How much history should we erase?
The current brouhaha about removing Confederate flags and statues should be considered within the overall context of what history is acceptable. A Chicago Pastor wants statues of Presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson removed.
A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.
“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said. “Some people out here ask me, say ‘Well, you know, he taught his slaves to read.’ That’s almost sad; the equivalent of someone who kidnaps you, that you gave them something to eat.”
Source: CBS Chicago
Using slave-ownership as a criterion, we must add Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant (yes, that Grant) to the list of presidents to be expunged from public remembrance.
But why stop there? Being partially descended from Native Americans, I find it troubling to see a statue of General George A. Custer on public display in Monroe, MI. And the list of presidents and other historical figures associated with Native American genocide is exceedingly long. There is already a movement underway to remove statues deemed most egregious by the first Americans:
Carving the faces of “founding fathers” who weren’t good for Indian policy into sacred mountains, having to walk by a monument of a man who was responsible for the death of countless Indigenous Peoples, building statues of men who killed countless Natives… why are there so many monuments for those who don’t deserve it?
The Statue of Liberty - At a time when Natives were being persecuted, France donates the Statue of Liberty to the United States. A giant statue, the National Park Service calls a “universal symbol of freedom and democracy.” Let’s consider this: the 305-foot-tall statue was dedicated on October 28, 1886. That same year, Geronimo was the last Chiricahua Apache to surrender; he had spent his life resisting invasion and colonization of his homeland in the Southwest.
This is all part of a larger discussion, of course. And sadly, it's reflective of our binary times, when Group A feels slighted by things done for Group B. In recent years, there have been many skirmishes in The School Book War, as blacks point out that history books whitewash the black experience and whites grieve over a perceived loss of "white culture". [EdG note: I'm painting with a broad brush here, so please don't think I'm including you personally in my characterizations.]
The black perspective:
During my first year as a high school history teacher, teaching predominantly urban and minority students, I came to one profound epiphany: I teach white history to black kids. In addition, along with teaching racism, I teach sexism and discrimination. I do not mean for one second that I personally indoctrinate students with such vicious and hateful values, but the text book that I use (and that nearly every public school in every state uses) indirectly leads teachers into teaching students to be racist, sexist and discriminatory to their peers and other people...
Source: We Teach Racism, Sexism and Discrimination in Schools
The white perspective:
Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. The state’s guidelines for teaching American history also do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws.
And when it comes to the Civil War, children are supposed to learn that the conflict was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery’s secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education.
Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”
Source: The Washington Post
The Question of the Day is the title of this essay -- How much history should we erase? In my opinion, there's no easy answer. As a lover of history, I prefer a "free range" approach. History contains many examples of bad behavior. The best outcome would be using those examples to teach ourselves and our children what not to do. Sadly, though, I don't think our nation's current path will lead to that outcome.
Thoughts?
Comments
Given the fact that we still daily live
with the original ugly racist stain this country was founded on, I'm not sure we can erase any of that much better than we already try to do. What difference does a monument really make if no one ever discusses why it was put there or the history behind it? And we already don't do that, as you so rightly point out, with the current teaching of our young in public schools. Maybe if we actually taught like actual history, monuments might be a lot better understood for just what they represent. But I hold out no hope of that changing anytime soon - that battle that is never to be won is far too lucrative to our current ownership class.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Maybe it's not history erased, but acknowledging the truth
and facing the facts. It's actually setting history straight.
Take a guy like Joe Paterno, former football coach at Penn State. He had a statue outside the football stadium, then people found out he aided a pedophile so the statue came down.
As an older person, I have been "taught" things in my lifetime that I've found to be total lies and illusions. Once I realized the truth, my opinions, stances, and beliefs changed. That should be the same as a nation, once we come to grips with the truth, that should change things, including bringing down the statues of racists and changing the names of schools named after slave owners. People tend to give the "founding fathers" a break because of lies, falsehoods and illusions.
I do think it's time to face reality.
Hell, we let mass murderers like George Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Obama walk around living the high life. In a right world they would be arrested and thrown in prison for the rest of the slimy lives. I've got no problem with facing facts.
Like, abolish Columbus Day while we're at it.
How much history to erase?
None. Zero.
This isn't about erasing history, it's about forced veneration of historical figures in order to instill a world view.
Maybe we shouldn't make statues of historical figures at all. Maybe statuary should be limited to art.
There's a difference between making an historical documentary and integrating a symbol into the public space.
Your point about textbooks is well taken. Breaking the back of the current system where a few wackos in Texas get to determine the nationwide curriculum is a high priority, probably to be accomplished with ebooks (to eliminate the cost of printing, transport, and inventory) which reflect national, state, and local standards.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
Would you expand on this...
"it's about forced veneration of historical figures in order to instill a world view"
By that do you mean the veneration of George Washington et. al. or something else? Consider Lexington KY's plan to move statues of John Hunt Morgan and John C. Breckinridge. There are probably only a handful of people in the US who know or care who those two men were.
-----
You display a statue of Washington, a child asks "who's that?", "It's George Washington, a great man, the Father of our Country." No need for messy details.
You display a statue of Lee, a child asks "who's that?", "It's General Robert E. Lee, who fought a noble war for States Rights and the White Race against the tyranny of the Yankees' Federal Government."
The symbols are in your face, you internalize them and their message.
"I pledge allegiance to this piece of cloth, I shall hold no other pieces of cloth before it, to give my service and my life to the oligarchs who hide behind it."
How much indoctrination should we tolerate? Who decides? Once you carve it into a mountain or cast it in bronze, it takes a lot to change your mind. Pulling a piece of cloth down from a pole is hard enough.
None of this is about history. It's about mind control. By pulling down the symbols we change the programming. And it's been a long time coming.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
That's a bit facile.
[Edited by EdG] George Washington bought and owned slaves until his death. Robert E. Lee never bought slaves and freed those he inherited long before the war. The complete story of history is rarely simple.
It has little or nothing to do with owning slaves
It has to do with treason and support of a nation dedicated to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.
Oh, and Lee was administrator of the Arlington estate which did own slaves. He freed them before the war.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
@WoodsDweller
The southern states were assured of having slavery in perpetuity in order to convince them to join the United States and ratify the Constitution. They felt efforts to abolish slavery were an abrogation of those assurances.
And
they rose up in violent rebellion because they THOUGHT the Lincoln Administration might abolish slavery. It isn't likely.
In any case, when you agree to a constitution that allows for its own amendment you live with the possibility that it will be amended.
Well, there was the whole thing with the
Democrats running 2 candidates that year... because the southern and northern democrats couldn't agree.
Essentially, the entire election was FUBARed from the start, and afterwords the South felt they had no representation, especially considering Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most southern states.
Of course the Division in that election looks an awful lot like the electoral situation now, with nobody talking to each other, sides forming up and people talking about overthrowing the government... Just in the opposite direction.
I have no doubt that if there is another civil war it will be stated that it was a glorious fight against the racists, and any other possible reason is clearly just historical revisionism.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yes he did own slaves
If you're going to argue against erasing history, it would be a good start to not erase the history of his life.
...
The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
Long article and a good read. This is one of several articles I just read about him. All agree, he owned slaves and was exceptionally cruel to them. Not only that but he captured and enslaved people himself.
The history that is at risk getting erased is that preserving slavery was the reason for the civil war. People want now to deny that, but let us not forget or erase that history.
I can fully understand why people want monuments honoring such people as heros to be removed from the public square. These monuments are indeed whitewashing real history. Personally I'd leave them, or put them into museums, accompanied by new monuments to and truth about the lives he destroyed, and an honest account of who he was.
What a piece of scum
At least Washington and Jefferson and the others created the framework that embodied the idea "all men are created equal" which was basis for the many human rights protecting laws that came after. Lee fought against that idea.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Pryor is wrong.
I was wrong, too. Lee did inherit slaves from his mother but he no longer owned them by 1847.
He didn't own the slaves or the plantation Pryor writes about. He was executor of his father-in-law's estate, which included the plantation. Lee was a career soldier, not a plantation owner.
Pryor has an agenda. She'd be better off sticking to facts because the truth about Lee is bad enough without embellishment.
Pryor is wrong about what?
Which facts are you disputing? And based on what other sources? You can just proclaim it incorrect and dismiss it, but unless you can offer something concrete about how he really was a good guy about the slavery issue, I'm not going to simply dismiss this information. It's not just this one article or author, like I said, I read several articles today and all agreed with the basic facts:
- after he inherited ownership of human beings, he did not free them until he was legally forced to do so, by the terms of the will and the law. You make it sound like he magnanimously freed them. He didn't. That is erasing history.
- He also separated their families, before "freeing" them, and he inflicted severe corporal punishments, or instructed others to do so, and he wrote letters defending those actions.
- he wrote letters defending the practice of slavery as ordained by God.
- he fought a war to preserve slavery as an institution and a god-given right of white people.
- his army captured free people and enslaved them.
If you have anything specific to prove that any of these are wrong, I'll read it. Just waving it away isn't convincing. I see you edited your original comment, but your changes still paint a whitewashed version of his owning of, and eventually being forced to free, his slaves. I honestly don't understand the effort to paint him as a good guy. He clearly was not.
It's ironic to post an essay arguing that statues should never be removed, because that is "erasing history" but then not addressing the actual historical record and trying to erase or minimize what he actually did. The statue allows the myth to be perpetrated. It's weird but true - I've never cared about such monuments, nor would I ever think of waging any effort to remove them. I'm basically live and let live; I don't visit monuments, but I don't care about others doing so if they want to.
But I have learned a lot about this particular historical figure due to the uproar, and now I understand how dishonest the history captured in some (probably most) monuments is, and how they are used to misinform us in the present, and erase the past. I see them as more malevolent now. I still personally would not be invested in efforts to remove them, but I do understand now why it's important to some people, to not dishonesty glorify such individuals. Although I still think education and recognizing the actual history is a better approach than erasure. I would not destroy the statues, but moving them to historical museums, with a more honest accout of the person, is certainly reasonable.
Take Big Al's example of Joe Paterno. What if they left his statue up, and added a large display about how he failed the school and the children who were victimized? A monument to how Joe Paterno cared more about football than protecting children, and is a disgrace. Then the monument would be history. But if you just leave up the Paterno statue without the rest of the story, it's not history - it is erasing history, just as much as removing it did.
I disagree with you.
But as I've already stated, I am not a neutral party in this, and have a different opinion.
What good does destroying the statue of a man for reasons that you see as self evident, but those who want it to remain do not feel or see?
This is the great roadblock to any kind of unity.
Many academics and progressive people see slavery as the greatest of all possible crimes, and anything associated with it is to be viewed with horror. That is a valid viewpoint.
The people who want the statue to remain see Lee as representative of an honorable struggle against an overarching federal government. That too is a valid viewpoint.
Neither side will acknowledge that the opinion of the other is valid. As a result, there can be no conversation. There can be no discussion.
The war was horrible. The wounds never have healed in this country. They never will heal as long as we keep screaming that our viewpoint and ONLY our viewpoint must reign supreme.
That story ends badly for a lot of people.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I didn't say destroy it. I said I would *not* destroy it
and that I would not be involved in any effort to relocate such monuments.
I said I understand now why some people want that, and why it's important to them. Yesterday I didn't. So, in my case at least, understanding of another viewpoint has been advanced due to the conversation.
I also feel I understand the motivations of people who want to imagine him a hero. Just like some people still want to image Joe Paterno is a hero.
But I don't understand how allowing dishonest history to be perpetuated is beneficial.
I believe good people can exist in bad times.
(I admit that I typed a couple angry responses to your last comment which I did not post. Unfortunately, this is a topic that does get my hackles up a bit, so I'm grateful for your response, which allows me to respond to the issues instead of emotionally. Wherever else this discussion goes, I appreciate the respect.)
History always has an agenda, especially when it comes to wars. I've read HORRIBLE criticisms of Edwin Rommel, for example, which claimed he was the epitome of evil for fighting for the Nazis, and at the same time, I have to respect the man for his writings and the fact that he actively spoke about the horrors of war and the importance of keeping it away from civilians whenever possible. He was a complicated person.
