Cancel Culture Has to Reevaluate Itself

People, mainly liberals, need to seriously consider the electoral impact they are having when it comes to things like tearing down statues of the founders or anyone else who played an influential role in this country because they didn't see race the same way we do 250 years later.

It takes tremendous arrogance and sanctimony to judge historical people the way so many do today. Their judgment assumes that if they had been born into those times, in those places, and under those circumstances, they would have behaved very differently from everyone else who actually lived in that setting. 

It takes tremendous arrogance and sanctimony to judge historical people the way so many do today.

We again,  agree... for real once we kinda tell all the people who get paid to make us fight to fuck off, we actually get along pretty damn well. 

Their judgment assumes that if they had been born into those times, in those places, and under those circumstances, they would have behaved very differently from everyone else who actually lived in that setting. 

Yep, it is called presentism and is one thing my professors warned me about from the get go. Basically "do not view past events and people from your current perspective, you have to see it from theirs."

That does not mean you cannot judge their beliefs or actions to be wrong, of course you can, but you cannot really judge THEM as people. They were, afterall, a product of their time.  

That does not mean you cannot judge their beliefs or actions to be wrong, of course you can, but you cannot really judge THEM as people. They were, afterall, a product of their time.  

Have you ever seen the movie 12 Years A Slave?  It's a true story by the way.   Slaveholders knew what they were doing was wrong.  They liked their lifestyle too much to give it up. 

Have you ever seen the movie 12 Years A Slave?

I have not, meant to but the wife just was never feeling it.

It's a true story by the way.

So I have heard.

 Slaveholders knew what they were doing was wrong.  They liked their lifestyle too much to give it up. 

And that is just it in most cases. People know what they are doing is really fucked up, but if it mean they can pay the bills....

It's a good movie. Pretty stark, most of the time, but it's in the same vein as watching something like Schindler's List. 

John, I do like you most of the time and think you have your head head somewhat screwed on straight (maybe a little crooked), but do you have to use that GIF? I know even you know the Q shit is for fucking retards, so...why?

Nevermind.

I think it is mocking our national moron, isnt it? 

It is, there are just so many idiots that jerk off to that image, I didn't even think before I made my post. My bad.

And that is just it in most cases. People know what they are doing is really fucked up, but if it mean they can pay the bills....

If we are talking about Washington and Jefferson, they both acknowledged that slavery was immoral yet neither emancipated their slaves during their lifetime. We need not hold them to 'current standards' to judge them since during their own time, internationally and here in the US, slavery was recognized as abhorrent. The fact that they chose to continue to enslave humans, even though they knew that it was morally wrong, as a means to maintain their wealth and stature, brings their character even more into question. 

Both men were morally bankrupt. 

Does that make them any less brilliant? IMHO, no. 

Does that make ME view them with less awe than I did when they first taught me about American History in grade school? Absolutely. 

BTW, equating Washington and Jefferson with Confederate traitors is ridiculous and they should just STOP. 

Dismissing the call for disavowing and removing memorials to Confederate traitors merely because a small misguided minority equate them with Washington and Jefferson is ridiculous too and they should just STOP that too. 

Yeah this is not how we should be handling what we now recognize as failures of our past.   A healthy society will own its past, criticize it objectively and then attempt to do better.   Destroying records and/or reminders of the past is not going to fix problems.   Those who were offended by the artifacts/records will still be offended and the destruction just creates new animosity in others.

So we should leave statues of confederate traitors up in majority black cities, often located in prominent places in the heart of town?  It is objectively absurd. 

Confederate sympathizers and white grievers need to put their big boy and girl pants on and move into the 21st century. 

I don't agree with tearing statues down though, they should be taken down by an orderly process through local government. 

There is a statue of Alexander Stephens in the halls of the US Congress. Stephens was the vice president of the confederacy and the man who said that white supremacy was the cornerstone of the "new nation". 

His bust doesnt belong in Congress any more than Hitler's does. 

It is still there. 

So we should leave statues of confederate traitors up in majority black cities, often located in prominent places in the heart of town? 

Who is 'we'?    Each community has the right to take down statues and put up new statues in their domain.   What I am saying is that the destruction of our history is unhealthy.   If I were part of a decision making body for a community I would argue that we should have a very good reason (more than 'it offends some of our citizens') when making these changes.   And, as is true in life, every situation is different.   There is no single rule that fits all situations.  

There is a statue of Alexander Stephens in the halls of the US Congress. Stephens was the vice president of the confederacy and the man who said that white supremacy was the cornerstone of the "new nation". 

In this example I would argue to keep it.   This is an example of our sordid history.    We acknowledge the good and the bad.    The statue should not be there to honor Stephens and should depict his historical role accurately.   Same with our history books, we should not try to whitewash our past but own it and teach our next generation about the failures so that they are better.

In this example I would argue to keep it.   This is an example of our sordid history.    We acknowledge the good and the bad.    The statue should not be there to honor Stephens and should depict his historical role accurately.  

No, you're wrong. If a class of black kids is walked through the hall of honor or whatever they call that section in the Capitol Building , they should not have to look at a statue which was put up to honor someone who thought people like them are inferior. 

There are a thousand ways to legitimately learn about that era without using these statues. Most of them dont have a damn thing to do with the Civil War and were constructed 40 or 50 or 90 years later.  All statues to Columbus should come down too. 

The statue should not be there to honor Stephens

That's exactly why statues exist, to honor people. I think they should be removed to a museum to teach new generations about those historic roles and failures.

There's an historic slave market building in the center of a town in Georgia. They are going to remove it. I think it should be removed from the center of town but preserved at another location or museum.

If a class of black kids is walked through the hall of honor or whatever they call that section in the Capitol Building , they should not have to look at a statue which was put up to honor someone who thought people like them are inferior. 

Yet again, you insert honor in spite of my comments.   Each of your comments has attempted to reframe my position from one of owning the good and bad of our history (the truth) to one of honoring failures.

You are, in a word, lying.   Knock it off.   Take out 'honor' (I never wrote or implied it) and reinsert truth (the good and the bad).

You are, in a word, lying.   Knock it off.   Take out 'honor' (I never wrote or implied it) and reinsert truth (the good and the bad).

Get a grip. It's not about you. I dont care if you use the word honor or not. Its not about you, its about the statues and the locations. 

It is well known that almost all of these confederate statues were put up as part of the "Lost Cause" myth to rewrite the Civil War era in the south.  There is no reason for their existence other than that a bunch of white racists wanted them . Those days are over. 

That's exactly why statues exist, to honor people.

Originally; for the most part.   Let a century go by and we now have history.   All the people in the community who were honoring the individual are dead.   None of the people alive contributed to the statue.   So leaving an artifact of history is not necessarily honoring the figure (or a concept).   As per the point I have been making, the living people in the community could put together an historically accurate plaque that would certainly not be honoring.

Own our history, truthfully.

Get a grip. It's not about you.

It is most definitely about me when you repeatedly and dishonestly try to reframe my position.   Knock it off.

I havent said a word about you wanting to honor anyone. You seem somewhat flustered in this discussion. 

Most recent:

JR @3.1.2 - If a class of black kids is walked through the hall of honor or whatever they call that section in the Capitol Building , they should not have to look at a statue which was put up to honor someone who thought people like them are inferior. 

You keep talking about honor in your comments to me.   Not honor, truth.   Simple.

You seem somewhat flustered in this discussion. 

I am dealing with typical nonsense, individuals perpetually trying to put words in another's mouth.   I am tired of restating my position only to have 'place of honor' come back instead of 'own the truth'.

And, as you know, I greatly dislike dishonesty.

You keep talking about honor in your comments to me.   Not honor, truth.   Simple.

I'm talking about the hall in Congress, which is a place of honor for these statues. I'm not going to stop using the word honor just because it is irritating you.  As I said, I did not say YOU want to honor these people. Get off the high horse. 

I have made a very clear point about not running from our own history but facing it.   You keep bringing honor into your 'rebuttals'.   It seems no matter how many times or ways I correct your reframing, you just come back with more.  

Own your words John.

Your protestations here are comical.  

Most of the statues we are talking about here have little to nothing to do with the history of the Civil War, they were erected many decades later as part of the southern attempt to rewrite the outcome of the war. 

There is no logical reason to respect any of these statues. 

I will give you some articles to read about this if you like. 

part of a speech given by Judith Ezekiel at a Black Lives Matter protest on July 5, 2020

The UDC, a part of Southern white women’s active campaign to perpetuate racist hatred and white supremacy, was founded in 1894, reached 80,000 members in 1912, and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars with the purpose of rehabilitating the Confederacy.  According to one historian, “For nearly twenty years, the Daughters successfully campaigned to build monuments in almost every city, town, and state of the former Confederacy,” including at least one in commemoration of the Ku Klux Klan.

Nearly all Confederate statues in the United States were erected after 1895, the vast majority between 1900 and the 1920s, a high point of racist violence and oppression (the KKK had 5 million members in 1925). There was a resurgence in building again during the Civil Rights Movement. Today, even with some having come down, there are still about 1,700 Confederate symbols on public land, and some 700 of them are monuments. Most are in the South, but not all. There are monuments around the country, including several in my home state of Ohio; one of them, on Johnson Island, is also by “Uncle” Moses Ezekiel.

The Arlington Cemetery statue had faded from my memory until 2017, when Nazis and white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville around a statue of Thomas Jefferson, chanting “White lives matter,” and “Jews will not replace us.” It was brought to my attention that, ironically, that statue was sculpted by a Jew, my cousin Moses.

I immediately started a discussion with my family about the Arlington Memorial, and in 24 hours over five time zones we got 22 members of our extended family, aged 19-91, to sign a letter demanding the removal of our relative’s statue. Since then, another 18 of Moses’s relatives have joined us from four or five branches of our family tree. It has been reproduced in the Washington Post and in newspapers from France to New Zealand, dovetailing with campaigns by descendants of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, all proclaiming that Confederate monuments have no right to occupy our public spaces.

Here is the text of our letter:

One of the most important memorials to the Confederacy is the statue at Arlington National Cemetery, unveiled in 1914. It was sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel, a former Confederate soldier and a prominent sculptor of his time. Ezekiel was our relative.

Like most such monuments, this statue intended to rewrite history to justify the Confederacy and the subsequent racist Jim Crow laws. It glorifies the fight to own human beings, and, in its portrayal of African Americans, implies their collusion.

As proud as our family may be of Moses’s artistic prowess, we—more than twenty members [now 40] of the Ezekiel extended family—say remove that statue. Take it out of its honored spot in Arlington National Cemetery and put it in a museum that makes clear its oppressive history.

Confederate monuments are not memorials to the fallen soldiers or to the victims of war: They are intentional instruments in revisionist U.S. history that portrays a sympathetic view of the Confederacy and the idea of the “Lost Cause,” a sort of Gone-With-the-Wind view of the era.

“The Lost Cause” created a legend to absolve the South of any blame in the Civil War and in slavery. It portrays Confederate soldiers as tragic yet heroic figures who failed only because of the superior firepower of the North. It contends that the enslaved people were not mistreated and were actually rather happy with their lot. It claims that the cause of the Civil War was not slavery but “states’ rights” (a code word still today for racism).  Although nearly all historians concur that slavery was at the heart of the War, over 40% of Americans today don’t believe it. And finally, and less frequently noted, the Lost Cause portrays a culture based upon white male protection of pure Southern white womanhood. The Lost Cause is white supremacy in its most concentrated form.

Most of the statues we are talking about here have little to nothing to do with the history of the Civil War

Good grief you seem incapable of understanding my point.   I made a principled statement @3 and have essentially detailed and repeated it far too many time.   My comment was not about any particular statue, it was about our history and the truthful owning of it.

Given you apparently do not understand that at this point shows you never will. 

I will say I support taking down the monuments to the Confrderates, they were traitors, by definition, and sought to preserve slavery. I do not think those people should be honored in the country they betrayed. 

And yes, I do understand why I may sound hypocritical here.

Who said anything about honor?    I am talking about owning our failures?   How does 'honor' get into this??

A statue of someone being created is an act of honoring that person.

At the time of creation that is no doubt the most common case.   Let a century go by and we are looking back at our nation's history and have the ability to hold historical context.

I have never said anything about honor.   Why is there an apparent desire to reframe what I wrote?

Strike the word honor and use the word truth (as in facing the truth and portraying same accurately for future generations).   Then you will have the gist of my position.

Let a century go by and we are looking back at our nation's history and have the ability to hold historical context. I have never said anything about honor.

Very true, hence why this can get a bit messy and why I advised against presentism. 

Let a century go by and we are looking back at our nation's history and have the ability to hold historical context. I have never said anything about honor.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other here. Erecting a statue is in and  if itself and act of honoring that person/event. We can absolutely acknowledge the truth of that person while at the same time deciding they don't need a statue. 

Erecting a statue is in and  if itself and act of honoring that person/event. We can absolutely acknowledge the truth of that person while at the same time deciding they don't need a statue. 

Let see if you understand my point then.   We are not talking about erecting a new statue, we are talking about ancient statues erected by long-dead ancestors who lived in different times.    Leaving an ancient statue is not necessarily honoring the person.   It can be there to own our history.   Especially if the current inhabitants portray it truthfully.   A plaque which, for example, describes a statue such as Columbus and speaks of his atrocities is certainly not honoring the man.   It is fessing up about our history; it is being truthful.

Also, this should be a community decision.   We are not an authoritarian nation.   We are federated and that means that local conditions are typically left up to the communities.   Seems to me some are hinting that the federal government should mandate removal of all offensive historical statues.   Is that where we are going?

How many statues of all sorts of less-than-honorable people do we have in the USA.   Do we mandate they all be removed?   Where, exactly, does this attempt to run from our past end?

Let me get this straight, are you saying that the Confederate statues around the US should be left in their place of honor? That statues of Columbus should be left in place of honor? 

Let me get this straight, are you saying that the Confederate statues around the US should be left in their place of honor? That states of Columbus should be left in place of honor? 

No, not honor.   This is not about honoring people.   It is about not trying to cleanse our past failures.   The USA has done good things and we have done terrible things.   I am not in favor of trying to hide our failures.

There is no reason on earth to leave up statues to confederate generals in black communities.  You are way off base. 

You are aware that the Confederate Statues are displayed in what could be called honor. For example, in Richmond VA there is monument row and many of those statues were constructed well after the Civil War. So who was a product of their time?

And Columbus should have statues honoring him and his '' discovery'' of America? 

Are you aware that he was a murderer and slaver and his genocidal behavior towards the indigenous population was so horrible that others brought back word to Spain and he was arrested put in chains and brought back to Spain. 

So if Columbus was a product of his time what were those that arrested and brought him back to Spain? Were they a product of their time? 

Excusing either the Confederates or Columbus is pure nonsense. Having their statues anywhere other than in a museum is beyond ignorant.

You are not paying attention.

I just wrote that it is up to the community.   There is a difference between a predominantly black community with a confederate general statue and a community of other demographics.   It is certainly understandable that a predominantly black community would choose to remove a confederate general statue (especially if an honor) and replace it with something more appropriate to them.    They might also consider keeping it with proper historical context as a clear reminder that the abolition of slavery was something that our nation engaged in civil war over.

The principle I stated stands.   The general cancel culture movement seeks to erase our past;  that is what I object to.   I am against trying to hide from our sins.

Looks like you think we should whitewash our history and present a pretty picture for the next generation.    Don't you think we do too much of that already?

You are aware that the Confederate Statues are displayed in what could be called honor.

If that is what the community wants then that is their call.   I, however, would argue that historical figures be properly represented.   Again, the truth is what is important.   I am not talking about honor.

And Columbus should have statues honoring him and his '' discovery'' of America? 

Again, Kavika, I am talking about the truth!  This is the whitewashed version of Columbus.   Are you against showing Columbus as he was?   The truth?   Don't sweep Columbus under the carpet, illustrate what actually took place.

Oh, please. I don't think there are any more all white communities in the south, but if some backwater place wants to keep their statue up to General Beauregard Smithers the IV in an all white town I suppose no one will care. 

These are the demographics of Richmond Virginia

As of the2010 United States Census, there were 204,214 people living in the city. 50.6% wereBlack or African American, 40.8%White, 2.3%Asian, 0.3%Native American, 0.1%Pacific Islander, 3.6% of some other race and 2.3%of two or more races. 6.3% wereHispanic or Latino(of any race).^[64]

Until a few weeks ago there was a section in the heart of the city called Monument Avenue

Monument Avenueis a tree-lined grassy mall dividing the eastbound and westbound traffic inRichmond, Virginia, originally named for its monuments memorializing Confederate veterans of theAmerican Civil War. Between 1900 and 1925, Monument Avenue greatly expanded with architecturally significant houses, churches and apartment buildings.^[4]Former monuments representingJ. E. B. Stuart,Stonewall Jackson,Jefferson DavisandMatthew Fontaine Mauryhad their bronze statues removed from their memorial pedestals amidstcivil unrestin July 2020.^[5]Two intact monuments still retain their bronze statues: theRobert E. Lee monumentdedicated in 1890 and theArthur Ashemonument memorializing a black American tennis champion dedicated in 1996.

Now most of the statues have been removed, and it is perfectly right and just that they should be. 

If that is what the community wants then that is their call.   I, however, would argue that historical figures be properly represented.   Again, the truth is what is important.   I am not talking about honor.

The Confederate Statues on Monument Ave in Richmond VA (many have been removed since the George Floyd murder) are in a place of honor and the plaques state the ''righteous cause''...There is no way that it is anything but honoring them. 

Again, Kavika, I am talking about the truth!  This is the whitewashed version of Columbus.   Are you against showing Columbus as he was?   The truth?   Don't sweep Columbus under the carpet, illustrate what actually took place.

I'm sure that you're well aware that I didn't say anything about not showing Columbus for what he was. The statues of him around the country are honoring him, they should not be there but in a museum. 

Oh, please.

Oh please what?   If a community wants to put up or take down a statue that is their business.   Right?

If a community is trying to erase part of their history I would argue that they should embrace it:  good and bad.   You apparently would argue that they should erase the part of history that offends them.

That is just stupid.   You should realize that nations (including ours) rewrite history all the time.   Do you consider that good?

I do not.   I say that we should own our true history and not try to make it go away through symbolic acts but rather make it clear for future generations.

I'm sure that you're well aware that I didn't say anything about not showing Columbus for what he was. The statues of him around the country are honoring him, they should not be there but in a museum. 

I would hope then that you are aware that I am not proposing that the USA continue with the cartoon characterization of Columbus but rather treat Columbus in an historically accurate manner.   Not sure how my words could suggest anything other than that.

People keep putting the word 'honor' into my words —reframing what I wrote— yet that has never been my point.    Why?  

The statues of him around the country are honoring him, they should not be there but in a museum.

Are you in favor of mandating each community take down specific statues or allow each community to make its own decisions?   And if Columbus was strictly in a museum / history books, how should he be portrayed?   Accurately or white-washed?

People keep putting the word 'honor' into my words —reframing what I wrote— yet that has never been my point.    Why? 

My comments are quite clear when I mentioned honor. They are all in places of honor with plaques stating such. How you do not understand that they are in a place of honor is strange. 

Are you in favor of mandating each community take down specific statues or allow each community to make its own decisions?   And if Columbus was strictly in a museum / history books, how should he be portrayed?   Accurately or white-washed?

Yes, I am in favor of mandating that communities take them down. Currently, they are being honored so how you do not see that is puzzling. With the statues in place as they are now his history is whitewashed as it is in history books. If he was in a museum, I was quite clear that his true history should be on full display. How this is difficult for you to grasp is strange. 

I think what Kavika is saying, and I agree with him on this, is that the placement itself is an honor.  Monument Avenue, the halls of Congress - these are places where we erect statues of those whom we admire and whose accomplishments we consider to be good.  They are reserved specifically as places of honor.  Just by being there, it is implied that those depicted are being honored.

How you do not understand that they are in a place of honor is strange. 

I understand that.   How do you not understand that there is a major difference between ancestors placing a statue (typically for honor) and descendants sometimes centuries removed owning their history (but doing so honestly)?

Erecting a new statue is different from acknowledging our sordid history.    We did not place the statue, our ancestors did.   They are all dead.   None of us chose to erect the statue, it was their decision and they were a product of their times.    The statute represents their view and that is what is meant by history - the acts and views of the past.

see @3.3.12

I understand.  However, some of those statues were erected in the full knowledge of  their subjects' misdeeds, Many of those honoring Confederate leaders were erected decades after the Civil War and in direct response to the Civil Rights movement.

projects.fivethirtyeight

The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of   sweeping laws   to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society. During this period, more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to   reshape Civil War history . And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who sponsored hundreds of statues, predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011.

“The UDC was very focused on the future,” said   Karen Cox , a historian, University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor and author of numerous articles and books on Southern history and culture, including “Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture.” “Their goal, in all the work that they did, was to prepare future generations of white Southerners to respect and defend the principles of the Confederacy.” It wasn’t just Confederate monuments, either. They also   rejected any school textbook   that said slavery was the central cause of the Civil War; they   praised the Ku Klux Klan   and   gave speeches   that distorted the cruelty of American slavery and defended slave owners.

...

From around 1920 to the early 1940s, there was a second wave of statue building.   Jane Dailey , professor of American history at the University of Chicago, said this period of construction coincided with more Black Americans’ fighting for civil rights and pushing back against   widespread lynchings in the South . “You have Black soldiers who have just fought for their country [in World War I] and fought to make the world safe for democracy, coming back to an America that's determined to lynch them,” said Dailey. “[T]hose were very clearly white supremacist monuments and are designed to intimidate, not just memorialize.”

Those would then be exceptions to what I am talking about.   Also, I maintain that the communities should decide this.

Detroit has a large black fist downtown, cannot miss it.   It is honoring Joe Lewis (and he is most definitely worthy of honor).   Trouble is, it looks like a sideways black power sign and that is not a flattering image for Detroit.  Quite a few metro inhabitants greatly dislike the fist.   But that is what the local community wants and it is their choice.  

Those would then be exceptions to what I am talking about.

I dont know what you are talking about, but almost all of the confederate statues were erected as part of the Lost Cause mythology.  There is a great deal written about this. 

Which statues of confederates do you think don't fall into this category?

The statues of him around the country are honoring him, they should not be there but in a museum. 

Going to focus on the 'honor' word:

Why in a museum?   Why not just destroy them?   If you place the statues in a museum they still exist.   If those statues honor him in some community's park then why would moving them to a museum change this notion of honor?   The honor, after all, comes from the long-dead people who erected the statue.   The fact that they honored him is not going to change.   We should not hide that either.

Seems to me that some are not able to accept the idea that the honoring via statue made by our ancestors does not necessarily carry over to us.   It is, however, reflecting our history.   How we present the history is our call.   I am arguing that we own it and present it truthfully.

A statue made by our ancestors to honor a figure can be moved anywhere but it will still be a symbol of honor (per our ancestors).   My point is that hiding historical artifacts is counter-productive.   We should instead own our history but do so honestly.    If this were done, then statues of historical figures would not be presumed to be honors but as history.

And Columbus should have statues honoring him and his '' discovery'' of America? 

Yes. Like it or not, Columbus is an extraordinarily important person in the history of the United States. Basically, even though he was an Italian sailing for Spain, he represents the beginning of United States history - perhaps more so than any other person.

This is true, even though he didn't land in what is now US territory, and had not the slightest imaginings that the government and society of the United States would turn out the way it did. In fact, he likely would have had no particular love for English colonies or the nation they grew into.

That identity with the United States is reflected in the fact that so many things in the USA are named for him - the nation's capitol, for example. I know he's no hero of native peoples, but nobody is going to be favored by all people. Any statue of Columbus is meant to evoke a celebratory sense of American history. 

That doesn't mean you are expected to approve of every aspect of the man or his life. If you are waiting for perfection, we won't have any statues.

A key problem with Columbus is that he brutalized (and murdered) many of the indigenous people he encountered.   Our history hides much of Columbus.   He is instead presented in a cartoonish fashion and almost always as a hero.  

And, here, we have statues of Columbus that date back to our founding as a nation.    Should we destroy them?

Yes. Like it or not, Columbus is an extraordinarily important person in the history of the United States. Basically, even though he was an Italian sailing for Spain, he represents the beginning of United States history - perhaps more so than any other person.

Which is beyond odd, since Columbus never came to North America. Leif Eriksson was the first to set foot on N America nearly 500 years before Columbas set sail, around the year 1000, and after that, it was John Cabot in 1497 who sailed to the east coast of N America. So you got me why Columbus is so honored here. 

Our history hides much of Columbus.

I really don't think historians are trying to hide something about Columbus. I hear this a lot. I even hear it about it slavery - that we are hiding slavery. I am confident that no person who has gone through America's schools had the fact of slavery hidden from them.

Having said that, in a survey course aimed at grade school kids, you're going for the high points. Mention the negatives, of course. However, people who are on a mission to make the entire story of Columbus one of genocide akin to the Third Reich are hiding the real reasons we remember him.

It's also not true. Columbus didn't set out to murder millions of people. Nor did he accomplish it even by accident. He is blamed for a lot of things that either didn't actually happen or were completely outside his control.

And, here, we have statues of Columbus that date back to our founding as a nation.    Should we destroy them?

We need to be able to recognize an important nuance of these markers. Whatever ill things people might think about Columbus, none of those factors are why statues were built of him and cities were named for him. He is celebrated for all those others reasons I mentioned above.

When discussing him, it is perfectly reasonable to explore any negative aspects of his history, but it is not reasonable to dismiss him entirely or ignore all of those positives in favor of presenting him as some great evil and nothing more.

Why in a museum?   Why not just destroy them?   If you place the statues in a museum they still exist.   If those statues honor him in some community's park then why would moving them to a museum change this notion of honor?   The honor, after all, comes from the long-dead people who erected the statue.   The fact that they honored him is not going to change.   We should not hide that either.

Relics of the past, especially ones with a horrid past belong in a museum where the acts can be listed and their true history explained. Left standing in their current position with a plaque extolling their virtues isn't facing reality nor is it telling the truth about them.  Actually the statue of Columbus in Columbus Ohio was dedicated in 1955, I was 15 years old so the thought of states being from centuries ago isn't a fact.

npr

the question remains, how did a man who never set foot on North America get a federal holiday in his name? While Columbus did arrive in the "New World" when he cast anchor in the Bahamas, he never made it to the United States.

This is in contrast to Juan Ponce de Leon (who arrived in Florida in 1513), Alonso Alvarez de Pineda (whose ships arrived in what's now known as Corpus Christi Bay in Texas in 1519) and fellow Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano, who reached New York Harbor in 1524.

So why Columbus Day? Until the mid-1700s, Christopher Columbus was not widely known among most Americans. This began to change in the late 1700s, after the United States gained independence from Britain. The name "Columbia" soon became a synonym for the United States, with the name being used for various landmarks in the newly created nation (see the District of Columbia, Columbia University and the Columbia River).

Writer Washington Irving's A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, published in 1828, is the source of much of the glorification and myth-making related to Columbus today and is considered highly fictionalized.

For example, Irving's portrayal of Columbus is of a benevolent, adventurous man who was known for his generosity to Indians. In the best-seller, Columbus "was extremely desirous of dispelling any terror or distrust that might have been awakened in the island by the pursuit of the fugitives," after the escape of a group of Indian captives. This, of course, is the complete opposite of Columbus' actual behavior toward native people. (Incidentally, A History of the Life was also responsible for the incorrect belief that most people thought the Earth was flat until after Columbus's journey.)

Anti-Italian Sentiment

While Italians had always been a part of American history, it wasn't until the 1820s that Italian immigrants began moving to the United States in sizable numbers. The largest wave of Italian immigration occurred between 1880 and the start of World War I in 1914.

As Italian-Americans began to settle in the country's major cities, they often faced religious and ethnic discrimination. As Andrew Rolle wrote in his book, The Italian Americans: Troubled Roots, Italians were often portrayed as "short of stature, dark in complexion, cruel and shifty." Newspaper reports at the time often used the word "swarthy" to refer to Italians and other language of the time focused on the foreignness (and Catholic-ness) of these new Americans.

These anti-Italian sentiments occasionally led to brutal violence. One of the largest mass lynchings in the United States occurred in New Orleans in 1891, when 11 Sicilian immigrants were lynched after the city's police commissioner was killed and suspicion had been placed on the Italian community. (The 11 men had been found not guilty before the lynching. A New York Times editorial had this reaction: "Yet while every good citizen will readily assent to the proposition that this affair is to be deplored, it would be difficult to find any one individual who would confess that privately he deplores it very much.")

The first official commemoration of Columbus' journey occurred in 1892, just a year after the New Orleans lynchings. That's when President Benjamin Harrison became the first president to call for a national observance of Columbus Day, in honor of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival. Harrison's proclamation directly linked the legacy of Columbus to American patriotism, with the proclamation celebrating the hard work of the American people and Columbus equally:

"On that day let the people, so far as possible, cease from toil and devote themselves to such exercises as may best express honor to the discoverer and their appreciation of the great achievements of the four completed centuries of American life."

Harrison's proclamation is notable in that there are no real references to Columbus' life, work or nationality. Instead, it was very specific to the 400th anniversary of Columbus' journey and how far America as a whole had come since then.

Celebrating Heritage, Via Columbus

Because Italian-Americans were struggling against religious and ethnic discrimination in the United States, many in the community saw celebrating the life and accomplishments of Christopher Columbus as a way for Italian Americans to be accepted by the mainstream. As historian Christopher J. Kauffman once wrote, "Italian Americans grounded legitimacy in a pluralistic society by focusing on the Genoese explorer as a central figure in their sense of peoplehood."

The first state to officially observe Columbus Day was Colorado in 1906. Instrumental in the creation of the holiday was Angelo Noce, an Italian immigrant who was the founder of Colorado's first Italian newspaper, La Stella.

 The Doctrine of Discovery established a spiritual, political, and legal justification for colonization and seizure of land not inhabited by Christians. It has been invoked since Pope Alexander VI issued the Papal Bull “Inter Caetera” in 1493.

In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of Discovery would extend from Europe to the infant U.S. government.

The Doctrine of Discovery is enshrined in U.S. law. 

It seems that Columbus knew quite well what his mission was.

I really don't think historians are trying to hide something about Columbus.

History taught to our children routinely hides the ugly and promotes the good (sometimes exaggerates the good).   I do not think this is even debatable and I do not want to debate it.   I just mentioned Columbus to put Kavika's comments in perspective for you.

When discussing him, it is perfectly reasonable to explore any negative aspects of his history, but it is not reasonable to dismiss him entirely or ignore all of those positives in favor of presenting him as some great evil and nothing more.

I agree.   As I stated in my opening comment, we should own our history and that means being honest about it.   There is no value, from my perspective, in trying to hide our history. 

While I understand why people are highly offended by the acts of select historical figures, and (of course!) agree that these figures should not be FALSELY honored.   I disagree with the principle of whitewashing our history.   I also disagree with the view that monuments erected by our ancestors to honor a figure mean that leaving them stand with plaques speaking the truth (ergo the bad stuff too) would be an honor.   To me that is owning our history and passing it on, honestly, to the next generations.   And moving these to a museum seems pointless since what matters is the truth, not the location.   A statue of Benedict Arnold among other founding Generals is historical; the descriptive plaques alongside the statues should honestly and correctly represent Arnold as a traitor; that is not honor.   Removing Arnold makes no sense to me.

Relics of the past, especially ones with a horrid past belong in a museum where the acts can be listed and their true history explained.

I agree, but I disagree that they exclusively belong in a museum.   Museums are not the only places where human beings display their past.   And museums do not hold exclusive capability of putting forth honest descriptive plaques.   Many statues (most?) have plaques describing when the statue was made, by whom, why and a history of the individual.   That history should not be false (spun to the positive) but rather direct and honest.  

To me the issue should not be about statues and their locations but rather the historical record made available to the public and taught to the next generation.

Left standing in their current position with a plaque extolling their virtues isn't facing reality nor is it telling the truth about them. 

