Charlottesville and Statues
Charlottesville
In light of recent events in Charlottesville and the spillover effects, I thought I'd offer a few general thoughts. As a brief summary, a collection of various far-Right, white supremacist groups held a permitted rally. They certainly have freedom of speech to have and express hateful and unpopular views. They were also perfectly within their rights to hold the rally. They also held a torch-lit march the night before the rally, shouting white-supremacist and anti-Semitic rally cries. They were met with far-Left, anti-Nazi/fascist counter-protesters, and much violence ensued. It's speculative, but is appears that a desire to provoke controversy and create a clash was a factor in the march and scheduled rally. It's also speculative, but it also appears that the violence was largely initiated by the far-Leftist groups. Saddest of all, three deaths resulted: one from a white-supremacist ramming his motor vehicle into a crowd of protesters, and two as a result of a crashed helicopter, from which State Troopers were monitoring the situation.
After this rally/protest clash, a number of other demonstrations emerged in the southern US protesting the presence of statues and monuments in public places. A particular group of protesters here in Durham became vandals and took it upon themselves to tear down a statue of a Confederate soldier. Regardless of motivation, this is a crime, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted.
Trump
President Trump has rightfully received criticism from across the board for his inadequate, schizophrenic series of responses. He initially had a short and vague response in which he condemned both sides. This resulted in wide criticism for not specifically condemning the white-supremacists, which was especially disconcerting because President Trump has displayed a habit of immediately publicly calling out people and groups he's at odds with. After this criticism he responded two days later by in fact condemning them. However, the next day he returned to his original response placing the blame on both sides without naming specific culprits.
What do I think?
Now we get to what everyone really wants to know: what I think! Well, my responses are mostly mixed, especially when it comes to the President. I think his criticism was deserved, but I also don't think his initial response was way off base in and of itself. I felt it was simply inadequate. I think he was right in condemning both sides. The value and message of the far-Right ralliers should absolutely be condemned unequivocally. But, since it seems that the counter-protesters were the ones who actually started the violence, their actions should be condemned. I think a better response would have been a combination of the one he initially gave and the one that was called for after his fist response: condemn both sides for what happened, but also specially call out hateful, racists idealogies. I have very little pity for President Trump because he has an utter lack of tact and charisma, has displayed a stupefying level of pride, and everything he does seems contrived. But, I also know that he is maligned for every thought he has and breath he takes, so sometimes it seems impossible for him to be presented in a positive light. My view, though, is that he does very little to help himself in this regard.
I hate how things turned out over the weekend. Violent clashes that make national media are always unsettling, especially when there are deaths involved. So, as the President should have, I condemn all forms of political violence. While I will fully defend the right of white-supremacists to hold and express their views, I will still condemn their message as one of hate that is antithetical to all values held in our age. Deaths have made last weekend a tragedy, but fortunately, I believe both groups only represent a very small number of people, so nearly all of us can stand against the words and actions that we saw during this rally and protest. Neither of these groups represent America, so we should not let either of them think that they do and we the people should not let their agendas advance.
And Statues?
I spent a lot more time thinking about this issue with statues and monuments than I did about President Trump. I had a conversation with a coworker several months ago about this. He argued that the statues and monuments that honor the Confederacy should not be part of public land and government buildings. I argued to the contrary, emphasizing their place in the history of the respective states and localities. I've reflected on the issue since then and have come around 100% on the question of the place of Confederate monuments on public grounds.
The most frequent argument that I hear in defending the public display of such monuments relates to their actual place as a crucial part of our history. I don't dispute this reality, but I do counter that there is a more appropriate place for them: in museums. A museum depicts history-the good and the bad, without necessarily making such judgments. I do not think it is inappropriate to remove such statues and monuments from public places, especially government buildings. This would not amount to an attempt to revise history, as some suggest. On the contrary, I believe it would be step in showing that we've actually learned from our history.
