Most of the confederate statues were erected during Jim Crow or civil rights eras. They were not erected right after the war (losing sides of wars don’t erect monuments). That is the objection many people have to those statues . Nothing about traitors.
I find the Roosevelt memorial in DC to be very moving and well-designed, but at its center is an old-school realistic statue of FDR sitting in a chair. I am assigning “Snow Falling On Cedars” in a class I am teaching in the fall on literature and the law. This novel deals in great part with the fallout of FDR’s order to put Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps in California. I find there is a certain partisan- and region-based bias re which historical figures get censured and which ones get lionized. FDR put American citizens in concentration camps. He also crafted the New Deal and won a world war against fascism. For what should he be primarily judged?
Maybe we are so fractured and polarized as a political community that the whole concept of public art just doesn’t make sense anymore.
All of it, of course. Many other historical figures had mixed historical legacies.
But then some historical figures’ primary historical legacies are all on what most people today would see on the negative side of the ledger, even by the standards of the time they lived. For example, John Calhoun, best known for strident defense of slavery while in the Senate. Or Nathan Bedford Forrest, whose troops massacred troops who surrendered, and joined and became a leader of a terrorist group after the war (i.e. particularly unsavory even for a Confederate).
There is a big shift in the court of American opinion going on at this very moment. Just as one year gay marriage was beyond the pale and the next year there was a consensus that it was a good thing, “I can’t breathe” and “Black Lives Matter” have seized the American consensus. Sure, there may be some back-and-forth before the proper balance is found, but here we are, in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, changing our minds as Americans.
If we judge historical personages by utilitarian standards (greatest good for the greatest number), then it is easy to argue that the effects of European colonization of North America, most easily symbolized by Mt. Rushmore in the heart of the Black Hills (Paha Sapa), is justified by the fact that the millions worldwide who benefited from the establishment and expansion of the American republic vastly outnumber the indigenous peoples who suffered from it.
I read an excellent book, Lakota America, by a Finnish historian, Pekka Hamalainen, who outlined the contested nature of this land. The Lakota are relative latecomers to the region and they bullied and displaced the Mandan, Arikara, and Crow. The whole idea of “indigenousness” is based on a sentimental notion of chthonic origins which is largely mythology and not fact. Human history is one long series of wars, migrations, and displacements.
Sadly, I have to concur about public art. It is not worth the expense, effort and division anymore. Just stick with portrayals of pleasant nature or wildlife subjects if the space needs to be filled, and move on to more important issues.
The FDR memorial with its many outdoor rooms should have one that discusses Japanese internment. It is a relatively new memorial built when such sensitivities were considered, like his handicap.
I went to the FDR memorial in the late nineties and I do remember that it dealt with the fact of his handicap, not covering it up. I remember thinking that this was important in terms of representation for people with disabilities. On the other hand, FDR had immense power and his disability does not excuse him from judgment. He should not have had to hide his disability, but he should not be defined by it either. I think the monument design did well in this regard.
But could the development of the US been done resulting in even greater good for an even greater number of people if done without (or with less) abuse of Native Americans, and/or without slavery (or with less slavery abolished sooner)?
@ucbalumnus coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Moral perfection in political life (or any other form of life) does not exist. I think it’s important to instruct young Americans in the virtues of their republic, not just its weaknesses, or it will cease to exist. When people lose faith in their community principles, then nihilism and apathy lead to chaos. Once you eliminate patriotism, you can no longer motivate people to act together for the greater good. If everyone is feeling slighted and aggrieved, there can be no forward movement. Unfortunately in the present time we have terrible elites who are incapable of leading a free and dignified people. I apologize to the moderators in advance.
Possibly but why is America singled out? Throughout history there has been conquest, slavery, torture, disenfranchisement etc and those things are still happening right now all around the world but only America is chastised and demonized for it. We fought a war to end slavery, we’ve passed laws and spent untold trillions to rectify and apologize for it. America should not forget the mistakes and poor choices made in the past, she shd learn from them and continue to work to be a better country but she also provides more opportunities than most countries and millions of people hope to make America their home every year.
I don’t support the confederate statues and I hope they are removed. I’m disappointed it’s taken so long to do so.
When they were pulling statues down in England, they stopped short of toppling Rhodes. They still like his contributions to education (and money). Students around the world are still applying for and accepting Rhodes scholarships.
Doesn’t the same apply to your comparison between the actual history versus a hypothetical one lacking European colonization of North America?
Because most of us here in these forums are Americans living in the US, and thus most familiar with US history and its legacy to current life in the US versus the history of other countries (beyond their major interactions with the US) and the legacy to current life in those other countries?
Note that the original Patriots of the American Revolution were opponents of the then-current government. And they had lots of grievances against that then-current government.
@ucbalumnus I don’t understand the distinctions you’re trying to draw.
Do you feel that revolution is justified now? Should people lose their lives or pledge their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to removing the current government? I don’t. Reform, yes. Revolution, no.
You complained about what you see as eliminating patriotism (which you implied to mean liking the country as it is – “I think it’s important to instruct young Americans in the virtues of their republic, not just its weaknesses”) and people feeling slighted and aggrieved. Patriotism, as modeled by the original Patriots of the American Revolution, was motivated by people feeling slighted and aggrieved and wanting make something better than the current government (they were, however, opposed by the Loyalists/Tories). In their case, they felt that they needed to launch a revolution. Now, probably most slighted and aggrieved patriots will prefer to overthrow the government at the ballot box (although some fear that there will be shenanigans against their voting rights resulting in a stolen election), at least for now.
I’m fine with people voting to effect the changes they wish to see. However, a battle over the general cultural narrative (“we’re great” vs. “we suck”) is what is going on now and I don’t think the “we suck” narrative is of any value (political, moral, or pragmatic).
I don’t think most young Americans are very aware of history. They used to be fed a gung-ho narrative of manifest destiny. Now they’re fed a Howard Zinn-derived narrative of “America is terrible and a lie.” Neither one is useful or accurate.
I hope we can all please stop with confederate red herring. There is universal support for moving them elsewhere on this thread. That’s not the issue being discussed. That’s not in debate here.
The question that is being raised is related to more historically nuanced and influential historical figures with great contributions and great human failings as well like founders fdr and Lincoln as example.
I didn’t think they are simply American history. They are part of world history. They help shape the base for freedom to grow and constitutions around the world.
That’s the question. And the conversation is healthy. The op started the dialogue around the idea of whether the rioters have the right to do so unilaterally. I say no. I am open to listening.
Marginal players like Calhoun can go to, could care less.
Lastly. We all know how the pyramids and other historic places were built. Not a pretty picture. But human and important to discuss it all and in context.
Would we be ok with them being dynamited by a mob of any sort? If the answer is yes. Then we just simply disagree.
Our historical monuments of some of the major world influencers are not the same as confederate statues.
If we are going to rename w and l. It’s ok to remove the lee part. It’s the Washington part that’s on the table in this thread the way I read it.
@privatebanker, I think you make a useful distinction regarding Washington and Lee. Lee, whom I respect in some ways, is renowned solely as a Confederate general, so if we have a statue of him, we are celebrating his performance and accomplishments as a Confederate general. Until recently, I’d been OK with the idea that by leaving the statues of Lee and other Confederate soldiers in place, we were providing ourselves with a reminder of our history, but that time has clearly passed, people in the areas where these statues are located have reached a decision, and the statues must come down. Washington’s a different story. He was a slave owner, but that is not why he is renowned - he is renowned because he was the Commander of the Revolutionary Army and the first President of the United States, with the strength of character to step down at the end of his term and allow the country to develop as a true republic. Balancing all of that is more difficult than dealing with the Confederate statues. As Tammy Duckworth wisely said, we should have an open dialogue, we should take our time and make the right decision. For my part, I would probably keep the statues. I never found history interesting until my history teacher in my senior year in high school taught us about Lincoln and I realized that even Honest Abe was a full-blown human being with his own flaws. And reading Ron Chernow’s Hamilton, it was very striking how the issue of slavery was red-hot even as the nation was being formed. Hamilton hated it, but the entire economy of the South was dependent on the foul institution. If the issue had been fought to a resolution then, we probably wouldn’t have a United States of America at all, but until we settle it finally, we will have to keep refighting it, as in the Civil War, as in the battles leading up the the Civil Rights Act, as in Black Lives Matter. I think we have a chance now, but we all have to keep our cool and listen to each other.