A Line Drawn in Stone
Liberty, democracy, and justice are fragile, not carved in stone like the statues now under attack in the public square.
As we mark the 244th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the murders of George Floyd and others at the hands of law enforcement have reopened festering racial wounds. These incidents have incited toppling of statues, defacing of monuments, calls to rename military bases, and the rebranding of popular consumer products, sports teams, and popular music groups. It is fitting and proper that we should collectively and urgently address our imperfections.
But where do we draw the line between discussion and vandalism? Between honoring history and glorifying misguided acts? Between the sentiments and behaviors of imperfect but otherwise laudable figures of history and the perfection seemingly demanded according to the morals of today?
Human beings are imperfect, both individually and collectively. The sensibilities of one period in time are not necessarily those of another. The march of time is also a march of progress, a journey of improvement. We are not perfect today. But we are better.
The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the foundation of this great country. Abraham Lincoln eloquently referred to that foundation “Four score and seven years” later, when he spoke of a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” But political necessity or expediency — to ensure the nascent and unprecedented union of thirteen states happened at all — meant the founding fathers deliberately left its foundation with a flaw. The flaw inevitably led to “a house divided,” as Lincoln put it, and to a horrendous civil war.
The animus behind removing or even toppling statues of Confederate leaders, Christopher Columbus, or Junipero Serra is understandable or should be, to all who know our history.
Renaming military bases named to honor Confederate military leaders — Forts Bragg, Lee, Hood, for example — or buildings honoring racists is a discussion that should be had, with deliberate intent to act on the results of that discussion. The proffered reasons that Confederate military and civilian leaders levied war against the United States and cost the nation over six hundred thousand lives are less important than the undeniable fact that they did so. Where to draw the line? Levying war against your country is the constitutional definition of treason, which seems an appropriate reason for renaming the bases.
The question of whether or not to honor Columbus and Serra is more nuanced. Columbus “discovered America” only from the very narrow perspective of 15th to 19th century Western Europeans and colonial descendants. The colonialism he and his contemporaries instigated led to both the oppression of indigenous peoples and the establishment of the greatest free and democratic society the world has known, imperfect as it still is. The accusation that he and his European colleagues wantonly introduced diseases that wiped out whole tribes is unfair since no one then knew how diseases were transmitted.
Likewise, Serra’s missionary history in California is one of mixed oppression and the great things the Roman Catholic Church, another imperfect human institution, as done for people over the centuries.
Colonialism, oppression, and missionary work in the centuries-long process of building a new, free nation and spreading God’s word.
Where do we draw the line between honoring good and warning against inextricably mixed bad?
Tear down statues of George Washington? Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Even Ulysses S. Grant? When it comes to race, these men had their faults when viewed through today’s morality. But on balance, they were great men who achieved greatness and profound meaning in founding and improving this great nation.
Ask yourself. If these men, imperfect as they were, had not existed or not achieved their influential positions, would our nation exist at all? Would the relations between races be better or worse than now? Not perfect. Better, or worse?
It is one thing to draw attention to legitimate grievance and imperfection and quite another to broadly dismiss a comprehensive and necessarily nuanced understanding and celebration of greatness.
Must all statues and monuments to imperfect human beings be removed? Do we really need to discard the national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” as some have suggested, because Francis Scott Key owned slaves?
Where to draw the line?
Decisions regarding public display of statues and monuments, and the suitability of brands, mascots, and anthems must be done with deliberation and yes, urgency. Civil discussion, not shouting down or prohibiting the free speech of those who hold a different or even opposing point of view, separates a free, democratic society from totalitarianism. Most importantly, it must be done according to the rule of law, not through vandalism and violence, for that is what separates civilized society from an unruly and uncivilized mob. To do otherwise, as some are doing now, is to step over a line we dare not cross.
Liberty, democracy, and justice are fragile, not carved in stone like the statues now under attack in the public square.
