Warts and all

Keep statues, but explain history

Back in the days of the Cold War, I derived considerable pride from contrasting the openness, generosity and fair-mindedness of American society against the forced ideological orthodoxy of the Soviet Union.

To be sure, America had its share of myths and flawed heroes, but these myths and heroes always remained subject to critical review in an ongoing process of seeking deeper truths. So we learned that, heroics aside, Custer was a yellow-haired, self-deluded fool who recklessly led his men into a deathtrap; Andrew Jackson—in defiance of the Supreme Court—mounted a deadly ethnic-cleansing operation against the Cherokee; and preservation of slavery, rather than “states’ rights,” was the principal cause of the Civil War.

But monuments were not torn down and historical figures were not air-brushed out of photographs. Neither were books and films edited to tell only one version of history, as was the general practice in the USSR. And yet, here we are today, tearing down monuments to any historical figure who owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy. Even the “Little Mermaid” in Copenhagen has now been vandalized. A protest by the human/ fish anti-miscegenation lobby?

So I admit to being conflicted on this issue, but here’s the thing that needs to be understood: The statues, the military bases named after Southern generals, the display of Confederate battle flags—all are evidence of a post-Civil War reconciliation between North and South. These are the tangible products of Lincoln’s wish that we should move forward “with malice toward none, with charity for all.”

However, that reconciliation took place only between white Northerners and white Southerners. And it was achieved at the price of Black people, particularly in the South, getting thrown under the bus (or relegated to its back seats). This Northern “handsoff” policy as regards the civil rights of Blacks in the South lasted well into the 1950s.

So what we are seeing today in the tearing down of statues is the product of a legitimate, pent-up anger at being left out of the grand bargain. And it is an anger that has been deliberately provoked for the last four years by another reckless, yellow-haired, self-deluded fool.

I get it—every tribe needs its heroes. But monuments should not serve as symbols of “we’re in charge here” or as rallying points for causes—lost or otherwise. In a mature society, every tribe acknowledges its own heroes’ faults and failings and understands how these affect all the other tribes. We do not need any more all-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking here.

Instead of erasing history, we should promote a better understanding of it, warts and all. Perhaps our statues need explanatory plaques, “feet of clay,” that acknowledge our heroes’ sins while praising their accomplishments. If that were the case, there could be more, rather than fewer monuments.

Personally, I would like to see statues of Black heroes as well, particularly in the South. Those not yet so recognized might include Malcolm X, Julian Bond, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison and many others who did what they could to bring a grave and long-lasting injustice to the attention of their countrymen.

And as a nation, we must stop promoting divisiveness and violence—all the way from the office of the president down to the cop on the street. We should proceed with “charity for all,” where “all” really means everyone.

Then, maybe, statues would no longer be such a big deal. Every tribe in our diverse nation could bask in the glow of its own heroes, but with the worm of conscience reminding them that all heroes are, as human beings are wont to be, imperfect and products of their time.

And the pigeons could get their roosts back.

Alex Mironoff of Fayetteville is a Ph.D. in experimental psychology (UA) with undergraduate and graduate degrees from Harvard with specialization in Russian language/literature and Soviet-era studies. He is retired from the UA College of Engineering, but spent most of his career in corporate America.