Today has been full of fun and exciting things. Like good weather.
And... news that Mississippi is getting license plates to honor Confederate Gen. and Ku Klux Klan leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest - Apparently Gov. Haley Barbour has decided not to denounce the move. (Thank you, class on historical fiction. Also, a.b., you really have to be in this class with me!)
Would you get license plates to honor Nathan Bedford Forrest?
Admittedly, this is not history I grew up with. And I get the heritage not hate argument.
But really, what are we telling our children and their children when we ahem, commemorate a KKK leader?
Someone made the argument today that "just because he was part of the confederate army doesn't make him a bad person". Fair enough. I buy into the argument that individuals actually fighting on the field are not a part of the larger agenda of the war*. But KukluxKlan, woman! Those pointy hatted people of whom, in a different life, I would have to be afraid.
To borrow a.b.'s wisdom (about an entirely unrelated topic), Things don't exist in a vacuum. These are public figures. They come with associations. They have to be held responsible for all that they do in public standing. So,saying it is okay to pick up some aspects of Nathan Bedford and ignore the others cannot a feasible option.
And, this is also the reason I despise arguments about Narendra Modi. (*shudder*)
And... news that Mississippi is getting license plates to honor Confederate Gen. and Ku Klux Klan leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest - Apparently Gov. Haley Barbour has decided not to denounce the move. (Thank you, class on historical fiction. Also, a.b., you really have to be in this class with me!)
Would you get license plates to honor Nathan Bedford Forrest?
Admittedly, this is not history I grew up with. And I get the heritage not hate argument.
But really, what are we telling our children and their children when we ahem, commemorate a KKK leader?
Someone made the argument today that "just because he was part of the confederate army doesn't make him a bad person". Fair enough. I buy into the argument that individuals actually fighting on the field are not a part of the larger agenda of the war*. But KukluxKlan, woman! Those pointy hatted people of whom, in a different life, I would have to be afraid.
To borrow a.b.'s wisdom (about an entirely unrelated topic), Things don't exist in a vacuum. These are public figures. They come with associations. They have to be held responsible for all that they do in public standing. So,saying it is okay to pick up some aspects of Nathan Bedford and ignore the others cannot a feasible option.
And, this is also the reason I despise arguments about Narendra Modi. (*shudder*)
*(I have family in the army, people. I understand that soldiers are people. And that not all soldiers are fighting with some large agenda. They're just doing the best they can. And, as Australopithecus once said, "When they're in battle, they're fighting first and foremost for their life.")
3 comments:
That seems like a little much. I agree with your point about individuals in war; I can even seen from a certain angle how the South Carolina "confederate heritage" ball a while back could be seen as ok, if you don't consider the system which supported that heritage.
But a member of the KKK? It's not just that what he did is now considered bad; it was also criminal at the time, even though it was never prosecuted. Why would a state government want to honor a criminal who terrorized people, if not to say that some people's pain and fear were and are not worth as much consideration as others'.
(I don't mean to sound so angry--I'm incredibly frustrated with disingenuous cherry-picking of history.)
There are SO MANY PEOPLE who did good things in our history that are never mentioned (women, people of color) and they pick a Klan leader? That shows willful ignorance. Mississippi, no!!
Eww! At some level, I wonder if our endorsement of these people reflects a little on our own secret desires. Not ignorance as much as a secret longing?
Post a Comment