I agree.   And given what I have stated repeatedly, you should already know that I agree with the above.   My question to you is what I have been stating because it is not the above.

Actually the statue of Columbus in Columbus Ohio was dedicated in 1955, I was 15 years old so the thought of states being from centuries ago isn't a fact.

Okay.  And there are statues of Columbus from our founding.   I used the founding aged status as an example to make clear the idea that most of these statues were made by our ancestors and are products of their times and their views.   If we erect a statue today then that would almost certainly be honoring the individual.   Leaving an historical statue with updated plaques that are honest (truthful) is, as I see things, owning our history and not trying to hide it.

Actually the statue of Columbus in Columbus Ohio

On another point, who should decide what to do about this?    Should the federal government mandate the removal of all statues of Columbus?   Or should the disposition of this statue be the call of the residents of Columbus Ohio?    Further, should the federal government force Columbus Ohio to change its name?   Having an entire city named after Columbus is certainly a substantially greater honor than a statue.

These are rhetorical.   My point is to illustrate that this principle of not owning our past (and that is how I see this) not only does not actually work, but it has no logical end.   If we erase or hide that which offends us (acts of our ancestors) then why would we stop with statues?    Why would we not go after all artifacts of offense including the names of streets, buildings and entire cities?

Worse, the USA has a lot of horrible acts in our history.   Seems to me that the South has all sorts of buildings, streets, decorations, statues, etc. reflecting their heritage and that would necessarily and heavily include slavery.   Do we raze the offending items in the South?    And even more direct, what do we do with figures such as George Washington, et. al., slave-owner?   What do we do with figures such as Andrew Jackson: slave-owner, ethnic cleanser?    The examples are many.

Net.   My position is to own our history and teach the good and the bad.   As stated in my opening comment @3.

Net.   My position is to own our history and teach the good and the bad.   As stated in my opening comment @ 3 .

Sadly we do not teach the bad, we have always whitewashed history.  Do actually think that teaching about the real Columbus, Doctrine of Discovery or Manifest Destiny will take place with the statues and their plaques are left in place?

The murder of George Floyd has created a movement of its own after centuries of really not giving a shit about what minorities have to say or our experiences. Hopefully, the movement will continue, I hope that it will but there is no guarantee that it will. 

Sadly we do not teach the bad, we have always whitewashed history. 

Yes, pretty much how most cultures operate.   And it seems we agree that whitewashed history is counterproductive.

Do actually think that teaching about the real Columbus, Doctrine of Discovery or Manifest Destiny will take place with the statues and their plaques are left in place?

The two are not dependent.   Destroying (or removing) a statue will not cause history to be portrayed properly.    I have no solution for how we can get history to be less whitewashed, but I do believe that is the critical thing.   What matters is what future generations know and that knowledge comes from recorded history and the teaching of same.

The murder of George Floyd has created a movement of its own after centuries of really not giving a shit about what minorities have to say or our experiences. Hopefully, the movement will continue, I'm hope that it will but there is no guarantee that it will. 

Progress is slow, societies evolve slowly.   We seem to be heading in the right direction regarding bigotry.

These statues, mostly made within the last hundred years, I would hardly call from our ancestors.

It is not like in Europe where some of them could be 500 years old. They are relatively new.

In the South here (where I am) there is only one house that holds any significance and it is the home of Jefferson Davis and is a museum.. They have volunteered to take some of these statues and put them on the grounds, in keeping with the theme and significance. They keep being turned down.

And I think I know why, because some people think these should stand in a town square where everyone has to be reminded every time they pass by it.

It would be the only building I could think of.

A lot of the streets have been renamed.

I would also not put past presidents into the same category as the ones that tried to destroy the union.

Taking away a statue that is offensive to a lot of people is not erasing history.

I am not talking about statues that some may be offended by like the statue of David, talking about statues that glorify people that would have others dead or in chains.

These statues, mostly made within the last hundred years, I would hardly call from our ancestors.

I really do not know what to say.   If you do not consider prior generations of people our ancestors there is not much I can offer.

I would also not put past presidents into the same category as the ones that tried to destroy the union.

Where does it end?   Some people would view past presidents in terms of their deeds.   Andrew Jackson, for example, engaged in horrific acts against the indigenous people of our land.  

I consider people I was related to my ancestors. People I am/was not related to are not my ancestors.

Where does it end

 I consider that trying to conflate presidential history with a Jim Crow era push for relevance, if not dominance.

I consider people I was related to my ancestors. People I am/was not related to are not my ancestors.

What word should I use to refer to past generations of Americans who typically are all dead.

Past generations?  Haha

Leif Eriksson was the first to set foot on N America nearly 500 years before Columbas set sail, around the year 1000, and after that, it was John Cabot in 1497 who sailed to the east coast of N America. So you got me why Columbus is so honored here. 

The Norse people's explorations didn't lead directly to the development of the United States. They struck out, settled for a bit, and went home. It was over. Columbus's voyages were the beginning of a trend by several European nations toward trans-Atlantic exploration and settlement. Spain kept going with their explorations, and their competitors - England, France, The Low Countries, Italy, Portugal (you get the idea) - all followed their example, leading to the United States. Thus, Columbus is relevant to our history in a way that Leif Eriksson is not.

At the time when the country was first being established, America was often referred to by people as Columbia. Thus, "District of Columbia" and so on. So the people who founded the country saw Columbus as a beginning point for what they were doing. Americans have been celebrating his landing since the 1790s and it is also celebrated in other countries in South America.