Lee was a dedicated family man, fought the awful war he was ordered to, to the best of his ability, and had economic and business ties to his community. His community practiced slavery and felt that it was under attack from terrorists like John Brown. It's easy to fall into chronological bigotry, and state that he should have known BETTER than the vast majority of his countrymen at the time.
The south had an entire infrastructure dedicated to slavery, and encouraged by the foreign powers of the time which profited heavily from it. (While Britain outwardly protested, they had no objection to cheap American cotton) America was the third world nation that Europe exploited. In the north, they did it through indentured servitude and near slave labor (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory) while in the south they engaged in chattel slavery, reinforced by abhorrent Christian dogma which stated the Christian "Duty" to take care of the "savages".
Absolutely, Slavery is evil. However, the fact that we still engage in practices to this day that simulate it, (PIC) we really have no grounds for destroying the images and reputations of our past to show moral superiority.
IMHO, This fighting about the past prevents us from acting in the present. The war is still going on, but those that are winning are not those who smash statues, but rather those who live free from fear of the mob, happy that it has been turned on a group that has NO power at all. (Which is why they claim that all of the people who don't call the southerners traitors are racists... I've been called it so many times for disagreement, that I no longer find it a credible argument.)
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Lee chose his state over his country
No one forced him to do that.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
And right now, I'd make the same choice.
Warts and all.
Oregon ain't perfect but it's my home. Hell, maybe we could kick out the MIC and PIC and do some social programs.
Not that I think his thought process was the same as mine, but it was a choice that I strongly agree with. Home over those that want you to go to war against your home.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Thanks, and it turns out we agree, far more than we don't
I actually agree with pretty much everything you wrote here. I don't know if it's true that Lee was "ordered" to side with the confederacy; I read that he was offered a position on the union side, but chose loyalty to his state and the south. I also understand he was, obviously, a product of his times and culture, and believed in a Christian religion that preached slavery was god's order of things. He acted on those beliefs and made his choices.
My first comment was written in response to edg stating that Lee never owned slaves. I had just read an article about him and knew that was false, or let's say mistaken. The essay is about preserving "history" so I'm saying, at least get the history right. Then he edited it to say, well yeah he did but only because he inherited them, and he freed them before the war -- a whitewashed version at best. So I presented facts as I understand them; again in the interest of accuracy (something I tend to get hung up on sometimes).
Your account of what Lee did and why, the context, etc. is all much more truthful and realistic. I nominate you to write the history that should go along with the statue! Because that is very well said. You don't try to deny what he was, but you put it into context. The south did fight to preserve slavery. And they were open and proud of it, at that time.
What is disturbing to me is the trend now to deny that was what they fought for. Rewriting Lee as a man who never kept or took slaves is a lie. He wasn't ashamed of it, so why are his supporters now ashamed of it? I guess it's a sign of progress? I dunno.
Anyway I'm sorry if I made you angry. I do respect and appreciate your point of view. I think this discussion is part of what is happening now in our country. People are suddenly tearing down and illegally destroying statues, that is very troubling, and I don't support that at all.
It's also troubling to me that our president is happily encouragng the worst racist groups to feel empowered, and adding to the undercurrent of racism in this country that is still festering, and now getting inflamed.
There's no easy answers, but talking is still worthwhile. Thanks for the response, much appreciated.
This right here is why I love C99
Even with the most contentious discussions, I can usually state my opinion and be respected.
Thank you. And you didn't make me angry, as much as remind me it was time to take my meds.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
second that. (++)
1. end the war
2. MFA
3. $15/hr.
4. equal justice under law
5. free public education
....
79. Robert E. Lee statue
can go on for years, to exclusion of other things.
it is a misdirection tactic when used by Kos, etc.
of course it divides and angers people on the race issue.
could be the idea.
they love to talk about racists.
@CS in AZ
Which facts are you disputing? And based on what other sources?
First off, I don't understand why you're being so contentious. I edited my comment to reflect that Lee did inherit slaves from his mother. He no longer owned those slaves by 1847, and he did not personally own slaves from then on. Those are verifiable facts based on tax records and his father-in-law's will.
You can just proclaim it incorrect and dismiss it, but unless you can offer something concrete about how he really was a good guy about the slavery issue
I never claimed he was a good guy about the slavery issue. That's a false claim and is based on nothing I wrote.
after he inherited ownership of human beings, he did not free them until he was legally forced to do so, by the terms of the will and the law. You make it sound like he magnanimously freed them. He didn't. That is erasing history.
First, he inherited slaves from his mother in 1826. By 1847, he no longer owned them. There was nothing magnanimous about it; he thought owning slaves was a hassle. But it's a fact that he did not personally own slaves after 1847.
Second, he was executor of his father-in-law's estate. Executors DO NOT OWN the assets they manage for the estate. Read any article on the Internet about wills if you don't believe this.
Third, the will stated "And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."
Two points there -- "being clear of debts" and "not exceeding five years". The instructions in the will are crystal clear. 1. Pay off the estate's debts. 2. Free the slaves within 5 years. Lee accomplished both tasks.
He also separated their families, before "freeing" them, and he inflicted severe corporal punishments, or instructed others to do so, and he wrote letters defending those actions.
Yes, he moved those he thought to be troublemakers. I never claimed otherwise. Are you incapable of discussing an issue without exaggerating or lying about the other person's position?
he wrote letters defending the practice of slavery as ordained by God.
Yes. I never claimed otherwise.
he fought a war to preserve slavery as an institution and a god-given right of white people.
Yes. I never claimed otherwise. I claimed, and the historical record supports my claim, that he did not personally own slaves after 1847.
his army captured free people and enslaved them.
Yes. I never claimed otherwise.
okay this is now a diary.
see above
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
@WoodsDweller That doesn't follow
That doesn't follow at all. You have no idea what people tell their kids, and if they are going to say these things about the founders, you're not going to stop it by removing a statue.
Like I said elsewhere, even if what you want is demolition politics, this is a pretty lameass version, seeing as how, if one wanted to actually demolish that history, or that way of looking at history, you'd have to go after curricula from coast to coast, rather than focusing on taking down statues.
However, like I also said elsewhere, let people take down whatever the hell they want to. They are wasting their time, but that's their business. Their virtue signalling while they ignore far more important issues is pretty damned annoying, but ultimately I don't have a dog in this fight. Yes, I prefer other versions of justice politics than those based on demolition, and I prefer to add to history rather than subtracting from it, and I prefer to expand the discussion of cultural artifacts rather than contract it. But neither side of this fight--the right-wing white people who are angry and the Black people who are outraged--is anything I'd consider supporting, so, after expressing my views, it's best to end with "But do whatever the hell you want."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I agree in part.
Erase none of it. I would even go so far as to say in the best of outcomes, don't move any of those monuments, either. They are where they are for a reason, to instill a perspective for those who would encounter them there, in that place, in that context -- the propaganda you note. And that propaganda is just as much history as the person depicted in bronze. As long as the propaganda is revealed as such, it loses its power, and that's a lesson, too.
But it's not up to me to make that call. It's up to the community, and if the community wants to remove one bit of propaganda from their community, let them. I'd propose in that instance that each town set aside a History Park, where that statue would be re-erected. Add interpretive material to explain what led to that statue's existence, where it came from, who was its audience, what is propagandistic about that statue, why some would want it removed from their communities. Leave plenty of space between the statues for future generations to add other monuments to other perspectives on that history. If Texas textbooks are any indication, there will be frequent additions to the story those monuments tell, so leave plenty of space, because that generational back-and-forth, that conversation of the society, is also history. Make a park a textbook, in other words, one that will be constantly updated by the community. As an aside, you'd be redirecting wackos' resources to purchasing something expensive and unlikely to cause bodily harm. As another aside, you'd be saving a few artworks, too. And there would be a park where none existed before.
erase none of it.
The irony is that history has already selectively been erased
by such propagandists as the conservative Texas Board of Ed.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks.
Stautes aren't purely history. They're intended for a specific purpose. In this case, it's obvious Confederate statues/symbols, which were proliferated during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras, were installed as reminders to black people not to get out of line, cruel warnings that their "masters" could easily return them to Slavery By Another Name, and often did.
