CSotD: Speaking out against the madness
Skip to comments
Michael Ramirez offers a challenging commentary on the toppling of statues, and, normally, I wouldn’t feature a cartoon with specific, glaring errors, but this one is worth addressing.
The Buddhas were not historic but religious statues, while the destruction of Nimrud was also based on religious differences: Extremist Islamists wanting to wipe out not just modern distinctions within their own religion but ancient religions as well.
This puts it closer to the original meaning of “iconoclasm,” when Christian statues were destroyed by those who felt they were being worshiped rather than emulated.
Which in turn shows the futility of such actions, since Orthodox religious services still show a reverence for icons not in line with Western views.
I doubt blowing up statues of either Buddha or ancient Assyrian gods could change the religious practices of 90% of Muslims.
By contrast, the statues being pulled down around this country are of historic figures and were erected, if not to be worshiped, to be emulated as symbols of our values.
The operative word being “our,” since that word is the cause of all this turmoil.
It’s been pointed out several times on social media that the “heritage” of the Confederacy is nonsense; the traitorous uprising only lasted about four years and the statues were primarily erected to keep Jim Crow dominant.
What the defenders of those statues are defending, as Matt Davies depicts it, is a heritage of white supremacy and a time when colored folks knew their place.
Which was making dee-licious stacks of flapjacks for the Little Boy and telling him tales of Brer Rabbit.
And stepping off into the gutter when a white person came down the sidewalk.
Christopher Weyant, like Ramirez, is both right and wrong.
He’s right that the tearing down of racist statues is insufficient, but there’s a suggestion here that it’s a distraction, and I would argue that it’s a necessary catalyst.
Though if we’re going to go back to the origin of “iconoclasm,” it’s only fair to note that a “catalyst” is something that causes a change but is not changed itself.
Necessary but insufficient.
And tearing down Robert E. Lee but leaving Aunt Jemima on store shelves reminds me of Abbie Hoffman’s response to Earth Day: “I’ll pick up the Dixie Cup. Who the **** is gonna pick up Con Edison?”
The “system” is not about statues and water fountains and Jim Crow.
It’s about the background of our daily lives, the things we accept as normal.
So it’s appropriate to get rid of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, though I wouldn’t have known that Mrs. Butterfield was even black, much less that her bulbous frame was modeled on skinny little Butterfly McQueen’s portrayal of Prissy.
And not only was she was voiced by a white woman, but she even served breakfast to little Tootie, which either reverses the Uncle Remus/Aunt Jemima stereotype or will sent white supremacists into a flurry of “But what about black-on-black sweetness?” challenges.
However dubious the connection between race and this particular brand of crappy artificially flavored corn syrup, though, it is necessary to look beyond the obvious.
It starts with the “Great Man” school of history, which teaches that we’re all led around by the wonderful, gifted few and are better off for it.
As noted here the other day, the problem with Columbus is that, even among the Spanish explorers and conquistadors, he stands out as particularly noxious and savage.
And now they’re tearing down statues of Junipero Serra out in California, which takes a deeper grasp of history to understand.
Serra was a prime architect of a system of missions which were profit-making rancheros up the coast of California, not only using enslaved natives as workers but wiping out their culture as much as possible, leading to his canonization as a saint by Pope Francis and so much for fresh breezes in the Vatican.
We don’t learn much about Serra in school because, besides following the “Great Man” template, we also teach history as “The Virus That Spread From Plymouth Rock” and all that conquistador/vaquero stuff happened before the English-speaking white folks arrived.
Which means it’s like it never happened at all.
Signe Wilkinson recommends adding context, and if she were only suggesting explanatory placards, I’d disagree, but I like redoing the whole statue in context.
The statue of John Brown at his farm and gravesite does just that, and, by the way, did you know that Harriet Tubman helped Brown plan his raid on Harpers Ferry and intended to go with him?
Kind of like finding out sweet little Helen Keller was a Wobbly, innit?
Or that the Pueblans had a major, victorious revolt that forced the Spanish out of New Mexico for more than a decade.
Which had nothing to do with Junipero Serra, who was out in California, but if we’re going to have statues of him, let’s show him in proper context: Kneeling in prayer.
On the neck of a native.
And then there’s the statue of Theodore Roosevelt at the American Museum of Natural History, which poses the question, “WTF were you thinking?”
TR is an excellent example of understanding history in context, because he helped Jacob Riis clean up NYC’s slums, he nearly invented the conservation movement in America and he was a fervent trust-buster whom we could sure use now.
But he was also an expansionist and a product of his time, and he shared a Victorian belief that the world was just waiting for European values to enlighten their benighted ways.
In league with which I suppose that statue is supposed to be similar to John Brown and the freed slave boy … but … egad.
What a freakin’ misfire.
Or, more to the point, what a Freudian slip and dear god they can’t move that one into the basement soon enough.
Black people and Red people and TR himself all deserve better.
Finally, Bill Bramhall reminds us that, NASCAR having banned the Confederate flag, the ball is now in Roger Goodell’s court.
We’ll see.
Rome won’t be rebuilt in a day.
But maybe Rome isn’t what we need.
Comments 13
Comments are closed.