If I were starting from scratch, I kind of doubt I would seek to make his landing date a holiday, just because I can think of a lot of other things to celebrate first. Although, I think our culture could use more holidays, not less.

But how is it that John Cabot who actually was the first person from Europe to North America, is not the person that we celebrate? He made his trip here just 4 years after Columbas. He should be the man that we here celebrate. And for the record, he was nearly as a controversial individual as Columbas was. 

If I were starting from scratch, I kind of doubt I would seek to make his landing date a holiday, just because I can think of a lot of other things to celebrate first. Although, I think our culture could use more holidays, not less.

I totally agree. 

Ohhh, you may have a little trouble here lol.

I have made my position on the Confederates clear for quite awhile, they were fucking traitors and deserved to be treated as such (let them be remembered in history books). And fuck slavery. 

People should be in favor of the truth.   We should not be actively trying to hide it but rather learn from it.

Agreed. In regards to traitors though, history books are the only place they should be, not in the Capitol Building. 

There are lots of ways to handle this.   Benedict Arnold, one of first famous traitors, is a key part of our history.   An accurate portrayal of him (truth, not fiction) is part of our history.   Honoring him as a great American, however, is not the truth and thus I would object.

There's a big difference between Benedict Arnold , who operated as a traitor for personal reasons, and military and government leaders who fought to keep millions of people enslaved. 

He was not a great American. He could have been had he stayed the course...

Yeah John, every example is different from something.   Not a brilliant observation.

Correct.   So do we hide this or face it?

History books absolutely, statues, no. My opinion of course. 

Okay, so in your community your opinion can make a difference.  Would you grant other communities the right to operate per their own opinions?

Not when it comes to the statues of traitors. 

Looks like we will have an even bigger problem as this continues.   Our nation is multi-cultural and opinions vary geographically.   An authoritarian move is not a good idea.

Destroying records and/or reminders of the past is not going to fix problems.

There's a big difference between honoring a person and destroying all trace of that person.

We are supposedly intelligent enough to hold two different ideas at the same time. We can honor Jefferson for his brilliant ideas on human rights... and at the same time condemn him for his less-than-admirable application of them.

Anachrony is a constant risk for any attempt to understand who we are today... by means of understanding the path we followed to get here. We must constantly adjust our vision of events, according to the knowledge and beliefs of the time.

Jefferson is a good example. He was a wealthy Virginian. In his time "wealthy Virginian" was a synonym for "slave owner". He was born into that society; he lived and died in it. He may have had doubts about the institution of slavery... but he actually did very little.

We know he fathered the six children of his slave Sally Hemings, a half-sister of his wife - interesting family! He emancipated two of the children, but not all of them. When Jefferson returned from his time as ambassador to France, Hemings could have refused to return - France had abolished slavery (in Europe, but not in the colonies). How would she have made a living? She chose to return to Monticello.

(Hemings was 3/4 White, so the children Jefferson sired on her were "even Whiter" - about half her descendance eventually "passed as White". What does "passed as White" mean for a person who has seven White great-grandparents and only one Black?)

On Jefferson's death, ownership of Hemings passed to his daughter, Martha Randolph, who "gave her her time" as was often the custom. Hemings lived her last nine years with two of her sons. There is no trace of her ever being emancipated, but an 1833 census recorded her as free.

Was Jefferson a heartless "Twelve-Years-a-Slave" slave owner? Probably not. He probably never personally punished a slave. There were overseers, after all. Were abolitionist ideas in the wind? Certainly.

Anyone who thinks that Jefferson's case is black & white (ha-ha!) is a fool.

I think the good and bad of Thomas Jefferson will continue to be well known, there are many biographies of him and lengthy encyclopedia articles.  He is a good subject for older kids and adults to study and read about.  I am not as approving of younger children being taught something along the lines of "Jefferson was a great man".  His personal story as regards slavery and racism is too mixed to make him a hero for children. 

Good point.  So I wonder if this discussion will turn into a cry to remove all statues of Jefferson.   Where do we draw the line?

His personal story as regards slavery and racism is too mixed to make him a hero for children. 

Tear down his statues.

The southern states had their own declarations of independence. They were the individual states documents of secession and they show the south seceding to protect slavery. 

Yes.   What point are you trying to make here?   That the South was wrong?  

If so, shall we destroy all buildings used for confederate purposes?

So I wonder...

Why should we "remove all"?

Jefferson is a major personage in our history. We are currently taking a new look at many of our "major personages". The texts in the Jefferson Memorial remain genuine... but it might be more historically accurate to add a plaque or three to explain Jefferson's Virginia and the man's own place in it.

His personal story as regards slavery and racism is too mixed to make him a hero for children. 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are lots of things that we explain iteratively. We start with a simple gloss... and gradually render the image more complex. "He was one of our first Presidents. He was important in shaping many of the ways we do things." Over time, we flesh out the character.

Why should we "remove all"?

I think it is a very bad principle.

... add a plaque or three to explain Jefferson's Virginia and the man's own place in it.

As I stated upfront @3, my position is that we own our history and do so honestly.   That means the bad comes with the good.

He can’t be kept away from kids as he wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Bill of Rights, advanced religious liberty, and as President defeated Islamic terrorists of his day and doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase and sent out Lewis and Clark.  Too many basics of our history and our founding ideals to hide him from the kids.  

We cannot really hold people from the past to current standards

and we cannot really hold people of today accountable for the past either.

but those who trade in divisive political bs will continue regardless...