.JPEG)
Back
about two months ago I sustained an injury that has limited my mobility and activities,
as a result I have found myself scrolling on YouTube and the internet for
something to watch (more than I had previously).
Recently
I came across a 60 Minutes profile from 2012 of the author and historian David
McCullough. As I watched David
McCullough, he said something that hit home with me about something that I have
thought about for a while. While
speaking at an event in his honor in Paris, David McCullough said “we are
raising children in America today who are by and large historically
illiterate.” At another point from
the profile, McCullough said that after speaking at a university in the
mid-west a young woman came up to him and said that until she heard him speak,
she had not realized that the original thirteen colonies were all on the east
coast! He went on to say that after that
encounter he tried again at several other colleges and universities with the
same result. He went on to say that it was
not the students’ fault, it was the fault of the parents as well as the
teachers.
As
I listened to David McCullough, I thought that he had only identified a part of
the problem that may be linked to our failure to talk with our children. That is the advocating for the rewriting of
history by removing statutes, exhuming, and destroying graves from a past era
(the Civil War), or applying 21st century morals to past centuries. Instead of learning from history to ensure
that evils do not repeat, people want to erase what offends them. By doing so they are
increasing the possibility, probability that future generations may doubt that
the ills of our history ever occurred.
Over
the past ten years there have been calls to remove statutes claiming they are paying
tribute to what was wrong with a bygone time.
One of the Statutes that was targeted was a Statute of President Ulysses
S Grant. People want to remove this
recognition of what President Grant did during his life and presidency, showing
a lack of historical knowledge. Some
want it removed because he was a general during the Civil War, some say it is
because he owned slaves, demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge (or understanding)
of history.
They
ignore, or do not realize that President Grants family were abolitionists or
that he did not approve of slavery. They
say he owned slaves, ignoring the facts.
His wife, Julia Dent, was from a slave-owning family and when they were
married Dent’s father gave the couple a small parcel of land and a single slave
as a dowry (despite Grant’s anti-slavery feelings). Grant worked in the field alongside this
slave (which angered his in laws and neighbors) until it was legally possible to
emancipate the slave, then Grant went into town and had the slave emancipated,
thereby preventing his father-in-law from taking the slave back. Additionally, people either are not aware or
choose to ignore Grant’s actions during his first term as president to stop the
Klu Klux Klan (KKK). When the KKK was
formed and began their reign of terror, President Grant sent Federal troops
into the south to stop the violence against Blacks and restore
order. The KKK did not regain a national
influence until the early 1920’s.
Another
statute that was targeted was one of Abraham Lincoln, recognizing his
emancipation of enslaved people. It
should be removed because it demeans formerly enslaved, however, it was the
formerly enslaved that raised the money to have the statute built. Perhaps if those wanting the statute removed
had taken the time to learn of the statute’s history, they would not have
protested for its removal. The problem
is that people are trying to apply 21st century morals and attitudes
to the past, however, these protesters do not realize that doing so can open a Pandora’s
box that should not be opened.
Speaking
of Pandora’s box, I have a question for those that do not believe applying 21st
century morals to the past is a problem.
Unlike the past, up to the latter half of the 20th century,
morals said it was wrong for an unmarried woman, especially a teenager to
become pregnant and have a child. That
is not viewed the same today as it once was, so if we are applying the morals
of today to the past when will protesters demand that tributes to Rosa Parks be
removed and replaced with tributes to Claudette Colvin?
On
March 2, 1955, Claudette Colvin was traveling home from school on a segregated
Montgomery bus when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger and
was arrested. Claudette was 15 years old
and initially her arrest was going to be used to challenge in court the
Montgomery bus segregation policy. Then
it was learned that Claudette was pregnant, this was nine months before Rosa
Parks arrest and the decision was made that her arrest was not the one to use
to challenge the policy because morals at the time would not make her a
sympathetic case. I am not saying the Rosa Parks contribution to the Civil Rights movement wasn't important or deserve recognition, however, if we are to apply the morals
of today to history when is Rosa
Parks tributes going to be replaced?
I
mentioned that if we continue these actions, future generations may doubt
whether the evils of the past actually occurred. When I was growing up during the 1960’s there
were some that did not believe the Holocaust had actually occurred. Despite it being less than two decades since
the end of World War II, despite thousands of Holocaust victims still being
alive to testify about what happened and soldiers that liberated the
Concentration Camps being alive to describe the horrors they found, there were
people that chose not to believe that such atrocities actually took place! Eight decades have passed since the end of
World War II and there are fewer still alive to testify about what occurred. Unfortunately, more people are choosing to
believe that the atrocities of the Holocaust were made up and did not actually
occur.
I
could cite many more examples, but I have a question, where does it stop, are
there any limitations, how far will this go?
Past generations struggled with whether or not statutes should be
removed, whether or not people that lived in Confederate States should be
considered U.S. citizens again and other issues. They decided that we should not remove
anything, it should remain as a reminder to future generations of the evil we
overcame, that we should not exclude some people so that we could heal as a
nation.
Before
removing a part of our history, we should first learn our history in order that
we not repeat it!
That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours
No comments:
Post a Comment