In registering for my class reunion, I came across the Amherst Alum blog re: "Lord Jeffs." I was struck by two things. One, there is an incredible amount of intelligence among many of the alumni. Two, there is a great deal if illogic (Is that a real word?) and ignorance among some of the alumni.
Even among those with whom I disagree, the power of their intellect and arguments is very persuasive. Others, although they appear to be eloquent (at least to themselves?), seem to merely be trendy in their thoughts. I'm still intimidated enough, at least intellectually, not to respond in many instances (although I have begun to take contrary views on my two Class of '71 list serves). But I see through the fallacies of many of the arguments. Others, even those I don't agree with, are very powerful
I have no problem with "Lord Jeffs" as the nickname/mascot of Amherst College. And, let it be known, I wrote a lengthy paper when the high school where I taught was considering the nickname "Redskins." As, I guess, the historian in residence, the principal asked me to research "Redskins," the term. I wrote of my findings, to the chagrin of the principal, most faculty, almost all alumni, and many students. "Redskins" is a pejorative, plain and simple. That "We don't mean it that way" isn't a justification for using it. I am loathe to use the word "racist," but "Redskins" was coined as a racist term and was perpetuated as such. I documented that in my paper--about 11 or 12 pages. I, too, at staff meetings was often a lone wolf in opposing the nickname.
There's my background on such issues.
"Lord Jeffs" is not in the same category, for a variety of reasons. First, all this claim about him sending smallpox-infected blankets to Indians is just garbage. He did send a letter seemingly approving of such a tactic. Second, a war was being fought. War! People die, unfortunately or I suppose, in some instances, fortunately. Some of them are innocents. Would Indians who might have contracted smallpox and died be any deader than, say, British/Americans who were scalped--or shot with musket- or cannonballs? Would giving smallpox to people be any worse than raiding a village and raping the women or enslaving them? Third, was what Amherst purportedly did, again not at all documented, any worse than what Jefferson or Washington or other slaveowners did? Fourth, the argument that "Amherst is ours" is hollow. Washington, DC "is ours," too, our national capital. If "Lord Jeffs" reflects poorly, even immorally, upon our college, how does "Washington, DC" reflect upon the nation founded on the Creed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.....?" Where does this all stop? Should we go back to naming things after trees and flowers and rivers and.....? Oh no, I forgot. What if a river is named after some reprehensible person, like Amherst or Jefferson? Fifth, people are not saints, at least not while they are here. (Mother Teresa, Reagan, and Obama excepted!) We all have flaws as well as assets. We do good things and we do some not-so-good things. To honor the good while acknowledging the bad seems to me to be what history is all about. Sixth, to let current students "demand" the removal of "Lord Jeffs" seems, frankly, stupid. Seriously, what do students know? This isn't some illegal, immoral war--like Vietnam. "Lord Jeffs" isn't getting anyone killed or maimed. "Oh, someone might be offended or made uncomfortable......" Grow up! Being "offended" and "uncomfortable" is a major part of life. I'm offended and feel uncomfortable almost every day. That the college is shielding these students reflects poorly on the administration and even the faculty. What's with this "safe places" garbage? What sort of a "safe place" was I in when Prof Guttmann told me, "If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college" or other professors, in bold and red ink, wrote on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?" Seventh, is there no sense of history here, at Amherst? Had there been no Jeffery Amherst, Britain might well have lost the French and Indian War. It was losing before Amherst and Wolfe were appointed to replace the doofuses who were losing for the Brits. I doubt few know that Pontiac's Rebellion wasn't really directed at Amherst or that Amherst turned down command of Redcoats in the American Revolution because he thought it an unjust, immoral war, that the colonists had a point!
There are far, far better ways for Amherst and its students to make this a better world in which to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment