A Statue Of Hitler

Slavery is an evil institution. But it is one that has always existed. In recent days it has resulted in the toppling of Civil War statues in New Orleans. Prior to that there were denaming and renaming of buildings in academia because those whom they honored owned slaves. But I want to focus on history, because history is being rewritten, much as was done in the Soviet era, and much as we read about in George Orwell's 1984.

For the moment at least, and I've illustrated this already, everyone's attention is on slavery. It was a dark period in our nation's history, a period whose effects are still with us. And we're making efforts to correct them, and to remove the stain. But, I think, we're going about it the wrong way. Let me illustrate with a bizarre example.

I found the following question on the internet and both the question and the answer are deserving of thought.

In Georgia, recently there has been a dispute, wether [sic] or not the government should keep a monument to Stalin near the house were he was born (ONLY FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSE) [Is there a] public statue of Hitler (even in Nazi Germany)?

[The “Georgia” to which the questioner referred was, obviously not the American state but the eastern European nation.] And the answer:

There are no official statues of Hitler in Germany. ... The former dictator is essentially a persona non grata in Germany, so you would not want to honour [sic] him with statues.

But I suggest the erection of statues of Hitler (and Stalin) all over the world.

I view him as a devil, The Prince of Darkness. He was a murderous, anti-semitic, psychopath and merits our abhorrence for what he did. And he convinced his followers not only of his views but, often, their views as well, and to act on them. It is not underemphasis to suggest that he was one of the most evil men in world history, and his suicide saved him from human recriminations and punishment. Still I suggest his memorialization, for reasons I shall explain presently.

Let me begin the explanation by citing a view of “The Prince of Peace.” I've already mentioned “The Prince of Darkness” so it's only right. I'll first quote all he had to say about the institution of slavery:

“”

Nothing.

Avery Robert Dulles said that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In a paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that, while he often encountered it, "not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery."

Knowing that he witnessed slavery all the time, it is hard not to conclude that he either approved of slavery or didn't give it a second thought. It was a feature of the time and place – normal in the context of his times.

But in recognition of his lack of concern – his tacit approval – of slavery the question arises, in view of current opinions, as to whether all statues of Jesus – indeed, all statues of Christians – should be destroyed. The owning of slaves in our history was as much the exemplification of those times in our history as Jesus's disregard of slaves in his. Whether we agree with them or not, we wouldn't want to see all his words expunged, and the history of the times suppressed because of our disagreements with its priorities. And we wouldn't want the statues of him and all his followers toppled.

But why not? What was done doesn't reflect our views. What they did was wrong, and people suffered because of it. The answer is that it happened. As did the Holocaust and American slavery. And there are many more examples. We don't have to approve of them to acknowledge that they happened, and the more we know of history, the better we can deal with the future. History is not dogma, ideology, sentiment, or political correctness, and the more we separate it from those conceptions, the more accurate will be our image of the past – and the better will be our planning for the future.

Making history conform to our outlook doesn't change the past, although it may affect our knowledge of it. Ignoring the context of the times is deceptive. Obliterating what we don't like makes us more ignorant, not more virtuous. Centuries from now people will look back at us and disagree with some of what we've done. I hope they don't hide from it. I disagree with a lot that's happening, but it's happening and denying it or altering what we know of it will cripple them, as our denial of the past cripples us.

Back to Hitler. His acts were horrendous, and it's incumbent on us to remember them and take steps to make sure they aren't repeated. We are not a world of idealists and we can't rely on others to be so. Especially if we've made them ignorant of what has come before.

Don't destroy or remove statues. Build them, as part of museums which document what happened for the education of those who follow us. There will be plenty of room in the museum to explain what happened and why it was wrong (or, sometimes, right) to those who are unaware. Hitler, Stalin, the tyrants of the Middle East and Far East, the marauders and murderers of Africa, the drug dealers of Central and South America, and our own villains must be remembered and their wickedness described.

As was said by George Santayana

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

And those who hide or falsify the past are even more responsible for our ignorance.








May 19, 2017