Characterizing people's concerns over the honoring of Confederate soldiers as "throwing a temper tantrum" is disingenuous. Is it childish to hold the belief that other aspects of our history are more deserving of celebration? As has been stated above, the history doesn't go away if the statue comes down. What goes away is the honoring of that person as a model or hero for society.Kevster wrote:Though there are aspects of ancestral culture, like slavery, that are absolutely reprehensible and no excuses can be made for it being accepted today, there are facets of it that are absolutely lost in shadow of the moral outrage. As ugly as it was, the slaves of more "moral" owners were often well cared for, and even deeply adored (asexually). Southern plantations were often small communities unto themselves. Black slaves and black free men often worked the field in virtually the same capacity, but the free men did not have anyone "looking out for them" and their lives were harder than the slaves they worked with. Obviously, neither situation was acceptable, but the solution to the problem required an evolution of culture, mechanization of agriculture, and TIME. Examining the process is fruitful, remembering the cost is a great motivator, but adults throwing a temper tantrum over a statue of someone a community honored can galvanize far more resistance than support...Amian wrote:You're right that no one is all good, but weighing the good/bad in each person is important, too. Slavery is a huge tip on the scales toward the bad side. Even in George Washington's time, there were plenty of abolitionist movements and politicians (including John Adams, the 2nd president) who didn't own slaves. Not to mention that George Washington cycled his slaves in and out of PA in order to avoid manumission laws from the time. At the same time, he was a great leader and upheld many wonderful ideals that are at the core of the American experiment. So, yeah, it's complicated. As times change, we reevaluate our past, which is necessary and good.Reef monkey wrote:
No, I see your larger point, it's like the Founding Fathers, people like Washington and Jefferson. They owned slaves and there was the whole Sally Hemmings thing with Jefferson, so some people even question honoring them. I think we need to recognize that times were different, that people have always been and continue to be complicated, nobody is all good, we can continue to honor the positive contributions of people without condoning every aspect of their life.
It's not always the behavior of those in the past that is the problem.
Whether some plantations were like little towns or some owners were nicer than others, it's hard to get past the idea that people and families were owned (and traded and sold) like animals for the profit of other individual families or companies. Perhaps some slaves were not subject to rape, backbreaking work, having their families split apart, punished by the whip, or had their own ancestral languages and traditions eradicated... Maybe... Trying to sort out the nice slaveowners from the mean ones seems beside the point. Saying there were some "moral" slaveowners cannot justify the enterprise. Time and mechanization were not the only solutions. Not owning slaves was a solution, too. Even then, many felt this way. Plantation owners might make less money without the use of slaves, but so be it.