CJ Hunt Tackles Monumental Questions

The question few ask: To what degree should we judge historical figures by the morals of today?

We must beware of "presentism", which is the "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts."

Where do we draw the line? If we topple statues of all/any slave owners, what do we do with the pyramids which were partially built by slaves, as was the Great Wall of China... Villainous Jeff Davis the traitor, sure he's got to go, but what about our founding fathers? Who, yes, owned slaves, but were SO much more than JUST slave-owners.

Also, how do we face our history and these statues? Will monuments considered wrong-headed and offensive be removed as part of an elevated consciousness or amidst reactionary mob violence?

Additionally, we need to stop characterizing legitimate questions the ones above as racist.

Bottom line: stay off social media and read more history BOOKS written by HISTORIANS

John Tulin

Propaganda masquerading as history is still propaganda!

Monuments to the confederacy is treason. White supremacy celebration has to end.

See the film and then weigh in. That's the problem folks waxing poetic without benefit of knowing the issue. Yes, read history books—- and not just revisionist crap. Try a walk in truth.

Another question: Can we celebrate some aspects of a historical person's life even if other aspects were reprehensible? In my public schools, we never celebrated Columbus for his treatment of Amerindians, we celebrated him for his ambition and risk-preferred personality, in particular his willingness to spend the lives of his crew to create the world we live in now. More recently, we celebrate Churchill for his steadfast opposition to Nazi Germany, in spite of his racist imperialism. Yes, Churchill was a racist, and most definitely an imperialist, but would the world we live in today be better had he not lived and led? If Halifax had been Prime Minister and negotiated a peace with Germany as he advocated after Dunkirk?
(Halifax, 1937: "Nationalism and Racialism is a powerful force but I can't feel that it's either unnatural or immoral! I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same![16]").
In the US, FDR largely ignored the civil rights movement to keep the Southern votes. (Eleanor sometimes forced the issue.)

1644, FDR did ignore the civil rights movement at first, but A Phillip Randolph pressed the issue of fair employment in the defense industry and called for organized marches on Washington. As a result, in June of 1941 FDR issued an executive order saying "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin." and then created the Fair Employment Practices Commission to implement it. It may seem incremental now, but the ripple effect was huge.
After the war Randolph pressed for de segregation of the military and in 1948 President Harry Truman did that.
I'm sure Eleanor Roosevelt shared her views, but the person who was a national spokesperson, mobilized workers, and got it done, was A Phillip Randolph.

Those who don't critically examine their history are unlikely to learn from it. Much of our history that we were taught in schools was written by the people in power and from their viewpoint with legends, half truths, and omissions. It is important to realize that humans are imperfect, a lot of good people did bad things, and bad people did good things, and people were the product of their historical times and values and social standards that we now know better and reject.
So let's try to have history books that teach facts, good and bad, and not legends or inflated heroes but imperfect humans with all the positive and negatives that they brought with them. Let's move the statues and monuments to museums with historical context and explanation of what they did and how it shaped our country and it's sometimes opposing views and values. Let's not square off and stick our heads in the sand and fight about whose history version is correct and reject the actual facts as they were, but instead embrace that humans and their history is difficult, messy, sometimes ugly, with moments of greatness, but we can learn from our mistakes and do better in the future to meet our ideals and goals without harming others along the way.

1644 & Rep Dillon's thoughtful, nuanced comments remind us that history is complex and requires more critical analysis (and less useless moralizing).