The teaching of "history" is the function of the government to explicitly condition the citizenry that we live in the Greatest Country In The World, and that one's goal in life is to pursue the purposefully elusive American Dream™. Official statues of any kind are designed to reinforce that fealty.
If you want true, unadulterated history you have to go to Howard Zinn's "People's History..." American history textbooks are a farce. To give you an example, I have a friend whose son is in 11th grade Advanced PoliSci. He asked him what his assignment was. The son said he was memorizing the names of the presidents. Furthermore Black history, and specifically African history, is not more than a footnote, further marginalizing an already grossly maligned people.
This "statues are history" malarkey should be called out for what it is: statues are propaganda.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
statues are propaganda
I agree with you in part. they may well have been effective propaganda when first put in place.
But I don't give them any power. I wouldn't erase Hitler rally film either. or elijah mohammed speeches.
but why are we arguing about statues?
to me the big question here is- are people allowed to demonstrate or not?
I am really ok with statues coming down or being moved or being blown into pieces at a cathartic ceremony.
not on board with the "we decide who gets to speak" crowd. I went to school with a bunch of them. I have seen the movie.
if people want to campaign & march against statues or racism, it's fine by me.
wackos in Texas
And Texas only gets to go textbook shopping after the offerings are finalized; and they must use the textbooks as published, no editing!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Not true.
The Texas State Board of Education has a significant effect on the contents of textbooks. In many states the selection of textbooks is a matter decided by districts.
I think we should have more statues
commemorating artists & writers, philosophers and scientists, and less statues commemorating generals & presidents & politicians. Avoid a lot of controversy that way. For a lot of Suthrun folks, the Civil War isn't even over yet. I doubt that removing statues of its martyrs & heroes will help to end it, in their eyes. Maybe better to leave well enough alone there.
Rushmore is an exceptional travesty -- a moral and aesthetic blight on the landscape -- but erasing half a mountain side wouldn't be easy.
native
Get the ISIS guys who dynamited the Bamiyan Buddha statues here,
stat!
Good point.
ISIS, the Taliban, Benjamin Netanyahu... There are many groups and individuals that wish to erase history.
Statues aren't history
They're propaganda.
Only in an illiterate society that conflates mythology, history, and propaganda are statues a way to preserve "history".
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
That's an odd viewpoint.
Without statues, we'd have limited knowledge of many historic events and persons. Is there embellishment? Sure. But they form a valid part of the historical record.
Ha! That is actually funny
in a dark sort of way.
native
It seems Vice News in an op-ed was seriously promoting the idea
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-17/lets-blow-mount-rushmore-says-vice
Nature would erase Mt Rushmore
No need to blow it up. We could just stop preserving and fixing it, and let it erode away. I agree it's a travesty, and I've always felt that way since the moment I saw a picture of it. Worse in person when my family went there on vacation. Even as a child too young to know anything about the men whose faces were carved into the mountains or why, I felt it was hideously ugly and just plain wrong to do that to a mountain. Humans, so arrogant.
Yeah, it probably would probably
look a little better a after a century or so of aging.
native
What of the Buffalo Soldiers?
They are commemorated with statues in any number of places. There are a lot of complicating issues surrounding their participation in the Indian Wars, just as there are issues surrounding many historical figures.
America Was Founded On White Supremacy
And that's what we should teach. American history is already sanitized and erased. History Is A Weapon:
www.historyisaweapon.com
From Counterpunch:
And on statues:
On our post racial president:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/16/charlottesville-outrage-and-hypo...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
History is written by the victors.
As are constitutions. There were many white supremacists among the founding fathers. There were others that weren't. Our constitution reflects the compromises needed to bring the two groups together.
I think your 3rd quote is nonsensical. Trump's election wasn't a referendum on Obama so much as a verdict on Hillary Clinton. Her nomination was a gift to Trump.
I Agree Actually
The author stretched a point actually. Anti-Obama racism was probably just an enhancement to how horrible Hillary was as a candidate and a human being.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
3rd quote
A gift that keeps on giving.
Do you think that all those old Southern Black women, if they knew what would result from their Democratic Primary votes, would still vote for Her Heinous as they did?
I think not......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
verdict on Hillary Clinton
of course it was.
If you're gonna destroy the images that a country...
uses to tell its national myths, you're gonna destroy the country.
A country is an idea, and the stories that are told support it.
So, take away all the images, replace them with nice, friendly PC perfect people who never ever did anything wrong, and you'll have a pablum country that is nice, friendly and you never have to look at the problems or learn from them.
And the owners of the country will love the fact that their crimes are not only forgiven, but erased from the country.
Look Forward is the most toxic idea ever. It eliminates responsibility for the authority. The people who came before us OWNED their errors. If I'm going to be saddled with "Guilt" for the actions of my ancestors, I deserve the credit for their actions as well. I honestly do not give a shit.
Either eliminate them ENTIRELY, and don't even fucking talk to me about "Founding Fathers Intentions" any more, or accept that we can have flawed figures in our country who we can learn from, both in the good and the bad.
Full Disclosure: My Grandmother's Maiden Name Is Custis. Which means that most of the people being smeared by the PC folks are related to me in some way. I am not a neutral party.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Great comment.
I don't believe history can be fairly represented unless both the flaws and the graces of the people involved are discussed. Abraham Lincoln didn't think "the Negro" should be allowed to vote or permitted to marry white women.
I wonder where we'll be when the cleansing is complete. Henry Ford is being removed from PC society because he turned anti-Semitic after a Jewish banker forced his first company into bankruptcy. FDR is now on the racist watch-list because Social Security didn't initially cover black workers. LBJ is headed for the dustbin because he encouraged MLK to be patient.
Interesting times we live in.
I go with
"or accept that we can have flawed figures in our country who we can learn from, both in the good and the bad."
We can accept the work of artists, musicians, scientists who accomplished great things who were really shitty people. Should politicians be exempt? I'd like to see how Germany teaches it's children about its history, what their statues are. Maybe sometime in high school we have a semester where the bad aid gets ripped off, tell the ugly truths. I don't know.....Is the purpose of teaching history to caution future citizens through the past, or propaganda, or to reaffirm some sort of pride?
We already do that!
No one teaches labor history anymore.
Thus we have generations of people raised to believe that the free market blessed us with worker safety laws, the 8-hour day, and weekends. And labor unions just get in the way.
What's more, white men, ALL white men, have always had it sooo easy in America.
They never had to work as children in coal mines and factories. They never lived in extreme poverty and died young.
Where do you draw the line?
Something or someone is always going to offend someone some time. A statue of the first black President ought to piss a lot of people off.
There is a ton of stuff that offends me, and no one gives a shit - as it should be. I am tired of tap dancing around everyone's sensibilities and grievances, real and perceived. If you don't like what I post, don't read me. If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. If you don't approve of pot, don't smoke it. If you don't approve of Confederate memorabilia, don't own, wear or wave it. Don't say this, and certainly don't say that. Drink coffee, don't drink coffee, and omfg, don't smoke within a mile of me - not even outside. Bon fires are different, I can sit in that smoke all night long. Arrrgh!
Can the collective we all just get out of each other's face? I just saw a post by some guy who is pissed off that Iceland is eliminating Downs through abortion. By god, his kid is wonderful. How evil can someone be? You know it doesn't end with statues.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Orwell says it best:
Politics aside, the statues are artistic works whose removal and destruction is akin to burning books.
Hitler made a point of censoring what he called Degenerate Art that did not comport with his vision of what German society should be. In the US, 'right-thinking' lefties have now declared war on degenerate statues.
I fail to see any difference in the motivations of these people and their Teutonic forbears.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Now if people actually knew their history...
...rather than a Readers Digest version of it.
I did my own genealogy.
I found out that a bunch of my ancestors were killed by native Americans.
Does this mean I should be against monuments to native Americans?
I found I had ancestors on both sides of the Civil war.
Does that mean I must be against myself?
In a century or two, the people living right now will probably be demonized as wasteful.
Should we be judging people?
Should we be judging people?
Heh. It's what humans are best at -- judging others as we judge not ourselves.
Just beyond Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square
There's an equestrian statue of Charles I, and beyond him, down Whitehall, within the precincts of Parliament, there's a statue of Cromwell.
Opposite sides through the English Civil War, a bloody confrontation that still has echoes today, but few suggest the removal of either statue.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
The Brits have a MUCH longer history
and the Charles I/Cromwell hooraw was very recent compared to the fratricidal Wars of the Roses, the Hundred Years War with France, and recurrent border wars with Scotland 1066-1603.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
None.
Roosevelt imprisoned the Nisei in a prison camp. MLK was against gay marriage. You can always find a reason to erase the history you don't like. It's wrong.
It's just my opinion. It can't hurt you
This isn't about history; it's about venerating the wrong.
I've been ruminating about "statues" for a long time, with respect to their role in Propaganda. In this and most cases, I believe they are explicitly designed to call allegiance to Militarism and Imperialism. The exaltation of certain individuals to hero status, when in reality there wouldn't be enough room to venerate all who were truly heroes even in their definition, is another aspect that I think we need to do away with: hero worship.
We could use a lot more We, and not Me. When Frederick Olmsted created Central Park in NYC he fought bitter battles with legislators who wanted to appease their benefactor donors who saw an opportunity to erect yet more statues. He stood firm. Central Park opened with just one, of an angel with spread wings, making sure the park was the park of the people, an ode to the oppressed and an oasis for the kept city dweller to experience some rustic peace the way their bettors could freely escape to when/where-ever they pleased. As another example of doing the right thing in terms of reverberating modesty, Thomas Jefferson's tombstone makes no mention of his being the 3rd President. Instead he took credit for writing the Declaration of Independence and creating a university, UVA.
In most every single town square across the country you'll be able to find some kind of monument exalting some war "hero" or heroes or battle. It's so ingrained in our culture, along with the insane, fervent flag-waving display tics Americans are given to, that no country in the world rivals our sick fealty to nationalism and xenophobia. I'm sick of walking by another plaque, monument, or statue whose very presence is designed to calibrate in me a feeling of allegiance to War, that the only way to be "protected" is by having lots of guns and bombs and using them on "bad" people, that which in turn represent our power, which then crystallizes one major element of the pernicious Propaganda assaulting us from childhood on, that America is the Greatest Country In the World. Very dangerous.
Why then don't we also find plaques and monuments to the Everyman, the farmer who tills the soil of which without we perish, the poet/artist/singer/ whose creativity inspires us to live more fully, the scientists who lean upon the great discoveries before them to introduce new and better tools into our world, etc?
I'm tired of personal veneration, especially when it becomes a plaything of vanity for the well-connected and wealthy. Scumbag vainglorious oligarchs do enough to make the landscape of this country an eyesore of moneymen and corporate vanity, or to be used as advertising in the quest for evermore profit. How many more 3M Stadium, Citifield, David Koch Theater, Langone Medical do we have to tolerate?
Fuck these people...
All over Europe their town squares are named after poets, scientists, inventors, musicians, authors.
Personally, I'd be in favor of starting a campaign to venerate what in my view is our biggest and best cultural export to the rest of the world. And it's not Disneyland, McDonald's or Tommy Hilfiger.
How about a statue of Little Richard in every town? How about statues to the great activists and organizers who brought us the 5 day work week/the 8 hour work day/ended child labor? How about Jonas Salk, who cured polio and never asked for any money for it by accepting no patent on what he said he culled from all the work done before him? How about Howard Zinn, who dedicated his life's work to telling the untold history of social change beginning at the grass roots with solidarity of working people? How about statues erected wherever there had been a lynching? How about the birthplaces and/or homes of all the great literary greats? How about statues honoring the multitude of unknown/little know jazz and blues greats?
What a different feel the landscape of America would have...
I could go on and on and on. But you get the point, don't you?
Stonewall Jackson's great, great grandson's are out today with an eloquent, wide-ranging statement regarding the effect of Confederate statues and the effects of that representation of a racist and oppressive American world. They felt those statues can no longer be abided. I'm with them.
More We. Less Me.
More unity, less division.
More common man, less "hero."
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
So you prefer...
...an Atlantean culture rather than the war-mongering fasco-state the US has become?