The final argument I hear against my view goes along the following lines: 'if we're just going to remove every monument that offends anyone, then we might as well take them all down.' I don't actually see this is a real argument, but rather as an attempt to evade discussion. I don't suggest that certain monuments be removed because they are offensive; rather, I suggest they be removed because they represent ideals or practices that are no longer legal nor in line with widely held national values. When displays stand in public places, the message is this: we, as a body, stand by the ideals that this person espoused or fought for. And, simply put, confederate monuments hearken back to days of slavery, oppression, and grave injustice. Whatever your feelings about the Civil War, this reality is inescapable. The war was not simply about states' rights: it was about a very specific right: the right to decide whether chattel slavery could be practiced or not (On a side note that I know is going to cause others to butt heads with me, this reminds me of how the abortion debate is commonly framed by pro-choicers. It is not simply about women's right to choose; it is about the right to have a very specific choice-the choice to end an unborn life that is inside of her).
Historical presence is not enough to merit public monuments. What they represent should be in line with where they are erected. This is the same reason that monuments aren't standing in German government grounds that remember Hitler or Nazis. It could be argued that there is no more prominent figure in all of Germany's history (yes, I know of Martin Luther), but very few in today's world admire him or his values. So his place is in museums and history books, not on public property where the holders of power meet.
And, to return to the question of offense. Is anyone actually offended by statues of Martin Luther King Jr. or Abraham Lincoln? If so, I would love to hear why. The role these men are remembered for is for fighting for justice and equality, ideals I don't think you'll find many people absent from Charlottesville last weekend who oppose. And, even so, we should listen when our fellow citizens are in fact hurt or offended. Does that mean every claim has merit? No. But, as responsible citizens we should have the ability to listen and empathize without turning the argument on it's head with asinine rebuttals.
For what it's worth, I don't believe, however, that private citizens have the right to remove any public monuments. That is a job of state legislatures, and people who take that task into their own hands are behaving in a criminal manner.
In conclusion, both sides have some blame to bear in Charlottesville. One side espoused a hateful, racist, bigoted worldview that is impossible to avoid striking ire and fear in others. The other side was violent, obstructive, and out of line in ways too. One side legally expressed views that are almost universally rejected and merit condemnation, but the other side exhibited behavior that deserved the same. President Trump's response was inadequate and unbecoming for the leader of the free world. Finally, I have had a full change of heart over the issue of the acceptability of the display of Confederate monuments on public grounds. I hope you enjoy reading this, and I welcome all thoughts!
In light of recent events in Charlottesville and the spillover effects, I thought I'd offer a few general thoughts. As a brief summary, a collection of various far-Right, white supremacist groups held a permitted rally. They certainly have freedom of speech to have and express hateful and unpopular views. They were also perfectly within their rights to hold the rally. They also held a torch-lit march the night before the rally, shouting white-supremacist and anti-Semitic rally cries. They were met with far-Left, anti-Nazi/fascist counter-protesters, and much violence ensued. It's speculative, but is appears that a desire to provoke controversy and create a clash was a factor in the march and scheduled rally. It's also speculative, but it also appears that the violence was largely initiated by the far-Leftist groups. Saddest of all, three deaths resulted: one from a white-supremacist ramming his motor vehicle into a crowd of protesters, and two as a result of a crashed helicopter, from which State Troopers were monitoring the situation.
After this rally/protest clash, a number of other demonstrations emerged in the southern US protesting the presence of statues and monuments in public places. A particular group of protesters here in Durham became vandals and took it upon themselves to tear down a statue of a Confederate soldier. Regardless of motivation, this is a crime, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted.
Trump
President Trump has rightfully received criticism from across the board for his inadequate, schizophrenic series of responses. He initially had a short and vague response in which he condemned both sides. This resulted in wide criticism for not specifically condemning the white-supremacists, which was especially disconcerting because President Trump has displayed a habit of immediately publicly calling out people and groups he's at odds with. After this criticism he responded two days later by in fact condemning them. However, the next day he returned to his original response placing the blame on both sides without naming specific culprits.
What do I think?
Now we get to what everyone really wants to know: what I think! Well, my responses are mostly mixed, especially when it comes to the President. I think his criticism was deserved, but I also don't think his initial response was way off base in and of itself. I felt it was simply inadequate. I think he was right in condemning both sides. The value and message of the far-Right ralliers should absolutely be condemned unequivocally. But, since it seems that the counter-protesters were the ones who actually started the violence, their actions should be condemned. I think a better response would have been a combination of the one he initially gave and the one that was called for after his fist response: condemn both sides for what happened, but also specially call out hateful, racists idealogies. I have very little pity for President Trump because he has an utter lack of tact and charisma, has displayed a stupefying level of pride, and everything he does seems contrived. But, I also know that he is maligned for every thought he has and breath he takes, so sometimes it seems impossible for him to be presented in a positive light. My view, though, is that he does very little to help himself in this regard.
