- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I am beginning the analysis from the assumed premise of those advocating for removal of Confederate statutes, the renaming of streets, and renaming of buildings, do so because the statutes, street names, and names of a buildings, refer to a man whose conduct promoted racial inequality and/or personally supported racially inequality.
For support of this assumption, I refer to the following links.
Professor Tobin, in his article to the New York Post, eloquently asserted we should be asking the question of where does this end. "[T]he question of toppling statues must be addressed." http://nypost.com/2017/08/16/the-questions-that-must-be-asked-before-toppling-historic-statues/
I am not opposed to the removal of the Confederate statutes, however, a limiting principle is needed to preclude a public erasure of Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and Jefferson. To be sure, all of them held racist views of blacks, some owned slaves, and if the logic of those expressed in the link above is followed to its logical conclusion, then Lincoln needs to be deposed of his throne in the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., along with the removal of public displays of the other men and cleansing of their names and faces from streets, buildings, and U.S. currency.
Illya Somin attempts to abate the avalanche of eradicating public displays of these men and use of their names by invoking the following distinction.
Tobin invoked a similar distinction:
"While many of America’s Founding Fathers owned slaves, there’s a clear difference between their hypocrisy and those who sought to destroy the republic they created in order to safeguard slavery.
While we honor Washington and Jefferson for their defense of freedom, symbols like the Confederate battle flag and many of the monuments to that lost cause are more about the defense of Jim Crow than the memory of the Civil War."
This may be true, but does not adequately address the objection people have to the public display of Lee and other prominent Confederate soldiers/politicians. The public depiction of these men, and use of their names for streets and buildings, isn't because they were traitors but rather because they were racists.
Finally, Somin does invoke a principle I am increasingly beginning to believe is the right approach.
"Some try to justify continuing to honor Confederates because we honor many other historical figures who committed various moral wrongs. For example, many of the Founding Fathers also owned slaves, just like many leading Confederates did. But the Founders deserve commemoration because their complicity in slavery was outweighed by other, more positive achievements, such as establishing the Constitution...In some instances, of course, the question of whether the good a historical figure did in one area outweighs the evil he did in another is a legitimately close one. For example, I believe that Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst of all the presidents, and have no objection to renaming the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. But I can understand progressives who argue that his racism and other flaws were outweighed by the good they believe he did on other issues."
I favor this approach. This approach has the benefit of acknowledging human beings are flawed and not perfect. They are, hopefully, to be judged by the totality of their lives. To be sure, some conduct can be so reprehensible as to never be ameliorated by the other positive actions taken in their lives. (I'd but Hitler and the upper echelon of his ruling party in this group). Lincoln, Jefferson, and Madison, while possessing racist views, should be judged by the totality of their lives, and despite their flaws, worthy of public remembrance for the positive impacts they had, far outweighing the negative, and there being no conduct so reprehensible as to outweigh their positive contributions. This is the approach I'd take.
For support of this assumption, I refer to the following links.
"Over the last several years, efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces have gathered steam because more and more people are coming to realize that government should not honor people who principal claim to fame was fighting a war in defense of the evil institution of slavery." Opinion | Why slippery slope arguments should not stop us from removing Confederate monuments
"Welcome to Yawkey Way...The designation honors a former Red Sox owner, Thomas Yawkey, a member of the Hall of Fame whose long tenure remains infamous to some because of his resistance to efforts to integrate baseball in the 1950s.”Red Sox Renew Push to Rename Yawkey Way Amid Monument Debate
"one group has proposed renaming Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, which is named after Peter Faneuil, a slave trader in the 1700s." Red Sox Renew Push to Rename Yawkey Way Amid Monument Debate
"ome liberals believe requires us to tear down memorials to those associated with slavery, or, as in the case of TR, prone to say some things that would be judged politically incorrect in the 21st century...the-questions-that-must-be-asked-before-toppling-historic-statues
"Welcome to Yawkey Way...The designation honors a former Red Sox owner, Thomas Yawkey, a member of the Hall of Fame whose long tenure remains infamous to some because of his resistance to efforts to integrate baseball in the 1950s.”Red Sox Renew Push to Rename Yawkey Way Amid Monument Debate
"one group has proposed renaming Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, which is named after Peter Faneuil, a slave trader in the 1700s." Red Sox Renew Push to Rename Yawkey Way Amid Monument Debate
"
Professor Tobin, in his article to the New York Post, eloquently asserted we should be asking the question of where does this end. "[T]he question of toppling statues must be addressed." http://nypost.com/2017/08/16/the-questions-that-must-be-asked-before-toppling-historic-statues/
I am not opposed to the removal of the Confederate statutes, however, a limiting principle is needed to preclude a public erasure of Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and Jefferson. To be sure, all of them held racist views of blacks, some owned slaves, and if the logic of those expressed in the link above is followed to its logical conclusion, then Lincoln needs to be deposed of his throne in the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., along with the removal of public displays of the other men and cleansing of their names and faces from streets, buildings, and U.S. currency.
Illya Somin attempts to abate the avalanche of eradicating public displays of these men and use of their names by invoking the following distinction.
"One crucial distinction it misses is that few if any monuments to Washington, Jefferson and other slaveowning Founders were erected for the specific purpose of honoring their slaveholding. By contrast, the vast majority of monuments to Confederate leaders were erected to honor their service to the Confederacy, whose main reason for existing was to protect and extend slavery." Opinion | Why slippery slope arguments should not stop us from removing Confederate monuments
Somin's distinction isn't tenable. I am doubtful a depiction of Robert E. Lee is less objectionable on the basis he is clothed in a suit, with a peace sign affixed to his lapel, and is assisting a wounded dove. This doesn't change the fact the man possessed racist ideology and his actions were to defend the perpetuation of racial inequality . To emphasize my point, I am doubtful Jews will perceive a picture of the German general Rommel in a tuxedo with his children as less objectionable than in his military uniform because, regardless of how he is depicted, he was a man whose actions were to defend the perpetuation of racial inequality in Germany. The objection to the public depiction of Lee, and others, is on the basis they were racist, had racist beliefs, espoused racist ideology, promoted and/or advocated racial inequality, and not on the basis of their service in the Confederacy.
Tobin invoked a similar distinction:
"While many of America’s Founding Fathers owned slaves, there’s a clear difference between their hypocrisy and those who sought to destroy the republic they created in order to safeguard slavery.
While we honor Washington and Jefferson for their defense of freedom, symbols like the Confederate battle flag and many of the monuments to that lost cause are more about the defense of Jim Crow than the memory of the Civil War."
This may be true, but does not adequately address the objection people have to the public display of Lee and other prominent Confederate soldiers/politicians. The public depiction of these men, and use of their names for streets and buildings, isn't because they were traitors but rather because they were racists.
Finally, Somin does invoke a principle I am increasingly beginning to believe is the right approach.
"Some try to justify continuing to honor Confederates because we honor many other historical figures who committed various moral wrongs. For example, many of the Founding Fathers also owned slaves, just like many leading Confederates did. But the Founders deserve commemoration because their complicity in slavery was outweighed by other, more positive achievements, such as establishing the Constitution...In some instances, of course, the question of whether the good a historical figure did in one area outweighs the evil he did in another is a legitimately close one. For example, I believe that Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst of all the presidents, and have no objection to renaming the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. But I can understand progressives who argue that his racism and other flaws were outweighed by the good they believe he did on other issues."
