments were put up during the Jim Crow era as a way to whitewash history. I ask, How does erecting a statue amount to a hiding of something? And how does removing them make for a better historical understanding when the thing we would like to understand has been 'disappeared'?
OB, you said, The people who see the removal of these statues as a threat must feel justified by those statues in some way. Well, yes, I'm affronted that anyone should besmirch the statue of Churchill outside Parliament, but why am I supposed to be justified by said statue? I think this gets the psychology of cultural symbols wrong.
Hal, you also said you could see why many Southerners have a distorted view of that conflict. How is this relevant to whether they get to keep their monuments or not? Are you trying to punish them for their ignorance?
You both ask why I link iconoclasm to the citizenry arming itself. The answer is fear of the mob. And fear that the authorities will allow the mob free rein. This has already happened in the USA and UK, and not just in the current unrest. It looks like fear of the mob has led to voluntary removals too. And do you honestly believe that after rational discussion the mob will allow any statues to be returned?
The people who see the removal of these statues as a threat must feel justified by those statues in some way
Not at all. I couldn't care less about Confederate statues (I'm a rural Arkansan, which automatically makes me an expert on such matters), but I am vehemently opposed to the mindset that being offended grants moral authority to remove or destroy the alleged offender, be it a statue or a person's career based off an old tweet.
If you wanted to remove a Confederate statue because it belongs in a museum or is too irrelevant to even exist, I couldn't care less. If you throw a rope around it and say that it offends you, I'll cut the rope.
Blogger David Brightly said...
We may now find those reasons and attitudes disreputable but removing the monuments is a metaphorical whitewashing of history---an attempt to hide or cover up a failing or blemish.
We don't put up statues in the public square to teach history. History is taught in text books, museums, and similar places where you can offer context and a range of information. We put up statues to memorialize and honor. Why are people in 2020 required to honor the same historical persons as the people of 1880?
OB, you said, The people who see the removal of these statues as a threat must feel justified by those statues in some way. Well, yes, I'm affronted that anyone should besmirch the statue of Churchill outside Parliament, but why am I supposed to be justified by said statue? I think this gets the psychology of cultural symbols wrong.
Why would the removal of the statue personally affront you, if it were not for a personal connection? Do you get personally affronted by all change? When your neighbor replaces their front porch, does that offend you?
If you want to know what people see in a statue, look at what was said during the dedication ceremony, for a start.
Hal, you also said you could see why many Southerners have a distorted view of that conflict. How is this relevant to whether they get to keep their monuments or not? Are you trying to punish them for their ignorance?
The monument is to the distorted view. If you really believed statues represented history, why would you support distortions of history?
You both ask why I link iconoclasm to the citizenry arming itself. The answer is fear of the mob.
There is no single mob. It's mostly local people protesting about the wrong they experience in their locality.
Legion of Logic said...
If you wanted to remove a Confederate statue because it belongs in a museum or is too irrelevant to even exist, I couldn't care less. If you throw a rope around it and say that it offends you, I'll cut the rope.
Would that also apply to statues of men like Hussein? When the Iraqi mob tore down his statue, would you have cut those ropes?
Hal,
Of course we in the West are for the time being free to celebrate and criticise whatever aspects of our history we like. Perhaps I can best explain my position by saying that the erection of these statues is in itself an historical event worthy of understanding. They are themselves historical documents. That people in the defeated South re-imagined the War the way they did decades later---I have read the WP article---in itself tells us something valuable about human nature. In a sense the monuments aren't about the War at all. Rather they are about the South's collective psychological response to defeat. Likewise the names of US Army bases in the South were no doubt arrived at by historical, political processes. It makes every sense to keep the names because, well, that's how they got named. I fondly imagine a child asking, Why is it called Fort Benning? and a teacher replying, Well, it's an interesting story...
I'm glad neither of us is in favour of mob rule. Public monuments are the responsibility of local government and hopefully their future will be decided through public consultation. Sadly, I can't look at the religious statues and symbols torn down by Protestants during the Reformation :-)
OB,
Why are people in 2020 required to honor the same historical persons as the people of 1880? We aren't required to honour anyone. But see the next answer.
Why would the removal of the statue personally affront you, if it were not for a personal connection? Well, it is a personal connection. I was talking about the daubing of Churchill's statue with the word 'Racist'. No doubt the perpetrator sees in Churchill just an early 20C and now unacceptable attitude to non-white people. For the rest of us Churchill is a symbol of a shared conception of Britishness which in some hard to explain way makes us what we are. We find it hard to feel---we are in the sphere of moral sentiments here, so 'feel' is the right word---a sense of comity with someone doing such a thing. Perhaps Churchill is for us what the US Constitution is for you.
If you really believed statues represented history, why would you support distortions of history? I say statues, true or distortive, are history. See reply to Hal above.
There is no single mob. It's mostly local people protesting about the wrong they experience in their locality. Sorry, can't agree. All mobs look equally ugly.
Would that also apply to statues of men like Hussein? When the Iraqi mob tore down his statue, would you have cut those ropes?
I did a Google images search on "tear down Confederate statues". After having done so, I would say there is a significant difference between Iraqis destroying statues of the tyrant they had lived under, and mostly white liberal mobs destroying statues of men dead over a hundred years who did not engage in tyrannical rule over even their ancestors, with such ignorant abandon that they destroy monuments dedicated to those who fought against slavery, like Hans Christian Heg and Ulysses S. Grant.
Also as part of my Googling, I found many articles indicating that the toppling of the Hussein statue was less than an organic celebration by Iraqis, and many preferred life under him to the aftermath of what Bush and Cheney caused. So that might not be the best example.
David Brightly,
Well, it is a personal connection. I was talking about the daubing of Churchill's statue with the word 'Racist'. No doubt the perpetrator sees in Churchill just an early 20C and now unacceptable attitude to non-white people. For the rest of us Churchill is a symbol of a shared conception of Britishness which in some hard to explain way makes us what we are. We find it hard to feel---we are in the sphere of moral sentiments here, so 'feel' is the right word---a sense of comity with someone doing such a thing. Perhaps Churchill is for us what the US Constitution is for you.
I agree with you here. I also think that, while Churchill certainly wan't an ideal man, he's worthy of memorialization; many of the things he fought for were worth fighting for. However, you're agreeing with my point about the statuary being more than history, it's about what we feel connected to and why. When you look up the dedication ceremonies of many of these Confederate monuments, you'll find explicit declarations of the superiority of white people and the the rightness of the Confederate cause. That's why the statues (and airbase names) exist.
I say statues, true or distortive, are history. See reply to Hal above.
You can say that, but you treat them as if they are much more than that, and less than that. I don't believe you would support teaching distorted history in schools, but you say you have not problem with statues distorting history.
Sorry, can't agree. All mobs look equally ugly.
As long as we agree on the plural, that was my point.
Legion of Logic,
I did a Google images search on "tear down Confederate statues". After having done so, I would say there is a significant difference between Iraqis destroying statues of the tyrant they had lived under, and mostly white liberal mobs destroying statues of men dead over a hundred years who did not engage in tyrannical rule over even their ancestors, with such ignorant abandon that they destroy monuments dedicated to those who fought against slavery, like Hans Christian Heg and Ulysses S. Grant.
Also as part of my Googling, I found many articles indicating that the toppling of the Hussein statue was less than an organic celebration by Iraqis, and many preferred life under him to the aftermath of what Bush and Cheney caused. So that might not be the best example.
First off, I agree that pulling down statues with ignorant abandon is wrong.
Perhaps Hussein is not the best example, but my point was that our opinion of statue removal methods often change based more on sympathies with the causes of the people memorialized by the statues.
With regard to the "white liberal mobs", why does it matter if their ancestors were not enslaved?
I meant 'liberal' in its old sense of toleration. Letting others live according to their own lights. That's in the federal aspect of the US constitution surely? As an outsider perhaps I shouldn't be commenting. I try as a Brit to recall an analogous political problem here, but without success. I find it hard to think that these objects and names have anything like the same symbolic value now as they did then, except perhaps to a diminishing minority. They have lost their power. Removing them does little practical good for a once-subjugated people and may risk provoking those living around them who see them as part of their heritage. Should New Yorkers be obliged to remove the Statue of Liberty because it symbolises the process of immigration into the USA that dispossessed the indigenous peoples? This too could be seen as a blot on American history ripe for erasure. For the same reasons, No.
David Brightly,
Removing them does little practical good for a once-subjugated people and may risk provoking those living around them who see them as part of their heritage.
Many of the once-subjugated people disagree with you.
Post a Comment