When we toured the US Capitol in January I was astounded to find myself standing between Rosa Parks & Alexander Stephens, both sitting in statuary hall... But I guess that's a kinda perfect US History moment.
I wonder -- The statue choices are up to the STATES, but CONGRESS has authority over Statuary Hall itself -- Would it be easier to just change the mission statement to something like, "A hodge-podge collection of heroes & villains from US history, creating space for interesting conversations &c. &c."??
As I pointed out in the post, the House passed legislation that attempted to remove the Confederate statues, but it failed to pass in the Senate. I'm not a fan of this approach. I believe that these changes need to come from the states. People who visit the Capitol Building can and should voice their concerns with their representatives and senators if they would like to see their statues removed or replaced.
Slavery was terrible both here and abroad. That said, like it or not, globally slavery was an institution In the centuries preceding the civil war and victimized people of all races. It is still prevalent in many Islamic countries today.
Are we to erase all of the sins of every leader given the current mores of the day? Did we not fight a war? When do we come for Washington, Jefferson and Madison? Food for thought.
Never. Annette Gordon-Reed--leader of the historians who recognize TJ as the father of kids by Sally Hemings--is right. The criterion is simple: Did the historic figure in question add or detract from the effort to create a more perfect union? By her criterion, those three slaveholders are in, and people who tried hard to perpetuate (and expand!) crimes against humanity are out.
> globally slavery was an institution In the
> centuries preceding the civil war and
> victimized people of all races.
Even if the quarter-millennium of North American chattel slavery had not intensified the evil by intricately institutionalizing it, that'd still be a false dodge for the country that, nearly a century before emancipation, had claimed to found itself on principles of human rights and individual human dignity--and that had seen its abolitionism grow for many antebellum decades.
I especially applaud the Annette Gordon-Reed criterion.
In contrast with those who say contemporary enslavement is isolated, i.e. to Islamic countries, consider:
-- PRC enslaves Uighurs, Tibetans, all other religionists, and by its mind-control, all of its residents. Not sure if its laissez-faire factory labor policies constitute slavery: they and their recent ancestors starved to death, both deliberately (e.g. Mao) and by nature.
-- the USA continues to enslave Native Americans and immigrant labor. It is making a concerted effort to more fully enslave half the population by taking away reproductive choice. Stephen Miller is leading the drive to renew the FDR concentration camps my people were forced to self-deport into, for "occupancy" by anyone #47 (and Miller) hates.
-- At least three other Asian nations practice slavery:
-PRNK enslaves everyone;
-Myanmar's generals appear to be failing despite PRC help (but nobody there likes the Muslim minority);
-Vietnam continues to perform PRC-like religious persecutions (they are sooo crazy about it, Hanoi asked ME to carry a letter to a high US office-holder explaining why they were right and she was wrong!) (I declined, and not politely.)
-- If you don't like my list, construct your own.
-- Non-apologies to all other nations and cultures space limits force me to overlook.
Ghastly thought: Lincoln and his adherents, are we on the losing side after all?
Absolutely understand. Context is certainly important. I’m from Virginia, our history has the extremes of good and bad. Every age to a certain extent does. I think in many cases, deny history and erasing it is worse than the discussion it may bring.
To deny continuation of public honor for a figure from history is not even remotely to "deny history." Any community, city, state, or nation has a perfect natural right to secede from its own past decisions about public honor for historic figures.
And you can't "erase history" without a time machine--and without substantial power and influence once you somehow arrive in the past to conduct the erasure. Replacing a statue does not involve erasure or destruction of books, articles, libraries, museums, documentaries, historic sites--or Substack newsletters.
What do you think of Mohammed Steven? Should we ban reference to the Prophet who fundamentally advocated for slavery and massacred all the men of the Banu Qurayza and took their women and children as slaves and sex slaves? His followers took our citizens as slaves in the early 1800’s before they were freed in the Barbary war? Should we ban Any physical reference to such a person?
Banning history is a slippery slope.
Our history, in the context of our global society is distinguished for working hard towards a better and open society.
I think you're overdoing it. Don't just blame Mohammedans; Christians were murdering each other in, e.g., the Former Yugoslavia.
Troglodytes have convinced themselves that they are "working for a free and open society" -- but these are just retreads of their old tenets. Instead of lynching, e.g., they fasten on being anti-DEI. In the process they find a cause to feel noble and non-bigoted about.
Almost all "ancient" religions (I'd say, older than 10 years old) have roots in practices and beliefs I hope most of us in this century abhor. Only a few that survived, didn't. The issue is whether we can reform these ancient institutions we choose to invest in. Not seeing a lot of forward progress!
