mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
For a more internationalist perspective, there's been some debate within Glasgow regarding the re-naming of streets. Keep in mind that Glasgow was the second city of the empire, so this is coming from a strong post-colonial viewpoint.
Most of the city centre streets here are named after individuals who prospered significantly from slavery - either directly slave trading or through tobacco plantations.
For my part, there's a middle of the road approach that keeps everyone happy:
1. Rename the street to commemorate a more dignified person. There's plenty of people more inspirational that merchants exploiting slaves for profit.
2. Install a plaque, detailing the information about what the street was previously called and why, and why the street was renamed and who it is named after now.
3. Profit from commemoration from a person more deserving of commemoration, as well as increased historical awareness.
There's umpteen individuals that I'd sooner have on street signs for what they've achieved or contributed to the local community.
That's an approach that can be applied to just about any setting where there's a desire for change.
For the specific setting of the Southern US, I'm sure there's hundreds, if not thousands of persons that are more deserving to a statue that Confederate General X, Y or Z.
Statues are supposed to be visualizations of a societies shared and celebrated cultural values - when the values are no longer shared, it's well worth engaging in debate to effect change. That, in my view, is the key point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
We have to be careful with history of that kind. The number of freed blacks (and enslaved blacks) serving in the Confederate Army was nominal. Too often we southerners cite those instances in ways that suggest (at least to others) that we're contending it was commonplace. On the flip side, there's a failure to recognize that there was often affection and loyalty between master and slave. Not always, by any means. The number of abusive slave masters was vast. But the number of conscientious ones was also large. Unfortunately for our nation, they were only slowly coming to realize that "absolute power" always corrupts. They had too much of a "that's none of our business" outlook about the affairs on neighboring plantations, so that abuses, while not officially condone and while often unlawful, proliferated. So you had conscientious slave owners and depraved slaveowners, and the former tended to look down on the latter and the latter tended to resent how they were treated by "refined/genteel" people. Very complicated stuff. And since our society prefers sound bites and Tweets, complicated and nuanced discussions are not all the rage.
Not to sound flippant, but "Slavery is bad" is a pretty good soundbyte, while also being true.
Granted, there was not the overwhelming consensus on the issue then as there is today, but we're a great deal more informed about the negative economic, social and psychological aspects of slavery.
Based on that, I think it's perfectly reasonable that we should not be in any rush to put more statues up to commemorate individuals who supported a secessionist, pro-slavery state. As Loka says, there's a notable degree of less than honourable intent.
|
Printable Version
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 
Ah, to be young again 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread