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

I Cannot Tell A Lie

                                                                                                           

When I was young, admittedly a long time ago,ⁱ I learned all about the cherry tree and the other important lessons that Parson Weems taught. It is generally agreed that President Washington was among our most important leaders, if not the best – which is what many consider him. His accomplishments, and the precedents he set, were key to making the United States the world power that it now is. But as with all famous people, myths arise that become part of what we view a history. And sometimes the false memories we have seem more real than the facts. Sometimes the aura is more important than the reality.

This idea comes to mind as we remember the assassination of President John Kennedy, which we'll be commemorating in a few days. It happened fifty years ago, on November 22, 1963. There are well-documented historical chronicles of the events of that day, but conspiracy theories still persist. They're far more interesting than what can be determined from the facts of the case.

But that's not surprising, for John Kennedy was far more interesting than the President. He is remembered with awe, and even those born after his death “know” how good a President he was. I'm not sure that the future and history will be quite as generous though. For now, however, he is remembered with great affection. Whether or not he was a great President, and I don't think he was, he was a great leader. Because of his youth, good looks, and rhetorical talents, he was extraordinarily popular. He made us feel good and confidant as a nation. We all believed he would lead our nation to new heights. Our country would be stronger than ever and would solve the problems that were plaguing us. His speeches were inspirational sermons. We would have derided themⁱⁱ had they been offered in a house of prayer, but in the public square they buoyed our spirits and inspired us to save the world through various volunteer programs like the Peace Corpsⁱⁱⁱ and VISTA. They were important parts of the New Frontier. Our beloved leader presented a picture of America as we wanted to see it, and, because we were so eager to live out the dream he personified, we suspended disbelief. And that was the man who was murdered.

As President, however, he accomplished much less. If he scared off the Soviet Union during the “missile crisis,” he frightened us as well. And that crisis arose only after the badly executed Bay of Pigs “invasion” which was disastrous not only militarily, but in terms of public relations and international diplomacy. And he laid the groundwork for the war in Viet Nam that drove his successor from office.^iv And during his term little was actually done, notwithstanding the fanfare. Even his fame as a promoter of civil rights was undeserved. No major legislation on equal rights resulted from his Presidency and, while he was in the Senate, he voted against the bill offered in 1957 which was designed to ensure the right of Negroes^v to vote. Eventually, before he was shot he publicly supported the idea, but it took a long time, and outside pressures, for him to reach that point.^vi

He was a great President though. Appearances are sometimes more important than accomplishments and what President Kennedy said and how he looked made us feel good about being Americans.

President Lincoln was also a great President, but not one about whom our memories are completely accurate. One hundred fifty years ago, on November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered an address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It is undeniable that his stewardship during the Civil War was both critical in keeping our nation together, and it was certainly damaging to his health. It was a war that has come to be viewed as the battle to eliminate slavery. Lincoln is remembered as a foe of such involuntary servitude and as the man who freed the slaves.

The war, however, was only peripherally related to slavery. It was a fight to save Union. Slavery was a secondary issue. In Lincoln's words:

“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”^vii

A few months later, on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But that proclamation didn't eliminate slavery. It freed slaves in states that were at war with the Union. It was a war tactic. “As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control. Lincoln pursued various plans to colonize free Blacks outside of the United States, but none of these had a major effect.”^viii It wasn't until 1864 that the President publicly endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and the end of slavery, and it wasn't until after his death that it was ratified and put into effect.^ix

He was a great President. He was a hero. But ignoring history and turning him into a saint does nothing to change the past. 

This week we remember two great men. In both cases, however, we remember the myths rather than the truth. But if we're commemorating people and events related to civil rights and an end to slavery, we should know the truth. For it will set us all free.

Next episode: “Thanksginukkah” – Bring on the turducken.

I       But long after President Washington's administration.

ii      If we didn't sleep through them.

iii     Interestingly, President Kennedy didn't introduce the idea, which had been around for decades. In fact, Senator Humphrey had offered legislation to establish such a service while Kennedy was still in the Senate.

iv     Because of the unpopularity which his execution of the war engendered, President Johnson knew better than to run for reelection.

v      That was the term used at the time.

vi      See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-day-president-kennedy-embraced-civil-rights-and-the-story-behind-it/276749/ for more detail.

vii     Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

viii    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

ix     December 6, 1865