It doesn't bring back the dead, and it's otherwise grossly insufficient comfort for their survivors. But it is one of many, many steps that we, as a people and a nation, need to take in order to right centuries of wrongs to people of color, including not only indigenous peoples, but those from other continents that we systematically enslaved.
I'm talking about the removal of public monuments to Confederate leaders, and to others who participated in the slave trade, as well as the removal of other cultural artifacts that are inherently offensive to peoples of color. The latter encompasses a range of items, from the use of "blackface" in films and television programs, to the offensive depictions of slaves in entertainment and advertising, to the use of derogatory names for certain ethnicities as nicknames for sports teams. In many cases, making the changes we need to make means disrupting memories, and personal attachments, that white people have spent decades and even centuries forming. That has often been used as an excuse for not doing the right thing. That should never have been the case, and it can no longer be allowed to stand.
Inevitably, this brings up a question: How far should we go? Well, the obvious answer, and fundamentally the correct one, is as far as necessary. But that inevitably leads to a related question: exactly how far is that?
I think that the answer to that question is as varied as the specific area of our culture that we're talking about.
Monuments, frankly, are easy calls. And, in saying that, I want to emphasize two things. First, I think that this should be done by peaceful, lawful means. Those who are advocating an end to symbols of hatred do themselves, and the rest of us, no favors when they resort to tactics outside of the boundaries of the law to advance their goals. There's reason enough for rage when it comes to the monuments, especially given their role in the promotion of Jim Crow laws. Using violence to remove them undermines the respect for American values that motivate the movement to remove them in the first instance. It animates the protests with rage rather than reason, and ultimately leads to such completely counter-productive actions like tearing down the statue of Ulysses S. Grant. Yes, Grant owned one slave, which he inherited and promptly freed. He also was the general without whom there would have been no victory over the South, and no emancipation of the slaves.
But otherwise? Yes, every one of them should come down. Not only those that honor members of the Confederacy, but any that honor slave owners in any way. Including Presidents. Yes, I'm very much on the same page with Charles M. Blow on this subject. If that means renaming the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial in D.C., so be it. In the case of the latter, perhaps it would be enough to replace the statue of Jefferson with one of Sally Hemmings, so that posterity would have a very graphic contrast between Jefferson's words as inscribed on the walls of the memorial, and his deeds in connection with his slaves.
Team nicknames? An even easier call. In heaven's name, what could possibly be the justification for naming a sports team, something that's meant to bring people together for the sake of entertainment, with a word or phrase that commonly functions as an insult to a large portion of the people you're trying to bring together? This is a battle that's been fought for decades, with very limited results at best. Two of the most notable fronts in those battles involve the Washington NFL franchise, and the Cleveland MLB franchise. They have also been the most entractable fronts, especially in the case of the football team. And yet, perhaps one significant measure of the mood in the post-George Floyd world is that progress is being made on both of them. It's early yet, and its hard to have a sense of how far this may go But I have a strong feeling that it will go the proverbial distance, if for no other reason than the fact that the process is now being driven from below, and not above.
Advertising and marketing? Easier still. Who really wants to buy pancakes and maple syrup that are being sold with the name and the face of a fictional plantation worker who, by design, is meant to make white people feel superior? For that matter, who wants to buy rice marketed in an essentially similar way? If the loss of those images offends your sense of nostalgia, think of how many decades those images have been giving offense to African-Americans for the sake of profit.
"Blackface," and other offensive characterizations in fiction? This is where the sledding gets a little bit rougher in deciding how to proceed. A bit of full disclosure is required at this point: I own copies of a series of children's books from the early twentieth century that employ racial caricatures of blacks and Jews, and am wrestling with what to do with them. I no longer want to keep them, in any case, but am conflicted about how to dispose of them. To give them away--which I could easily do--would effectively pass along the racism embedded in the books to another generation. To throw them out--which I could also easily do--feels like the ratification of a practice that could be used, as the Nazis used it, as part of a larger war upon culture itself.
I confess that, at this point, I am not sure how to resolve my personal dilemma, but thinking about it has given me some ideas on how to proceed. Where the content in question can be removed from the work while preserving the rest of it (as in the case of "30 Rock"), that clearly is the way to go. Where, as in the case of a film like "Gone With The Wind," the racism is so completely embedded in the work as to essentially be part of its point, exhibition has to be combined with some method of education that effectively counter-programs against the dominant message.
How do you do that? I'm not honestly sure. Of this much I am certain: to ban or destroy all copies of "Gone With The Wind," given the realities of human nature, would have the effect of creating a large and potentially ravenous market not only for the work itself, but perhaps for its message as well. It's a challenge. But the twin demands of free speech and racial equality demand that all of us step up and find a way to meet it.
In any case, I repeat: how far should we go? And, again, I answer: as far as necessary. It's a difficult job, and it's not going to be completed overnight, in any case. But that, especially weighing the magnitude of the harm that has already been done, is all the more reason why we should get started on it.
And, in the wake of Trump's rancid Mount Rushmore speech this past Friday night, that's the sort of Independence Day sentiment we really need. Happy 4th, everyone, and make sure that you want the film version of "1776" this weekend!
No comments:
Post a Comment