The Confederacy Versus Political Iconoclasm

I started to write this piece several months ago, during a previous dust up over the very same issue. At that point, the foci were confederate monuments in New Orleans and confederate flags in South Carolina. Of late we've been talking about the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Virginia's Charlottesville.

Kind of. While there has been substantive discussion of the relative merits of removing, modifying, or allowing the monument, the argument has also been hijacked to serve as the latest Antifa ~ Alt-Right battleground. Exclusive of all things proxy, this post endeavors to examine the merit issues alone. 

It is safe to say that, over time, conservatives have opposed the removal of  Civil War monuments. All of the Right's rationales for this can be reduced to one or more of the following. The demolition is defined as an assault on Southern: history, preservation, culture, or autonomy.

Owning the racism and oppression in the states' rights arguments made by the Confederacy in the 1860's, some conservative southerners view allowing Civil War monuments to stand as providing a vehicle for teaching tolerance, perhaps thereby also acquiring absolution for the sins of their fathers. In other words, they assert, these icons should be used to facilitate education about the related historical events, and about their existential and cultural impacts, in order to promote inclusivity in young people.

The Left's perspective is persuasive, too: The naked, chilling truth is that the Confederacy advocated continuing the practice of

capturing Africans, selling them into slavery, and controlling them with violence and death. Simply put, progressives argue that these are monuments to the basest of human instincts, to subjugate and to kill. They ask, what descent society would pay homage to those who fought to continue such an abomination? Or, would endorse the racism inherent in these icons by letting them stand? Or, would allow the direct descendants of slaves to be unceasingly insulted by the presence of statues honoring their forbearers' oppressors?

Relatedly, this view begs the oft-heard liberal argument that conservatives are racists, evidenced by their veneration of historic oppressors. For the Left, this has long been a fruitful accusation to make. In the 1960s, for instance, the Democrat Party began to use the very same argument to successfully disown slavery and the ensuing Jim Crow era. [Consequently, most now erroneously ascribe both the Republican Party.]

What To Do

I advocate using a slightly modified utilitarianism to solve this problem. Here, utilitarianism means selecting the solutions that will provide the most satisfaction to the most constituencies (as opposed to individuals). These constituencies are comprised of individuals concerned with Southern history, preservation, culture, and autonomy. Here are my ideas. 

Government should continue to consign the highly charged confederate flag to museums. This assures the preservation of the icon and its history. Further, large confederate monuments - on pedestals in the public square - should be taken down. 

In my opinion, their centrality and size so strongly suggest a public endorsement of racism, that much of the didactic value they have is obfuscated. Moreover, this removes the most glaring of insults. As for statues of General Lee in particular, it is worth noting that he was explicitly opposed to the erection of monuments to confederate soldiers.

On the other hand, icons at historic sites and battlefields should remain unperturbed. Such places continue to be perfect venues for educating young people about racism and inclusivity. (Nothing drives home a point like a field trip.) Finally, confederate icons at cemeteries should also be preserved. As is the case with keeping monuments on battlefields and the like, cemetery preservation allows individual members of the Confederacy to be honored in the present day.

Assuming that my policy recommendations will not be adopted at any point in the near future, I'll have more to say on the matter very soon.

Musings on 10/22/16: Dog Parks, Politics, and Anti-Intellectual Academics

Until recently, I tended to look at claims of anti-intellectualism among academics on the political left with skepticism. There are three reasons for this. First, as an academic, I'd never met one. Do I think some of my colleagues are generally misguided? Regularly. Do I find some of their arguments faulty? Frequently. Yet, in both formal and informal conversation, there always seemed to be an effort to base assertions in both a foundation and logic.

Second, such pronouncements are too close to, and therefore easily influenced by, the incontrovertible fact that the NON-academic political left is grossly anti-intellectual and easily aroused by its passions. Third, these declarations often seem to be a reaction to frustration about unbridgeable substantive differences.

That was my opinion... until I went to the dog park with Dolce about three months ago.

Finding a group of men talking politics, I approached-only saying hello-and began listening. It was immediately clear that these folks were at least left of center. Upon one of them mentioning the (mostly) opinion website Breitbart, I chimed in that I read their articles at times. Another looked at me hostilely and said, "fuck you". Shocked, all I could muster in response was, "wwwwhat?". To wit, I got a quiz about Steve Bannon (Breitbart's CEO), whose name I had admittedly forgotten. Yep, that brought me another f-bomb.

So did my requests for him to stop cursing at me because my kids were there. At that point I made it clear that he would have to stop, and his friends ushered him off to explain the situation to him.

To my surprise, he greeted me effusively when I saw him at the same park a month later. This was during the Days of Awe, a period of reflection and repentance among Jews, so I was already thinking about repairing relationships in general. I decided to extend my hand, which he awkwardly did not shake despite the cajoling of his friends. Then he began babbling about my insistence that he stop saying f*** you when last we saw one another. (Apparently, I mistook sarcasm for effusion.) I knew that if I engaged with him about our previous discussion, the current one would quickly devolve. And so it did, when I could hold out no longer, complete with more f-bombs being hurled at me. This, despite my appeal to him as a fellow academic. 

When I reminded him that he would have to stop, three things happened. First, his friends walked away; second, he froze and turned ghost-white; and third, he opened his fanny pack (yes, that icon of the 80s, the fanny pack), pulled out his flip phone, and called the police.

I waited for the police to arrive outside the park and conveyed the story to the responding cop. I had the distinct impression that the young officer was actively trying to conceal his laughter when I got to the point in the story when the police were called. I didn't blame him, and told him as much. He smiled. 

                                    ~

So, what does this have to do with anti-intellectual liberal academics? The answer lies in the only feasible explanation for this guy's antics. He lumped me in with the angry dolts who have blindly followed Trump from the beginning. (See To be, or not to be: Part IV--The Composite for a more thorough explanation of this meme.) He decided that I saw Breitbart as a legitimate news site, not as a political tool. It's also likely that he counted me among those racists to whom Steve Bannon has given Breitbart to use as a platform to disseminate their views. 

All of this from my comment that I read Breitbart at times. 

Needless to say, from a logical perspective, his conclusions do not follow from the only available data point. Indeed, they are wild generalizations. Even being generous, and calling this an attempt at inductive reasoning, the argument still falls into the bottomless intellectual hole of having been made based on a single piece of information. In academia, arguing thusly is like ingesting poison. 

In civil society, acting thusly is like releasing toxins into the air.

Psychologically speaking, one hypothesis explaining his bizarre behavior is that a weak ego leaves him in significant fear. He defends with projection and acting out. These defenses antagonize others who eventually respond negatively. This provokes more fear and the cycle repeats. Or, as a colleague put it, he's obviously a scared, little man. 


So what's the upshot? First, the whole experience strikes me as hilarious and I've had wonderful fits of laughter about it on several occasions! Second, I have fine-tuned the way in which I critique the foundation and logic of the arguments made by my liberal colleagues and friends.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I now know to watch out for anti-intellectual liberal academics talking politics at the dog park.

#ProfessorsForSanity