Toppling Statues?

A recent e-mail exchange on the razing of statues and memorials, for instance, of Columbus and  Robert E. Lee, led to some thinking about history and its figures.  What questions do history and its personalities raise?  How are we to evaluate them?  What lessons can we learn, if any?  Is it "fair" to judge the past and others in the past using today's standards of morality and ethics?  (We'd better be careful with that one!)  Do contributions and "sins" carry the same weight?

Three names immediately come to mind:  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson.  All have come under attack in recent years, if not longer.  All three owned slaves and, to boot, Jackson initiated "The Trail of Tears" aimed at Indians.

Jefferson, of course, wrote the American Creed in the form of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  He referred to the young United States as "the Empire of Liberty."  How could the man who wrote these stirring words also have owned, over his lifetime, more than 600 slaves?  And he knew it was wrong, morally if not practically.  He equated slavery with holding a "wolf by the ear...  We can neither hold him nor safely let him go.  Justice is in one scale and self-preservation in the other."  Yet he did own slaves.  Of those hundred, he emancipated but seven, five after his death.  Several others, purportedly of the Sally Hemings family, ran away and he didn't bother to chase them down.  

Slavery was legal and, in many eyes, moral--even in the North.  But there was a great deal of literature that criticized slavery and slave owners.  Jefferson, as noted, knew slavery was morally wrong ("justice in one scale", but a practical necessity for him ("self-preservation").  Yet, the Declaration of Independence is perhaps the greatest document of liberty ever written and Jefferson wrote it.

Do his achievements, great though they are (and I didn't list nearly all of them), atone for being a slaver?  The Jefferson Memorial,  The University of Virginia.  Are they legitimate targets for protests?

Andrew Jackson also owned slaves, destroyed Indian life, and was generally not a nice person.  Yet, if not personally, at least by aura of his personality, Jackson boosted participation in American democracy.  Voting, party politics (much of the work done by Martin Van Buren), the spoils system, and more grew during his two administrations.  Do we, say, take his portrait off the $20 bill, remove his statues, change the names of myriad cities named after him, etc.?  Again, sins v achievements.  I have no crystal ball, but I think I can make the argument that "No Jackson, No Abraham Lincoln" 30 years later.  And where would the US be without Lincoln??????

Washington also owned slaves and is the biggest enigma for me.  Almost certainly, there would have been no USA without Washington.  He was one of the two or three primary reasons the colonists (now Americans) defeated the British in what was undoubtedly "the upset of the 18th Century."  His mere presence and often mere tacit approval of the Constitution gave it immediate legitimacy to a people deeply divided over its ratification.  And without Washington as the first President, it is also likely that the fragile new nation would have collapsed.  Do the protesters topple the Washington Monument and more?  

But more significant to me with Washington, the big enigma, reflects on his character.  There can be no doubt of his physical courage.  Perhaps the wealthiest man in the colonies, he risked his fortune  for his country.  More, in accepting the command of the Continental Army, he was, in effect, signing his own death warrant.  He exhibited great physical and, even in some sense, moral courage.

But he owned slaves and knew that was wrong.  In his will, he decreed that all of his 100+ were to be freed--not after his death, but the death of Martha.  He had wrestled with the problem of owning slaves and talked about ending slavery.  But he never did. Why not?  To maintain his plantation at Mt. Vernon, that is, his fortune?  Was he intimidated by his social and economic standing?  That is, was the peer pressure of his fellow Virginian slave owners too much to overcome for him?  Did he lack the moral courage, in the face of others in his social and economic class, to free his slaves until after his death, when he would not have to encounter what would have been their scathing disapprobation and criticism?  No, Washington was certainly not a physical coward, but morally??????  He stood up to the mightiest army in the world, but he couldn't or wouldn't stand up to his fellow Virginia slave owners.

People are imperfect.  They have flaws.  They are also, mostly, products of their times, of their times, not ours.  We might be wise in remembering that before our almost knee-jerk reactions to raze statues and memorials of the past.

Thoughts on an Early Sun AM

According to The Blogger, this is my 1200 blog post.  I don't know if that is a lot or not.  I don't recall my first blog post or even the year it was written.  It just seems like a long time, "1200" posts.

BTW, thank you Rachel G!  I don't always see the comments right away, but eventually I get to them.  Where are you teaching?

We sure live in strange times.  They seem to be out of a novel, one that is quite far-fetched.  "Defund the Police!"  Huh?  That really is stupid.  Obviously some reforms/changes are needed, but "Defund.....?"  To lump all police officers as "racists" is just like lumping all protesters as "rioters."  Why is it permissible to make one broad, inaccurate generalization, but not another?"

