Unperson

Well, that didn’t take long. A statue of George Washington, long called “the Father of Our Country”, in his own lifetime called “the American Cincinnatus”, and one of the figures that distinguishes the United States from other countries, is too distasteful to remain in our parks. CBS Chicago reports that a Chicago pastor has called for the removal of his statue from Chicago’s Washington Park and for the park to be renamed:

CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.

A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park.

Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington’s name removed from the park.

“When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans,” he said. “Some people out here ask me, say ‘Well, you know, he taught his slaves to read.’ That’s almost sad; the equivalent of someone who kidnaps you, that you gave them something to eat.”

The other park is Jackson Park. So it’s down the memory hole with them!

As I’ve noted before, it’s darned hard to find any historical figure or even living former presidents who aren’t tainted in some way. We cannot escape our history. It is an intrinsic part of us. We can learn about it, come to an understanding of it, and reconcile ourselves with it but we cannot escape it. Trying to expunge it is an error.

19 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Chicago Sun Times editorial supports changing park named after Stephen Douglas, to name it after Frederick Douglass. The man who held Lincoln’s hat during his inauguration is too tainted:

    http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/well-take-douglass-park-over-douglas-park-anytime/

    (As with Robert E. Lee, I’m not particularly a fan of Douglas (who was born Douglass FWIW), but I hate anachronistic judgments and I don’t think the claims made about Douglas’ position on slavery are entirely accurate.)

  • gray shambler Link

    God help me not to be branded as a white supremacist, as the President has now been, abandoned by business leaders who fear their brands will be branded, but I believe none of us will be able to straddle this fence. No appeasement will suffice. Every statue that falls, every book of history re-written, only encourages the angry mob.
    This not about Black and White, not at all. It’s about America vs those who hate her, hate freedom, hate freedom of assembly, hate free speech, free association.
    It’s epicenter is the college campus, where Marxist’s hold sway. One group of counter demonstrators at the fatal rally was Students for a Democratic Society, look them up, they planned this, coming to the rally wearing helmets and safety glasses.
    Again, no appeasement will suffice.

  • It’s about America vs those who hate her, hate freedom, hate freedom of assembly, hate free speech, free association.
    It’s epicenter is the college campus, where Marxist’s hold sway. One group of counter demonstrators at the fatal rally was Students for a Democratic Society, look them up, they planned this, coming to the rally wearing helmets and safety glasses.
    Again, no appeasement will suffice.

    I don’t think so. I think it’s about power.

  • gray shambler Link

    Political?

  • Ben Wolf Link

    The country doesn’t need any public statues. Tear them all down.

  • steve Link

    Broadly, I think you are right about power. Seems pretty clear that some of these statues were put up as a sign of power. Now some people want to show they have the power to remove them. I suspect that for a smallish minority they truly are a source of pride or a cause of anguish, but mostly they are just territory to fight over.

    Steve

  • gray shambler Link

    None of you get it. Statues are just first base.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Now Ben Wolf wants tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln; the neo-Confederates are on the march. /joking

  • As usual, it appears that President Trump was ahead of the curve and knew exactly what he was talking about on Saturday.

    I’d much rather that Pastor Dukes and those of his ‘liberation theology’ flock who choose to follow him take leave of what they obviously consider a racist, inhospitable country. Both they and America would be far better off, and it’s a moral decision on Pastor Dukes’ part I would heartily support.

    I have to chuckle at Pastor Dukes’ 3/5 of a man nonsense. I wonder how he’d react if he realized that by doing so, he is supporting the position of the Southern States, who wanted the slaves counted as a whole man to give them more apportioned representatives and assure the spread and persistence of slavery, something the 3/5 of a man compromise essentially doomed to an eventually ending.

    That shows that he’s merely a Leftist ideologue parroting talking points who has no clue about what he’s actually talking about.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Statues aren’t history. Lol. No one wants to erase Washington or Lee or any other slaveholder from history. They just don’t want them on a lame statue. And owning slaves is not some weird crime the Party invented out of thin air. It’s owning slaves, plain and simple. The only thing Orwellian here is the idea of history as some sort of ephemeral empty power grab, as if nobody is or was really appalled by owning slaves. Or maybe it’s that Identity Politics striking again…

  • Guarneri Link

    “As I’ve noted before, it’s darned hard to find any historical figure or even living former presidents who aren’t tainted in some way.”

    But I’m shocked (shocked!) that the guy who interred Japanese Americans and turned a boatload of Jews back destined for concentration camps hasn’t drawn the ire of our morally pure press, pols and pundits.

    I’m totally flummoxed. Must be something in the water.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    As someone who grew up in Pennsylvania, Trump’s defenders remind me a lot of how defenders of Joe Paterno dealt with his obvious guilt re: Jerry Sandusky. And I was and maybe still am, in a reticent way, a huge Penn State fan. (One of my first vivid tv memories is watching them beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl for their first national title.) It’s the same 15,000 word Facebook screeds about how Paterno did all he could when he did nothing to report an eyewitness account of a rape of a child.

  • Don’t forget putting thousands of Mexicans in boxcars and transporting them back to Mexico.

  • Andy Link

    It’s turning into a modern version of damnatio memoriae.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    I am going to turn the sentiments of the pastor and one of the commenters around.

    This country is not worthy to have monuments to Washington if as a nation, we cannot value his service to the nation and its ideals many times more then their failings.

    Ironically, I think Washington would be quite okay having physical monuments to him taken down if it strengthened the country and the ideals they fought for. He was not a despot, and confident about his place in history without needing giant masoleums like in other countries.

    Two other person came to mind in this post.

    First is Martin Luther King. Read his speech on the Emancipation Proclamation. In it he talks about the declaration of independence; about Jefferson (who was a slave owner). He notes Jefferson’s and the Declaration of Independence had flaws; yet that its contribution to civilization was imperishable.

    Second was the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the Corinth Church, “Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that that an idol has no real existence…”. These statues are pieces of stone and metal; they are inanimate objects. The statues did not cause oppression, create liberty, induce reconciliation or inspire fear; no the power of these statues is what each individuals permits it. Indeed it seems a lot of people seem awfully superstitous in the effects of these statues; no matter much more advanced then we are compared 2000 years ago.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    There is no such thing as “heritage”. It’s a self-constructed hallucination that we inherit some intangible identity from our ancestors and no one should be put up as a kind of secular idol in marble and stone. Tear down FDR, tear down Forest, tear down Churchill.

  • steve Link

    “But I’m shocked (shocked!) that the guy who interred Japanese Americans and turned a boatload of Jews back destined for concentration camps hasn’t drawn the ire of our morally pure press, pols and pundits.”

    Have to concede this one to Drew. We had those FDR statues put up to intimidate conservatives. Looks like it is working too well, so it is probably unfair to have them up. Time to take them down.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Ben Wolf, the only person here that is dealing in heritage is Martin Luther King, Jr. If a country is not to be defined by race or religion, it needs something to adhere its citizen to common purpose and concern. I’m sure the Republic will stand if Douglass Park has one or two “s”s, but I’m not sure it survives without the ability to talk with one another through the sacred stories and figures of the civic religion.

  • CStanley Link

    Ironically, I think Washington would be quite okay having physical monuments to him taken down if it strengthened the country and the ideals they fought for. He was not a despot, and confident about his place in history without needing giant masoleums like in other countries.

    Maybe even a bigger irony- according to some historians quoted in an NPR piece, Robert E Lee is on record saying he did not want Confederate memorials built.

Leave a Comment