Pat here, diving into the politically sensitive. If you're squeamish, back out now.
As a writer who reveres history and firmly believes that we are doomed to repeat our mistakes until we learn from our past, and as a peace-loving liberal who believes every person on the planet deserves respect, I am left in a quandary by current events.
My opening image is of Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant who hated Catholicism, started a civil war that destroyed immense amounts of artwork and architecture, not to mention thousands of people. He pretty much destroyed an entire culture. He is a politically divisive figure and bigot.
Should we destroy his statue? The moral quandary is best stated in this article, but I'm working from the historical viewpoint.
During the French Revolution, the patriots ripped the heads of the kings of Judah off Notre Dame, simply because the figures wore the cloaks of nobility. They destroyed priceless artwork and history as a political statement. We can say the revolutionaries acted out of respect for their cause, but essentially, it was an emotional act of defiance which disrespected the people who designed and created the monument. We have the same conflict today, on a more difficult scale.
The Judah images were art, but imaginary characters and of no great historical value except to the building. Statues we want destroyed today are also art, but they're often of real historical figures, people who have caused great harm. So now what do we do?
I detest the bigotry and slavery that was the base root of the Confederacy, but should all trace of that history of bigotry be eradicated? I'd love to see the bigotry eradicated, but won't removing historical reminders of those times let us pretend they never happened and can never happen again?
I grew up in Kentucky, truly a house divided during the Civil War. After the war, Kentuckians from both sides erected statues to Confederate soldiers as well as statues and museums of great Union statesmen, including Lincoln. As a student, I saw them as in-your-face reminders of the destruction caused by political divisiveness. I was happy to see my hometown's solution of removing the painful statues from the public eye so they aren't seen as glorifying what should never have happened. But those statues are not only representational works of art, but an ugly piece of history we need to remember. As painful as their existence is, wouldn't destroying them allow us to forget why they were erected or pretend they never happened? (as an amusing anecdote, note the women who erected the Confederate statue pictured here disagreed over whether it was art or not)
It’s far too late to educate our ancestors about the dangers of hate. But it’s not too late to educate our children. If we only show them the statues of men who meet today's standards, like Lincoln, how will they learn to understand that times and people change? That we're capable of choosing the wrong leaders? How do we balance the intellectual need for history against the emotional reaction to an era that should never have happened? Keep in mind, this isn't just about statues. We're in danger of wiping out music, art, books, and dance because they no longer reflect our current beliefs. But current beliefs can be wrong, and we need history to show this.
Do we destroy historical art and our history in the same way Islamic terrorists—and most conquering armies—tore down ancient statues that represented a different period of belief or government? Isn’t destroying art and history, like banning books, a repressive symptom of intolerance? Watching the destruction of the Mosul Museum made me weep, not because I believe in the religion or government represented by the contents, but because those artifacts were made by people who will never live again, people we'll never understand without seeing what they created, how they created it, and try to grasp why the artifacts were of importance. It was like watching the Library of Alexandria burn all over again. Historical objects provide insight into a past we'll never see without a time machine.
The same confusion reigns when we consider all the other forms of art that represent previous eras. Do we throw away all our music, our paintings, our dance, our books, if they don’t reflect our contemporary beliefs? (Reading Harriet Beecher Stowe today, despite all her good intentions, can be downright painful.) Do we write our historical fiction to reflect current culture or the culture of the time period? Or should the creations of the past be a reminder of how
much we’ve changed as a society—and how much more we need to grow? Perhaps all art of a certain age should be accompanied by history lessons?
What do we do about the totally inaccurate but revered Nutcracker ballet? I see it as a fantasy, certainly not historical, but it's a brilliant piece of art from centuries go. Of course the characters aren't accurate. The Tea Dance is almost like performing blackface. Do we use the dance as it is as a teaching moment for our children? Or do we mutilate it to make it fit modern standards?
Do we really need to write a western with our characters shouting The Native Americans are coming? The vernacular at the time would have been injuns or redskins. Contemporary correctness requires identifying the tribe, but historically, in most cases, the general population wouldn’t have known or cared. Sure, I’d like to see disrespectful name-calling eliminated, but I’d find every way possible to avoid writing The Kiowa and Comanche are coming if I'm trying to put readers into a story. So do writers stop writing about indigenous populations? Wouldn’t that be eliminating their history as well as ours? Let's face it, much of history is ugly. What do we serve by pretending otherwise?
As much as I respect the difficulty of achieving the equality every person alive deserves, and the pain many races, religions, and genders suffered in the past and still suffer, must we disrespect the flawed people who brought us to this day to show we're more progressive? Perhaps their beliefs were wrong, but they tilled the soil to feed their families, built the schools, raised our forefathers with what knowledge they possessed, and created this free society we live in. Because of them, each generation that follows is more educated and better able to support themselves than the last, but even now, we are still sadly flawed. Wouldn’t it be better to look back and see the flaws and learn not to repeat them? Their lack of education or empathy is a history we should study, read about, and be appalled by, and never forget lest the same happen to us.
So how do we go about teaching our children to learn from the past? I’m afraid I don’t see whitewashing as a solution. Our history is as sublime as it is ugly. We may rightfully despise Napoleon's reign of terror, but he created the Italy we know today out of dozens of warring city-states where wealthy nobles treated the population as slaves. Do we forget his existence—or learn from his horrific arrogance? If a piece of art or a book offends you, then it probably offends many. But can’t we find a better reaction than off with its head? Have we learned nothing from the suppression of other eras?
Or am I being intellectually naive and should we respect emotion over thought? I certainly felt great joy when the Berlin Wall was destroyed, but maybe parts of it should have been left as a monument to the dangers of isolationism? Are we already forgetting that period of history?
I do not claim to have answers. I don't think any of us do. But where should we start in balancing history with contemporary thinking? I cannot even begin to include everything that needs saying, so I'm hoping readers will help.