Of course there is racism in this country.  I don't know how prevalent it is.  Some might argue that there isn't any.  I'd say that's naive if not delusional (which is becoming one of my favorite words).  Gee, maybe they are right.  I have never heard anyone say, "Hey, I'm a racist."  I don't know if it is "systemic" or not and am not even sure what that word, "systemic," entails.  I'm inclined to believe it's more of an individual thing, though, and, in 2020, there is too much of it.  

But how carried away can we get?  I read where some university professor (somewhere) has been placed on administrative leave/suspended because he would not change his final examination schedule or grading policy following the demonstrations after George Floyd's death.  There have been people who have lost their jobs because they have uttered or written things that apparently offended others.  Why is "All Lives Matter" offensive enough to be fired?  Really, don't all lives matter?  I would hope everyone would think so.  Isn't picking and choosing whose lives matter a very dangerous, not to mention unsympathetic, thing to do?  I know what some of you are thinking (I have ESPN!) and I agree, but I'm not going there this AM.

Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems those who want to tear down statues and monuments of our not so prideful past (I'm not saying we should or shouldn't raze them, but am saying we need to discuss that--rationally.  There are more than one reason to erect or let stand a statue or monument.) are the same sort who in the past wore tee shirts with the images of  Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, mass murderers both.  OK, I realize many wear those shirts to be trendy, but they must be unaware that, say, Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, probably more than Hitler and Stalin combined.  Well, I hope they are unaware/ignorant, not that they are wearing the tee shirts as statements of support for Mao!

Related, why are professors who do something, for instance, that offends the Black Lives Matter supporters maligned and even fired, while those who still espouse the views of communists (and the hundreds of millions of deaths that lay at their feet) protected by "freedom of speech" or "academic freedom?"  As much as I hate some ideas, I believe that's what freedom of expression entails, protecting the ideas we hate.  We really don't need to protect ideas with which we agree, right?  Although this is misattributed to the French philosophe Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it," I concur wholeheartedly.  

The Protests

There is a lot I don't understand about the current protests occurring daily in the US and apparently now in much of the world.  I'm trying to get my head around them, but some aspects of the marches and demonstrations are illogical, if not stupid.

I certainly understand the racial injustice.  There is still far too much bigotry and discrimination in this country.  (I'll save "affirmative action," "self-destructive practices," etc. for later.)  Anyone who denies that is, in a word I have come to enjoy, delusional.  Of course, nobody will admit to being a bigot.  "I have black friends," they'll say.  I don't really know how widespread it is, but it's there.  Although slavery has been abolished for more than 150 years, I still hold that blacks today wear "the badge of slavery," something that holds them apart, not in a good way, from whites.

But that's not what is troubling me this day.  Why are others in the world staging protests?  Don't they have their own problems to fix?  Yes, racism in the US is troubling, very much so.  A lot of those people should take a good, hard look at how minorities, racial and ethnic, in their countries are treated.  But, for instance, why haven't there been extended world-wide protests over the murders of Christians, gays, etc. by fundamental Islamists?  Where are the mass gatherings to protest the filthy rich oil sheikhs while the rest of the population of their countries live in squalor?  Why did Russia's takeover of Ukrainian land meet with mostly silence?  Where are the global protests over how the commies in China treat their people?  The list goes on.  Oh, there are some actions/protests.  But they don't seem to be anything like what is occurring after George Floyd's murder.  Plus, we really don't need to have the likes of Putin and Xi lecture us on "peaceful protests," do we?

Again, to harken back to one of my posts of a couple of weeks ago, I don't know who to trust, what "facts" to believe.  According to one study, 16 unarmed black men were shot and killed by police officers in 2019.  Of course, that is 16 too many.  (But I don't know the circumstances.  I wasn't there.)  But as a percentage of the black male population, those 16 compose about four/one ten millionths of a percent.  That's six zeroes to the right of the decimal for a percent, which is two more places to right of one.  (Double check my math; my calculator is broken.)

And how does burning, looting, beating, and killing honor the memory of George Floyd?  What sympathy is that going to achieve?  For that matter, what protesters are stupid enough to defile memorials such as that honoring the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment, an all black unit that included the sons (both of them if I recall) of Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln, you know, the man who the emancipated former slaves referred to Biblically as "Father Abraham?"

Why has "all lives matter" become something so terrible to say?  People have even lost their jobs over it.  I guess freedom of speech actually means speech which the anointed approve, that which feeds the agenda.  BTW, did those almost 20 million black babies who were aborted since 1973 "matter?"

