A Viable Solution to the Battle Over the Monuments

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984

We are headed in Orwell’s direction if we don’t get smart about censoring the past. One of the things the internet has done is make more information available to people.

Someone says this about that person, and another person says that based on some additional research. Each side gets a voice.

I saw a post on Facebook about Margaret Sanger, Black Pastors, and the “Struggle for Justice Exhibit” at the Smithsonian. The article is from 2015:

A group of African American pastors [upped] their demand for the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian to remove a statue of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The museum has so far refused their request to remove the statue of the eugenics-supporting founder of the abortion business caught selling aborted babies and their body parts.

The museum has the Sanger bust in their “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which is supposed to honor those of the past who were “champions of justice.” A sign beneath the sculpture says that Sanger was “profoundly affected by the physical and mental toll exacted on women by frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion.”

The pastors wrote the Smithsonian a letter explaining that Sanger was far from a champion for their race because of her strong ties to the eugenics movement.

However, their request to have the bust removed has been denied.

Margaret Sanger

One side is demanding the removal of Confederate Memorial statues and images of anyone associated either with racism or slavery.

Another side is saying, “Hey, there are some people on the other side who have a few skeletons in their closet. If our stuff must go, so does their stuff.”

I say no. Rather, have a nicely sculpted sign with some of Sanger’s views written out. Make viewing her image a teaching lesson. I believe if we took this approach, we could make some great headway. Each side would be exercising their First Amendment rights. The original source of the quotation would have to be included so people could check out the quotation in context. With smart phones, people could look up the quotation on the spot.

Two things will happen. First, people will learn something. Second, when the truth comes out people who advocate for their favorite historical “idols” might be embarrassed enough to remove them voluntarily.

“The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17)

This way, everyone wins, the wisdom of the First Amendment is retained, and tempers will cool. Because these statues and memorials are on government property, the government should not only have its version of history on display. Private companies can do what they want.

We’re already seeing something like this happening as articles are being written informing people of some of these historical figures on both sides of the debate (see my article on Robert Byrd and Woodrow Wilson). For example, if you are a fan of Robert E. Lee, you should read this article. Don’t censor or attack, but respond in kind after doing the necessary research.

Editor’s NOTE: I have reviewed the author’s column on General Lee and I completely disagree with his assessment. ~ J.B.

In the Margaret Sanger debate mentioned above, the Smithsonian gets the only word. My solution would change that. The Black Pastors, after doing extensive research, would be given a say on some of Sanger’s anti-black and anti-immigrant remarks. Let the people decide.

Yes, I know there would be some problems and it wouldn’t all go smoothly, but it’s better than what’s happening now. The technology age has made it all possible.

The goal should be peace, not war. Better to be hurt by the truth than a club.

Written by Gary DeMar and published on his Web Blog ~ August 17, 2017.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

3 thoughts on “A Viable Solution to the Battle Over the Monuments

  1. Bill Wallace

    What would one expect from the Atlantic. The man’s ignorance is only exceeded by his fanaticism. Lee never owned slaves, although he did manage the plantation of his father in law. It takes a real cretin not to understand a standard cleansing agent is brine, duh. To blame Lee for the deaths of the Great War of Northern Aggression is like attributing the Trump’s win to the influence of the Russians on our electorate. One can compare and contrast Lincoln’s stand on the races with Lee, and I dare say Lee comes out far better because Lee was honest as opposed to the double dealing Lincoln.

    But Libtards have to lie, misrepresent, and falsify. If they couldn’t do this what else could they advance? A program that gave us hundreds of millions dead? A score of failed nations? People fleeing these paradises on car tires through 90 miles of shark infested waters.

    Remember the Left does it for the “children” just like Sanger did.

    Reply
  2. John Slagle

    Bill and Jeff, I’ve been fortunate to find many old books written many years before political correctness and changing history became the goal of many on the left. With family members who fought for states rights in Missouri against the union, their motivation was never about slavery, The majority of people in border state Missouri prior to the Battle at Wilson’s Creek struggled to just put food on the table, raising crops and livestock on farms in the Ozarks. When personal food supplies, livestock were confiscated by Union troops and families left to starve, anger is rightfully displayed. I have read the book on Robert E. Lee’s life as well as many other historical journals that truthfully presented the facts. A few excellent topics covered were the South and the Slave System , the Fires of Sectional Conflict 1848-1884, Civil Conflict 1854-1861, The war for the Union, The Civilian Front: North and South and the Reconstruction Blunders and terrorism in the south to name a few history references that remain unchanged in time. I might add that General Lee in the Confederate march to Gettysburg had standing orders to his troops that pillaging farms and civilians of food supplies would not be tolerated. General Grant’s orders directed against civilians in the southern states was confiscate, destroy or burn anything in their line of march.

    Instead of destroying historical statutes in mindless acts of civil disobedience, perhaps reading a book by
    Jeff Bennett or Neal Ross could raise their ability to think, reason and understand history for a brief moment if their one active brain cell is activated.

    Reply
  3. Darkwing

    There are statues and monuments in this country I do not like but I voice my opinion and move on. You cannot wipe out a part of history that you do not like. What happened in this country 155 years ago was horrible but it happened. We must move on. If these people want to remove statues and monuments, we start with the one in New York harbor, then Mount Rushmore, then all the ones in Washington, DC, it is an all or nothing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *