Prior to the nineteenth century, almost all countries were predominantly agrarian with fragile, low-productivity economies. Their elites owed their prosperity to the exploitation of workers, peasants and slaves, whose conditions of existence were uniformly awful.
This should be emphasised: in all societies prior to c. twentieth century capitalism, the masses lived on the edge with income just sufficient to perpetuate themselves. Their misery was compounded by brutal treatment from their 'betters' for whom they were simply potentially rebellious resources.
Most of those elites consumed their wealth 'unproductively' but a few were philanthropists. Some of those in the latter category later had statues put up to them by a grateful (elite) citizenry, for example Edward Colston (1636-1721) of Bristol.
It's an interesting social phenomenon that these statues are now being toppled in the name of an ahistoric moralism - but as we know, it's not really about that.
Nevertheless, I expect slightly conservative professors of history to be pointing out these salient truths in this weekend's papers... while right- and left-wing protesters fight in the streets.
The masses are in motion; history has resumed.
What message does toppling the statue send, vs leaving the statue in place? Is leaving the statue up important to anyone, really? If so, why? Colson is dead, it doesn't matter to him. If anyone cares about the statue, surely it's only in reaction to it's toppling - not an affection for the statue itself? By leaving the statue up, we are inspiring...who? Weighing all the pros and cons, I'd guess that toppling the statue is probably a net win for society going forward. Though who knows.
ReplyDeleteIt's a signifier, for sure. Only not about what it appears to be. The analysis in this post, and the preceding one, is that we should not focus so much on the specifics of the casus belli here, even though that's exactly what the breathless MSM are doing.
ReplyDeleteSo there is no problem with the US criminal justice system? I'm a 50 year old white man, and even I feel the need to tread cautiously around law enforcement, and the criminal justice system in general. White privilege might save me in a pinch, or it might not. You can't count on it, for sure.
ReplyDeleteSo in the main sense, I think this is what it seems to be, in the US anyway. Things need to be reformed.
Though humans are complicated - so there are always several things in play. So I'll grant you that other issues are being folded in by various factions in various ways. But this is inevitable, given the nature of the beast.
I find it puzzling that this seems to be the main story to you, not the need for reform.
As for statues, the present owes nothing to the past, which is dead and done with suffering. If anything, the past owes the present, but has skipped out on the bill. SO, the only real question is, "where do we want to go in the future", and "what's the best way to get us there".
If vilifying some long dead guy, even if he was really just a typical product of his time, helps makes some useful point now - THEN the vilification should certainly be done. It costs the dead man nothing, and gains something for us, the living. That's called a win in my book.
It's better to vilify dead people "pour encourager les autres" than to pile on to living people. Toppling statues is a fairly benign way to teach a good lesson, without the moral tradeoffs involved in vilifying the living.
The dead are expendable, having already been expended.