There are two types of people in this world. People who look for the bad in people and those who look for the good. What is said individual trying to accomplish? What do they represent? What defines good and what defines bad?
With recent news about historical statues being torn down and debate that others should be torn down, I took some time to sit back and evaluate my stance on it. For me, it's always going to be on a case by case basis. I fully support the removal of any Confederate statues. Not the destruction, however. They should be preserved locked away, as they are a part of history, and the preservation of history will always be important. It's a big reason why Auschwitz still stands today. However, statues, though representative of history, are a bit different than historical sites like Auschwitz. Statues are usually constructed for idolization or purposes of reverence. They are generally displayed in focal public centers to attract attention. Again, who are these figures? What do they represent? In the case of Confederate statues, they represent an opposition to freedom. An endorsement of slavery. Which is the antithesis of the progress we are trying to reach as a nation right now.
However, I don't feel this way about all statues and monuments. Like I said, I take every one on a case by case basis. I fully support keeping Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill statues and monuments erected in public areas. Retroactive judging seems to be a popular trend these days. One I try my best to avoid, as well as judging others in general. Judging an individual you don't know is always difficult, even more so if they lived in a different time period. We are all a product of the times we live in, whether you can come to terms with that or not. We are influenced by laws, morals, ideals, trends, technology relevant and accepted in our time. I don't have to point out or stress how different things were centuries ago(let alone decades ago). People always tell me "that's not an excuse for committing atrocities." Sure it is. Because certain acts of barbarism may not have been considered atrocities during their time. And if they were by some, it certainly was viewed morally much differently in their respective eras, and was in far greater debate during their times.
Shall I look at Christopher Columbus ravaging, pillaging, and ransacking people and territories? Shall I look at the fact that many of our founding fathers were slave owners? Or shall I look at the good they've done and accomplished for our nation and for the world? What takes precedent? What defines you as a human being? If someone comes up with a universal cure for cancer, but he also is known as a prick who would go to bars and start fights during his free time; is he an asshole or is he a hero? The answer to these questions are entirely subjective, which is why anyone trying to shut down conversation about these statues on any level is pigheaded and ignorant. Whether you are in support in keeping or removing these statues.
I have my own opinions just like anyone else. I tend to look at human beings in a positive light. I think most people are inherently good, but we are all imperfect. I think people should be remembered for their greatest achievements, as long as their greatest errors don't outweight those achievements in magnitude. We, after all, are defined by our actions and accomplishments. Christopher Columbus paved the way for western civilization with his daring voyages. Would we exist right now if not for him? Maybe. I'm sure some other old chap would have eventually explored just as he did, but for now Christopher Columbus is someone who we know accomplished this. His impact on the world will last for as long as human civilization exists, until as long as earth stays orbiting around the sun. I can't speak to what life was back then, but who am I to judge? What would I have been like during those times under the influence of centuries-old values, ideals, and morals? But I'm here, alive, in the United States of America--a part of western civilization, and at least I have that, which counts for something. Something that can be, partially credited to, Christopher Columbus. I, myself, have no personal affinity or adoration for Christopher Columbus himself. I value his contributions to the world entirely in a vacuum.
Our founding fathers owned slaves. They also laid the ground work and set up the foundation for everything this country, once it became an independent nation has ever built or achieved. Are we to be so vindictive and so shortsighted that we cannot lament some of their actions on the micro level, but laud their amazing accomplishments on the macro level? The Constitution and Declaration of Independence still hold up incredibly well today, and these documents were written hundreds of years ago. Think about how forward-thinking, influential, and bright these minds have to be to achieve such a feat. There are nations that exist today in 2020 whose freedoms and ideals are less up to date than those of men who established them in the late 1700s, and gave us the guide to establish most legal and moral precedents that still exist today in American culture and society. Do the achievements of these men outweigh any transgressions they may have done? I think so.
Despite not being an American, the Winston Churchill debate might be the one that bothers me most of all. History might suggest that Winston Churchill had racist beliefs or prejudices against Jews, Muslims, Native Americans and Africans. Churchill is also criticized for the bombing of Dresden as a retaliatory strike, when Dresden had no geographical significance to the war at that point, and the killing of innocent German lives. I don't know what was in Winston Churchill's heart, so I can't confirm or deny any racist claims. I will say if he was a racist, he certainly wouldn't be unique during those times. What I can tell you is that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of the biggest racist and white supremacist the earth has ever seen in Adolf Hitler. Without Winston Churchill's bravery, wit, and stubbornness, World War II might have gone far differently. Neville Chamberlain was a coward. He didn't have the guts to stand up to Hitler and sat by naively and foolishly thinking he wouldn't expand territory and eventually turn his sights further west. Churchill knew this, he fought for this, and his people rallied around him.
The Battle of Britain was said by historians to almost be an impossible task and one of the many turning points in the war. Vastly outnumbered and out-manned, Britain had to fend off waves of attacks by a superior force with determination and grit carrying them, as a sitting duck out there in the Atlantic. And they did so successfully against the odds. A determined British people who showed incredible patriotism, sparked by Churchill's bravery. Had Britain fallen, Nazi Germany would have nothing in between them and the United States other than the Atlantic Ocean. Would we as Americans be around today if not for Churchill? Impossible to say. I tend to think Hitler's ambition would have ended him eventually, but I can't say for sure. But to demonize a man responsible for your very freedoms and the fact that most British citizens would not be alive today if not for him makes him one of the most important figures in the history of that nation. And wanting to tear down any monuments of him is a slap in the face to his role in taking down the greatest evil our world has ever seen and making sure Britain stands as what it remains today. Prioritizing his faults over his triumphs, especially those triumphs directly contributed to the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany is cynical or ungrateful at best.
The acts of trying to remove or erase history, and shutting down freedom of expression and thought are not acts of progress, but acts of power and control. They set a horrible precedent, and history shows us these are things you typically see from fascist dictatorships. People who want to control the narrative and minds of the general population by shutting subjective things down they themselves have deemed as "wrong." These are the kinds of tactics you saw from Nazi Germany and ISIS. Does that mean that these people are evil white supremacists or vicious terrorists? No, of course not. But those groups are not the kinds of people you want to be emulating, I can tell you that much. It's a radical movement masquerading as liberalism, but in actuality stands against traditional liberal values.
A hundred years from now, future generations may look back on us and shame us for things we do today that are commonplace and hasn't even dawned on us to be morally wrong. Maybe one day hunting will be banned globally and anyone who has ever hunted will be condemned. Or anyone who ever drove a gasoline-powered vehicle and contribution to pollution. Anyone who operated a factory, who owned horses, who went to a zoo, who bought products constructed in Chinese sweatshops. Hell, maybe something innocuous as not wearing a mask every single day in public, because in future it will be permanently mandatory. Does that make us evil? Does that mean we shouldn't be honored, remembered, or celebrated? Or maybe you are just afraid that if you allow yourself to open your mind and change the context in which you view things, that your beliefs will change and that's what bothers you more than anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment