Samira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe because those people owned slaves, and eventually the aggression will be directed against anyone who participated in the practice?
I mean, that's a conversation worth having on its own merits. Think about the pedestals we put people on, and how we insist that our heroes are always and only heroes.
How much more interesting it would be to study these remarkable individuals as complete people, with virtues and flaws and odd quirks and redeeming qualities. Yes, Washington owned slaves; Jefferson not only owned slaves but took sexual advantage of several. We know that, but we never SAY it, and it's worth talking about. I don't think it's a matter of tearing down heroes, but of humanizing people who actually lived and breathed and made decisions that echo down the long centuries.
Great points.
I think context is one of the harder things to keep in mind. A simple example: prior to the publishing of Black Beauty there was minimal media attention given to animals having rights/feelings/thoughts. This doesn't mean every farmer in the dark ages abused their sheep, but it may also mean the standard of care that was in the "acceptable range" may well have been akin to deplorable or inhumane today. This makes it very hard to see historical figures as heroes through a modern lens if we can't remind ourselves of the context around their lives.
Then take a historical figure like Robert E. Lee, how many people view him as a hero because Luke and Bo Duke told them so when they were 8 years old and have never actually really looked into him? This is not saying he isn't a hero in the context of his time & place, but heroes don't always resonate into the future. Dukes of Hazzard presented an aw-shucks Southern Pride with no sense of menace to it including a confederate flag as a stylish, harmless badge. If that was all anyone ever did with a confederate flag then it probably wouldn't be seen as a problem by anyone today (as we ignore history for the convenience of modern thinking). But that is not the way some people are using it and not the rhetoric of the days it was created for.
If your symbol is used to brand hate, you've lost that symbol (look how fast the Detroit Red Wings voiced nonsupport of their logo being at that rally). The former good luck symbol known as the swastika is a great example of this. Any kid that watched the Dukes and believed in those characters would not expect them to run people over at a rally in the General Lee --they'd repaint the car with the state flag or something (though Georgia's new flag still connects to the confederate history) and help solve the argument, being the good-guy good ol' boys.
The American Civil war is a complicated mess of state rights and political ploys and there is a lot to do with the economic impact of slavery rather than just grand notions of equality if one digs into the records of the time. I would hope the one takeway from it would be that Americans don't need to ever kill Americans again over political views. Maybe that is naive (Ohio State...), but I prefer hopeful.
Then you have recent events where some people are dressing **** and a person gets killed. Freedom of speech and thought are great, but security of person (freedom from hate) of a group trumps an individual's right to say or do what they want. If someone threatens America we stand together as Americans --even if that threat is an American, right? (asking as a Canadian... we've got our own issues. One of them is that it freaks us out when the USA is chaotic... which the last nearly year has been)
I'd go further to say that the price was paid in WWII that the **** card is not one you get to play, period. Certainly not one you can play and have any credibility as a rationale thinker.