Olio, not Butter

I hope you get the pun......

The slippery slope of monument destruction initiated or at least put on center stage by the Charlottesville tragedy keeps gnawing at me, leading to more and more thinking, esp as my history classes creep up, beginning this week.

First, did I hear this one correctly?  There is now an outcry at the University of Southern California about the horse the school's cheerleaders use at football games.  The loons want the horse dropped or at least have its name changed.  It seems the horse's name is the same as Robert E. Lee's favorite horse, Traveler.  Well, that certainly is a symbol that perpetuates the idea of white supremacy.

I appreciate the great article on "Mindless Iconoclasm" sent to me by Jerry O.  It is articles like this that should form the basis for a discussion/dialogue on this issue.  But I fear that "mindless" is taking firm root, as many of the protesters are acting out of ignorance.

Anyway, in response to an e-mail yesterday or the day before, I sent this, after some thought and research.  (I doubt this is exactly what I sent, but it's close.)  History shows us that abject evil, such as slavery, can appear to be perfectly normal to even good people depending on the time.  Let's use Robert E. Lee as an example.  By all accounts he was an honorable man, one who was respected far and wide.  He was hard-working and achieved much.  Hey, I think the man was the only West Point graduate to never had a demerit for bad conduct, etc.  And he finished, academically, first in his class in getting his engineering degree.  Yet......

This "good man" owned slaves.  Some were his; some came from his wife and father-in-law.  I'm not sure what went through his mind regarding the evilness of slavery.  I do know he owned them, that when his father-in-law died, Lee could have freed his slaves immediately, but waiting five years to do so.  When some of them, on the eve of the Civil War, tried to escape, they were captured, returned, and whipped mercilessly on the orders of Robert E. Lee.  After the war, although he urged reconciliation, he never really advocated giving the now freedmen civil rights such as voting.

Yes, it is true he did free those slaves from his father-in-law.  But that was just a short while before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.  And Lincoln had announced months before that he was going to issue it on January 1, 1863.  Why, then, didn't Lee free those slaves upon the death of his father-in-law or even the year before Lincoln announced the Emancipation?

But as I noted, he chose the wrong side of history.  (I know that, too, is a slippery slope, "the wrong side of history," but it's my blog......)  He opted to command armies that sought to retain the evil institution of slavery.  Some might say he was merely holding true to "duty," the "duty of a soldier." I guess I might counter with "Where was Lee's sense of 'duty' to the United States?  After all, he did attend the US Military Academy.  He did serve in the US Army."

I digress some.  If Lee was, by contemporary standards, an honorable man, one who gathered respect from most if not all, how could he abide slavery, taking an active part in the deplorable institution?  At that time, it's not as if it were 100 or even 50 years earlier.  By the 1850s there were many loud and intelligent voices and pens decrying the evils of slavery.  He had to be aware, yet he chose, well, slavery.

So, how can such evil appear perfectly normal to such good people, like Robert E. Lee?  I suppose one might say "Then he wasn't such a good person."  Maybe, but that misses my point.  And it's always dangerous to judge people of the past based upon contemporary values, isn't it?  That's not at all to excuse or justify slavery, but consider today.  Let's get away from beating up on those from our past and look in the contemporary mirror.  Now this was my point at the start, before I was carried away.

Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade), in the US, our home nation, a thousand unborn children are killed (under the guise of euphemisms such as "abortion" or "reproductive rights," etc.) each day.  And the organization that promotes and leads the way is not only protected by our government, but is funded by our tax dollars.  Talk about "evil!"  Others can play with the words all they want, but it's still evil.  Lincoln once wrote of slavery, although it is appropriate here too, "Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon" or, in this instance, wantonly killed.

Gus has made some key points, too, well worth considering.  How can we have meaningful discussions/dialogue if the first thing we do is call the other side names?  We don't listen or seek to talk, but disparage those with differences.  Perhaps I just did the same in my characterizations in the previous paragraph?

On another note, but still an important one, the lead headline in this AM's Detroit newspaper as about the Detroit Lion quarterback signing a five-year contract for $135 million dollars. Even without my calculator I know that's $27 a year.  As I have written and said many times, I don't disparage any individuals or teams who agree to such contracts.  If someone wants to pay, who am I to say, "No, don't take it!?"  Who wouldn't take it?  I would and my guess is you would, too.

Still I find it very dispiriting and disheartening.  C'mon, these are sports, men playing kids' games.  I, for one, know how very talented these athletes are and many of them have worked hard to get where they are.  But, let me repeat, these are sports, men playing kids' games.

I think my views on the ineptitude of many teachers are no secrets.  But good teachers are paid diddly-squat.  Locally, it's rumored the teachers will get a 1/2% (That's one half percent!) raise on their contract, which will be more than offset at the beginning of the year by a huge, very huge, increase in the health care premiums they will pay.  Yet, we give our athletes millions of dollars.  It sort of makes a farce of always hearing about the importance of education, doesn't it?