Are all those "Black Lives Matter" people going to Chicago next?  Last weekend, there were more than two dozen murders, with twice as many other people wounded in shootings.  After all, if "Black Lives Matter," shouldn't those twenty-five dead be shown the same respect as George Floyd?  What about the families of those murdered people?  I wonder if they are asking, "Hey, didn't my son [daughter, husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister......] matter, too?"  I guess not.

For that matter, there are political leaders--esp at the local level, where they should really know better--called for disbanding or defunding police departments.  Hmmm...... With the police there were a couple dozen murders in Chicago last weekend.  Without the police that number will surely go down, right?  Heh Heh Heh.

People have replied to me, "Not all of the protesters are violent......" or something akin to that.  Well, guess what?  Not all police are racists and bigots.  Not all of them follow the path of racial injustice.  I know, I know.  If we can't lump all of the protesters with their violent cohorts, why can we lump all police officers together?  "But that's different."

History

"...to be a Senator or member of Congress."  How often have I seen this?  It rankles me a great deal.  It shows an incredible ignorance of American government.  The latest example of this comes from a book written by a retired college professor of history.  Shouldn't every American, maybe from the age of 11 or 12 up, know that Congress is made up of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate?  (Note I wrote "Shouldn't," not "Doesn't.")  Therefore, a US Senator is a "member of Congress."  So, if one of our college professors displays such a lack of knowledge of our own government, doesn't it lead to more questions about a lack of knowledge?  And what is this guy teaching his students?

In the same book is a reference to Aaron Burr as a Federalist, twice!  He was a Jeffersonian Republican, running Jefferson's Presidential campaign in 1800 against the Federalist candidate John Adams and nearly sneaking in the back door as President himself, as a Democrat Republican.
 
And the author writes, Jefferson and his Republican followers "sought the impeachment" of Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.  Actually, Chase was "impeached."  But he avoided removal.  That the principle of impeachment isn't fully understood is also shown in "having Congress impeach one federal judge."  First, the House of Representatives is the body that "impeaches," that is, brings formal charges against.  Second, this federal judge was not only "impeached," but was removed by the Senate in the subsequent trial.

Perhaps I quibble.

Back in another lifetime, when I taught in the high school, a committee of teachers chose an abysmal textbook for the World History courses.  (I refused to participate, that is, pick the book and work for free; reviewing a number of textbooks takes a lot of time.  Perhaps with a school and school district that showed more appreciation for its employees......)  Two of the most egregious errors I remember (and I'm sure there were more of them that I just don't recall) were these.  Italy was shown as fighting on the wrong side in the First World War.  How did that happen?  I always joked, "No wonder the Italian army didn't do so hot.  It didn't know which side it was fighting on!"  There was also a photograph of a temple in Japan, a pretty famous one.  The rather lengthy caption explained its importance to Shintoism.  The problem was that this famous temple was in India and was Hindu!  Of course, if the teachers didn't recognize these mistakes, who cares?  The problem with such errors is that they lead to questioning of other "facts" in the books.  If these are wrong......

For that matter, some textbooks also make specious conclusions/arguments.  For instance, how many of them teach students that "Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal pulled the US out of the Depression."  It's not at all clear that he and it did.  There is a lot of evidence that the Depression was deepened and lengthened by FDR's New Deal.  (At a social gathering, for whatever reason, I made this statement and some guy said, "You must be kidding!  Everyone knows the New Deal ended the Depression"  I repeated my assertion and he added with apparent disbelief, "And you teach history!?!?!"  It's too bad the guy had a teacher who didn't know much beyond the textbook.)

Another one that draws strange looks is when I question that "Hitler came to power because of the Treaty of Versailles."  Well no, he didn't.  He used it as a prop, a foil to drum up opposition to Weimar and support for the National Socialists.  But I can make a pretty strong case that it was the Depression, not the peace treaty of the First World War; that is, no Depression no Hitler.  "And you teach history!?!?!?"  Ha Ha Ha......

Actually, I learned all this in my college history courses, maybe not the specific instances, but to question, to challenge the accepted views of history.

While I'm on the subject of history, let me recount one thing.  For the past few years I have assigned a term project that simulated the NCAA basketball March Madness tournament.  I picked, say, in Michigan history, 20 people of significance to the state.  Choosing/Limiting to 20 was not easy.  I had to make some of my own value judgments, but that's OK; it's my TV show.  And seeding them was tough, too.  Each semester there were some changes in the brackets.  Students seemed to like the Madness brackets project more than a term paper, etc.  I wonder if they actually realized, while completing the assignment, they were writing 20 or 25 or, in some cases, more pages.  The overall winner, the UCLA of Michigan Madness, might be guessed.  It has been Henry Ford, by a significant margin.  This past term I had several students, from different classes, choose "Rosie the Riveter," the symbol of women working in the Arsenal of Democracy in the Second World War.  I found the choice interesting, if not compelling. The rationale wasn't always convincing, perhaps more hyperbolic than definitive.  A few other personalities, one or two here and there, were also selections.  And, although grading them takes a long time, it's pretty easy to see who just copied stuff from what they found on the Internet, nothing of much depth or analysis.  Still, it's fun for me.

"The Science Is Settled"

How often have we heard that in the past couple of decades, even now in dealing with CoVid-19?  "The science is settled."  The statement has been summarily used to push agendas, when debate is discouraged or even feared.  It's been used to sway people who really don't know.  How easy to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents by throwing out "the science is settled!"  Who but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?"

I guess the best example over recent years is "global warming," er "climate change"--or whatever it's called now.  Now it's how we deal with the corona virus.  "The science is settled."

No, the science isn't settled.  Science is never settled.  That's the essence of science, that there are unknowns and that there is always something new, more to learn.  But the phrase, "the science is settled" has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate, dissent, and challenges.  It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, a sense of credibility to a viewpoint.  Even more, it sways people who don't know much about an issue, but well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them.

Again, no, the science isn't settled.  Science is never settled.  It's one of the important lessons I learned in my physics classes at Amherst.  (I admit to not realizing it at the time.  It took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!")  Consider these.

For centuries, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes ether).  This was not disputed, not by anyone credible.  And people accepted that  because "Aristotle [Empedocles or some other Greek scientist] said so."  (Other cultures had similar findings--Chinese, Indian/Buddhist, etc.)  The science had been settled.  No challenges allowed.

In 1633 (If I recall correctly.), the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial, with the possibility of losing his life and being excommunicated (the death penalty of the soul), for challenging the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth.   That he postulated the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and others almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul.  The science had been settled.  No challenges allowed.

More than two and a half centuries after Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists, "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort.  Newton stands before us--strong, certain, and alone."  Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize the "most genius" (Einstein's words) of Newton.  Alexander Pope penned this, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night.  God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light."  There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion.  All this and yet 20th Century science has disproved many of Newton's theories, including Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others.  For 250 years or more, the science was settled.  No challenges allowed.

It was Carl Sagan, the astronomer/astrophysicist, who wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument.  My position is mistaken.'  And then they would actually change their minds."  So, the science isn't really settled.  But apparently only scientists--well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization and sources of funding--know that.

We should think about this the next time, whether it's climate change, how to deal with the corona virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled."  It's not.  It never is.

"We're All in This Together"

That, "We're all in this together," seems to be ubiquitous.  It's all over the boob tube and there are full pages in the newspaper claiming this, too.  The politicians, especially Michigan's Governor, are exploiting it.  I was out running the other day and saw a couple of yard signs reminding of that, that "We're All in this Together."  And, some enterprising souls have begun printing up and selling tee shirts that read, yes, "We're All in This Together,"  "Together, we can defeat CoVid 19," or something similar.

I wish that would stop!  We're not "in this together."  I suppose it sounds good, perhaps leading to more cooperation, teamwork, or even acquiescence to government orders.  Maybe it's a morale booster to some, if not a "misery loves company" thing, something close to it.  Perhaps it's the peer pressure, that if one doesn't sacrifice, one is being selfish, inconsiderate of others, especially of others' lives.

NO!  Stop!  We're not in this together.  Anyone paying attention should recognize this.  As usual, some are in it more than others.

It must have really steamed, say, some of the private yard care companies to be out of work for five or six weeks as they saw the grass at schools, city properties, and state parks being mowed by, well, school, local government, and state employees.  How many women have commented that the governor's "roots aren't showing," nails are done, etc. when her press conferences and updates are on television?  Of course, maybe she does her own.  Yeah, right.   The list goes on

Some people have started using that worst of all words, "greed," to describe those who want to open, to restart the states and their economies.  They cite the lack of concern for some people's lives just to get back to work.  "You're willing to let people die just so you can your money??????"  I think that is very short-sighted, arrogant, and wrong.

I'm not for anyone dying, of course, but this underscores that we aren't in this together.  How easy it is to talk about "staying home" when income is not a concern.  Those not hurting financially can pontificate from on high about those "greedy" protesters.  Hmmm.  Is it "greedy" to want to get back to work to feed one's family, to make one's mortgage payment, to avoid losing one's business and/or job?  If one doesn't have to worry about any of those things, of course they can be "in this together!"

I wonder why some of the toady reporters have not asked some of these governors, particularly here in Michigan which is as shut down as any other state, if taxes will be suspended.  I think that's a very legitimate question.  Income taxes, well, if incomes have fallen or become nonexistent, that's almost a nonissue.  But property and sales taxes are still facing those who have had their incomes disappear.  If we're all in this together......  I know, I know.  "But that's different."

Even more, I'm waiting to see how long this togetherness will last.  Many people have been asked to sacrifice in the face of this pandemic.  (I"m getting to dislike that word, a lot, and hesitate to use it.)  Incomes have fallen and people have struggled.  Jobs and businesses have been lost, some never to reappear.  The rationale for the shutdown, that is, the orders closing certain businesses and activities, but only certain ones, was to "save lives."  (Hey, those multi-million dollar electronic signs on the freeways around here even remind us, "Stay home.  Save lives!"  My favorite message remains, "Raining?  Use Wipers.")

So, how many lives were saved?  All of them?  Most of the survivors among us?  A significant number?  But surely our politicians and those who supported the shutdown orders so vociferously will admit lives were saved, likely a lot of them.  (Or have they been lying to us about the figures?)  If "We're all in this together," will all those people whose lives were saved by those who sacrificed with their jobs, their businesses, and lost income then remember togetherness?  Will they contribute/donate money to help businesses get back on their feet?  After all, if their lives were saved......

No, none of this will happen.  So, unless you give money to those who already sacrificed, spare me the self-righteous "We're all in this together."

Washington

I'm not ready to replace Abraham Lincoln with George Washington, but it's getting closer.  The more I read and think about Washington, the title of James Flexner's brilliant biography of Washington perfectly fits, "The Indispensable Man."  Washington was more far-sighted than people realize, from things such as treatment of Indians to future American greatness.  "He kept us out of war" was a campaign slogan used for Woodrow Wilson (who first did, then didn't--five months later), but so did Washington, at a time when war might well have brought the American experiment with self-rule to a quick and crashing halt.  He kept two giants of US History, Hamilton and Jefferson, in his Cabinet, allowing both to voice their views, although they were bitter political rivals.  He ran for a second term, something he didn't want to do.  But, like an American Cincinnatus, his duty to country (like that of Cincinnatus to Rome) was more important than his personal life and return to his farm at Mt. Vernon.  He recognized that he, perhaps he alone, could provide the stability the young nation needed.  But then, after that second four years, he stepped down, creating yet another significant precedent, the rotating of the office of the Presidency.  He was opposed to monarchy (although his close adviser Hamilton favored it).  It may be apocryphal, but it does reflect his view, "We just fought a war to get rid of one King George.  We don't need another."  I could go on, but you get the idea.

I also read this.  In his Second Inaugural Address, Washington used "I" a mere six times.  (I never bothered to count before.)  "Unlike Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama [and the book was written before Don Trump or he would most assuredly be included], whose narcissism seemed to know no bounds, Washington was a profoundly humble man."  It's too bad these latter-day Presidents didn't learn from history.

I was also reminded that "The General did not like shaking hands."  Although he loved dancing with the ladies, he disdained most physical contact, in political or social settings.  A man after (or before) my own sentiments.

Here's a story that demonstrates a few things.  At a reception, an aristocratic and powerful, but patriotic man (One of the Van Renssalaers?  I don't remember.) remarked that he could go and put his arm around Washington's shoulder, like an old buddy.  Others there thought VR would never do that, but to goad him into it, passed the hat to collect a tidy sum as a reward if he had the guts to follow through with it.  Well, he did--and regretted it.  He walked over to Washington and in a very friendly way, inquired how "George" was doing.  "George" gave him "such a cold, hard glare" that VR immediately released his grip and raced out of the reception without collecting his money.  And the guys didn't joke and guffaw about it, not at all.  They, too, were silenced by Washington's reaction.  More than 30 years later, with Washington dead for about 25 years, VR wrote in a letter he was still haunted by that "cold, hard stare."

We usually equate loud, rousing ovations with modern times--ball games, political conventions or rallies, etc.  Yet at a gathering of 12,000 guests to celebrate Washington's last birthday in office, he was greeted by "such deafening applause" that his wife, Martha, was brought to tears and he himself was so moved he couldn't speak.  A little more than a year later, at John Adams' inauguration, as Washington strode from the building, the crowd "roared with a sound like thunder."

Before people start tossing around the word "great" to identify Presidents, perhaps they should do more reading about Lincoln and Washington.