I hate how things turned out over the weekend. Violent clashes that make national media are always unsettling, especially when there are deaths involved. So, as the President should have, I condemn all forms of political violence. While I will fully defend the right of white-supremacists to hold and express their views, I will still condemn their message as one of hate that is antithetical to all values held in our age. Deaths have made last weekend a tragedy, but fortunately, I believe both groups only represent a very small number of people, so nearly all of us can stand against the words and actions that we saw during this rally and protest. Neither of these groups represent America, so we should not let either of them think that they do and we the people should not let their agendas advance.
And Statues?
I spent a lot more time thinking about this issue with statues and monuments than I did about President Trump. I had a conversation with a coworker several months ago about this. He argued that the statues and monuments that honor the Confederacy should not be part of public land and government buildings. I argued to the contrary, emphasizing their place in the history of the respective states and localities. I've reflected on the issue since then and have come around 100% on the question of the place of Confederate monuments on public grounds.
The most frequent argument that I hear in defending the public display of such monuments relates to their actual place as a crucial part of our history. I don't dispute this reality, but I do counter that there is a more appropriate place for them: in museums. A museum depicts history-the good and the bad, without necessarily making such judgments. I do not think it is inappropriate to remove such statues and monuments from public places, especially government buildings. This would not amount to an attempt to revise history, as some suggest. On the contrary, I believe it would be step in showing that we've actually learned from our history.
The final argument I hear against my view goes along the following lines: 'if we're just going to remove every monument that offends anyone, then we might as well take them all down.' I don't actually see this is a real argument, but rather as an attempt to evade discussion. I don't suggest that certain monuments be removed because they are offensive; rather, I suggest they be removed because they represent ideals or practices that are no longer legal nor in line with widely held national values. When displays stand in public places, the message is this: we, as a body, stand by the ideals that this person espoused or fought for. And, simply put, confederate monuments hearken back to days of slavery, oppression, and grave injustice. Whatever your feelings about the Civil War, this reality is inescapable. The war was not simply about states' rights: it was about a very specific right: the right to decide whether chattel slavery could be practiced or not (On a side note that I know is going to cause others to butt heads with me, this reminds me of how the abortion debate is commonly framed by pro-choicers. It is not simply about women's right to choose; it is about the right to have a very specific choice-the choice to end an unborn life that is inside of her).
Historical presence is not enough to merit public monuments. What they represent should be in line with where they are erected. This is the same reason that monuments aren't standing in German government grounds that remember Hitler or Nazis. It could be argued that there is no more prominent figure in all of Germany's history (yes, I know of Martin Luther), but very few in today's world admire him or his values. So his place is in museums and history books, not on public property where the holders of power meet.
And, to return to the question of offense. Is anyone actually offended by statues of Martin Luther King Jr. or Abraham Lincoln? If so, I would love to hear why. The role these men are remembered for is for fighting for justice and equality, ideals I don't think you'll find many people absent from Charlottesville last weekend who oppose. And, even so, we should listen when our fellow citizens are in fact hurt or offended. Does that mean every claim has merit? No. But, as responsible citizens we should have the ability to listen and empathize without turning the argument on it's head with asinine rebuttals.
For what it's worth, I don't believe, however, that private citizens have the right to remove any public monuments. That is a job of state legislatures, and people who take that task into their own hands are behaving in a criminal manner.
In conclusion, both sides have some blame to bear in Charlottesville. One side espoused a hateful, racist, bigoted worldview that is impossible to avoid striking ire and fear in others. The other side was violent, obstructive, and out of line in ways too. One side legally expressed views that are almost universally rejected and merit condemnation, but the other side exhibited behavior that deserved the same. President Trump's response was inadequate and unbecoming for the leader of the free world. Finally, I have had a full change of heart over the issue of the acceptability of the display of Confederate monuments on public grounds. I hope you enjoy reading this, and I welcome all thoughts!
Comments
Post a Comment