I include ancient financial institutions: the rich (and ancient!) troglodytes are murdering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in its crib. Twice and counting. Making money is a commandment older than religion. How honestly we make (and share) it is honored only in the breech! Furthermore, when you get it, keeping it for yerself is as fervently pursued as a commandment. Let us now File our holy 1040s. (Why bother, come to think of it? The Congressional GOP has taken away the Blue $10B that were hiring new IRS tax accountants and agents!)
The Second Confederacy is Rising Again, under the cover of "2A"; the Second Lincoln (my Lincoln pennies are bet on Senator Warren) will find the cupboard bare of financial instruments!
- The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
- The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad)
Which is why we don't lie to ourselves and to the world about some crackpot supposed need for public honor for perpetrators of crimes against humanity--and why you ought, at some point, to stop and think about the difference between
* a community's public honor for a historic figure and
I completely agree with you. We need to recognize and explore the complexity of our shared history, but the good thing is that our history cannot be erased. In fact, I like to point out that the efforts on the part of this administration to do just that is itself a recognition of the continued work on the part of teachers, public historians, and historians to present history in all of its complexity--as you say the "good and bad."
There's a key difference between "remembering" and "celebrating in a place of honor" -- Statuary Hall's mission is to feature "deceased persons ... illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services." So does Stephens' presence amount to a collective civic assertion that his role in US history was somehow "illustrious" & "distinguished"?
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Slavery has a very long history, but the question that these statues pose is whether they represent the values and history that WE should strive to embrace. Stephens was selected BECAUSE of his connection to the Confederacy. No one is suggesting that we not study Stephens as a historical figure or the Confederacy. Again, the question is whether he best represents the people of Georgia.
Yes! Get Stephens out of there!
Great idea!
About time... Hope this time it can happen. 🤞
When we toured the US Capitol in January I was astounded to find myself standing between Rosa Parks & Alexander Stephens, both sitting in statuary hall... But I guess that's a kinda perfect US History moment.
Hi Marek,
I know what you mean, but the relationship of those two statues certainly creates the space for an interesting conversation for visitors.
It certainly did for me.
I wonder -- The statue choices are up to the STATES, but CONGRESS has authority over Statuary Hall itself -- Would it be easier to just change the mission statement to something like, "A hodge-podge collection of heroes & villains from US history, creating space for interesting conversations &c. &c."??
As I pointed out in the post, the House passed legislation that attempted to remove the Confederate statues, but it failed to pass in the Senate. I'm not a fan of this approach. I believe that these changes need to come from the states. People who visit the Capitol Building can and should voice their concerns with their representatives and senators if they would like to see their statues removed or replaced.
Thanks -- Yes, I shouldn't be tongue-in-cheek about it. As usual local / state level action is preferable to looking to Congress to solve an issue.
Slavery was terrible both here and abroad. That said, like it or not, globally slavery was an institution In the centuries preceding the civil war and victimized people of all races. It is still prevalent in many Islamic countries today.
Are we to erase all of the sins of every leader given the current mores of the day? Did we not fight a war? When do we come for Washington, Jefferson and Madison? Food for thought.
> When do we come for Washington,
> Jefferson and Madison?
Never. Annette Gordon-Reed--leader of the historians who recognize TJ as the father of kids by Sally Hemings--is right. The criterion is simple: Did the historic figure in question add or detract from the effort to create a more perfect union? By her criterion, those three slaveholders are in, and people who tried hard to perpetuate (and expand!) crimes against humanity are out.
> globally slavery was an institution In the
> centuries preceding the civil war and
> victimized people of all races.
Even if the quarter-millennium of North American chattel slavery had not intensified the evil by intricately institutionalizing it, that'd still be a false dodge for the country that, nearly a century before emancipation, had claimed to found itself on principles of human rights and individual human dignity--and that had seen its abolitionism grow for many antebellum decades.
I especially applaud the Annette Gordon-Reed criterion.
In contrast with those who say contemporary enslavement is isolated, i.e. to Islamic countries, consider:
-- PRC enslaves Uighurs, Tibetans, all other religionists, and by its mind-control, all of its residents. Not sure if its laissez-faire factory labor policies constitute slavery: they and their recent ancestors starved to death, both deliberately (e.g. Mao) and by nature.
-- the USA continues to enslave Native Americans and immigrant labor. It is making a concerted effort to more fully enslave half the population by taking away reproductive choice. Stephen Miller is leading the drive to renew the FDR concentration camps my people were forced to self-deport into, for "occupancy" by anyone #47 (and Miller) hates.
-- At least three other Asian nations practice slavery:
-PRNK enslaves everyone;
-Myanmar's generals appear to be failing despite PRC help (but nobody there likes the Muslim minority);
-Vietnam continues to perform PRC-like religious persecutions (they are sooo crazy about it, Hanoi asked ME to carry a letter to a high US office-holder explaining why they were right and she was wrong!) (I declined, and not politely.)
-- If you don't like my list, construct your own.
-- Non-apologies to all other nations and cultures space limits force me to overlook.
Ghastly thought: Lincoln and his adherents, are we on the losing side after all?
Absolutely understand. Context is certainly important. I’m from Virginia, our history has the extremes of good and bad. Every age to a certain extent does. I think in many cases, deny history and erasing it is worse than the discussion it may bring.
Good discussion. Thanks.
> deny history and erasing it
To deny continuation of public honor for a figure from history is not even remotely to "deny history." Any community, city, state, or nation has a perfect natural right to secede from its own past decisions about public honor for historic figures.
And you can't "erase history" without a time machine--and without substantial power and influence once you somehow arrive in the past to conduct the erasure. Replacing a statue does not involve erasure or destruction of books, articles, libraries, museums, documentaries, historic sites--or Substack newsletters.
What do you think of Mohammed Steven? Should we ban reference to the Prophet who fundamentally advocated for slavery and massacred all the men of the Banu Qurayza and took their women and children as slaves and sex slaves? His followers took our citizens as slaves in the early 1800’s before they were freed in the Barbary war? Should we ban Any physical reference to such a person?
Banning history is a slippery slope.
Our history, in the context of our global society is distinguished for working hard towards a better and open society.
I think you're overdoing it. Don't just blame Mohammedans; Christians were murdering each other in, e.g., the Former Yugoslavia.
Troglodytes have convinced themselves that they are "working for a free and open society" -- but these are just retreads of their old tenets. Instead of lynching, e.g., they fasten on being anti-DEI. In the process they find a cause to feel noble and non-bigoted about.
Almost all "ancient" religions (I'd say, older than 10 years old) have roots in practices and beliefs I hope most of us in this century abhor. Only a few that survived, didn't. The issue is whether we can reform these ancient institutions we choose to invest in. Not seeing a lot of forward progress!
I include ancient financial institutions: the rich (and ancient!) troglodytes are murdering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in its crib. Twice and counting. Making money is a commandment older than religion. How honestly we make (and share) it is honored only in the breech! Furthermore, when you get it, keeping it for yerself is as fervently pursued as a commandment. Let us now File our holy 1040s. (Why bother, come to think of it? The Congressional GOP has taken away the Blue $10B that were hiring new IRS tax accountants and agents!)
The Second Confederacy is Rising Again, under the cover of "2A"; the Second Lincoln (my Lincoln pennies are bet on Senator Warren) will find the cupboard bare of financial instruments!
BS. Sad. Not true.
The Hamas Foundational Covenant.
- The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
- The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad)
If your first line implies disagreement with all I said, then fine.
However, I entirely agree with your diagnosis of Hamas. Direct lineage from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi Germany.
> Our history, in the context of our global
> society is distinguished for working hard
> towards a better and open society.
Which is why we don't lie to ourselves and to the world about some crackpot supposed need for public honor for perpetrators of crimes against humanity--and why you ought, at some point, to stop and think about the difference between
* a community's public honor for a historic figure and
* public memory and awareness of history itself.
You could start with Kevin's nearby reply to you.
No one is “banning history.” The question is whether specific statutes accurately reflect the collective values of a community.
I completely agree with you. We need to recognize and explore the complexity of our shared history, but the good thing is that our history cannot be erased. In fact, I like to point out that the efforts on the part of this administration to do just that is itself a recognition of the continued work on the part of teachers, public historians, and historians to present history in all of its complexity--as you say the "good and bad."
There's a key difference between "remembering" and "celebrating in a place of honor" -- Statuary Hall's mission is to feature "deceased persons ... illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services." So does Stephens' presence amount to a collective civic assertion that his role in US history was somehow "illustrious" & "distinguished"?
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Slavery has a very long history, but the question that these statues pose is whether they represent the values and history that WE should strive to embrace. Stephens was selected BECAUSE of his connection to the Confederacy. No one is suggesting that we not study Stephens as a historical figure or the Confederacy. Again, the question is whether he best represents the people of Georgia.