Do we Remember them or Honor them?

Should this person go into the “Honor” file or the “Remember”  file?

Remember:

If we choose to remember the person, we would limit them to specific things we might:

Teach about the complexities of history in history classes & texts, put statues, etc. in museum type locations.  

This is the failsafe position of every single person in history.  The vast majority of people, at best, be remembered.  Most of us will not even make this level if impact.  Every single human life is precious and every story worth hearing, but not all are clearly impactful of Human history.

Honor:

If we choose to honor them, we would consider it acceptable to:

Name things after them, put statues in public places, put them on coins, create holidays in their honor and run out onto football fields with their name on our jerseys.

If we want to honor someone (or something), our first question must be:

1.  What one thing is this specific person BEST known for?  

And 

2.  Is that something (or does it represent something) that we want to honor as a whole society?

Very often these two questions will make it clear where this person goes in our society.  

It is probably not that hard to determine this.  Of course, there will people who want to debate it, but what someone is BEST known for is not usually a challenge.  In the case of conflict, a simple sampling of sources will probably reveal the answer… history texts, encyclopedias, etc.  The nearer to the time of the person’s life the sources were, the better, I would assume.  I know that these are “historical” and therefore written by the “victor” as it were, and dependent on human insights, but recall that this is not about whether they should be remembered, but whether an entire society put them in a position in that society to be  honored.

Obviously, this can change.  If an honored person has something new come out that redefines them to a level that “what they are best known for” is altered, then their situation has to be reexamined.  It is even true that society might change enough that what we desire to honor would change and some people would have to be reevaluated again. 

Perhaps what will make this kind of conversation impossible will be the deconstructionist ideals.  Now that I think of it, I guess it will be.  The question will be “but why is Washington best known for leading our country rather than being BEST known for being a slave owner?”  And the answer will be “white hegemonic power.”

So, I suppose the question for our society will have to answer is whether we can honor any human… or if certain populations are off of the table automatically because of their ethnic group or the society’s power dynamics.  I know that this is a little of an open question and I am wrestling with it as well.

As a Christian, of course, I believe we shouldn’t worship anyone but God, but I am delivering this conversation today with this assumption in mind:

No ethnic, sex or societal groups are automatically resigned to not being honored by our culture at large.

In the end, I may be wrong about that, but for the sake of trying to allow us to honor other humans (even while only worshipping God), 

Examples:

Adolf Hitler.  The ultimate in obvious examples, but why not?  This is an easy one.  Hitler was an aspiring art student.  Some of his painting are quite good.  But, is this what he is known for historically?  Of course not.  What he is best known for is the messages and consequences of his views of German nationalism and Anti-Semitism.   In short, Hitler is best known for “starting” WWII and the Holocaust (together). 

So, we would say – no, these are not things we want to honor in our society, so he goes to the history books to be remembered.

Robert E Lee.  A much more complex historical figure.  Considered by some to be almost anti-racist for his day; recognized as a very noble and honorable man by his peers and contemporaries – even his enemies and opponents.  He is often considered to be a brilliant military strategist.  But what is he best known for?  Of course, there is one thing:  leading the Confederate Army during the Civil War, and the Confederacy primarily existed to protect the Confederate States’ right to own slaves.

So, despite the positives, we might study his strategies in our military schools, we might study his character in understanding the complexities of real humans in a history or social studies class, but he would not be someone we would want to honor as an entire society.

William T Sherman.  This isn’t some kind of Southern Me-too-ism, I want to make the point of how easy it is to run someone through this filter question.  What Gen. Sherman is known for is his scorched Earth “total warfare” in Georgia and the Carolinas.  To put it simply, what he is known for is burning Atlanta.

So, despite being considered the first “modern general” (or at least in the WWI, WWII era he was known this way), because of his total war campaign, and despite the fact that his victory in Atlanta probably sealed the reelection of Lincoln, what he is BEST known for is not something Americans aspire to.  I would think this means he belongs as a very important figure in texts and museums – not to be forgotten but in the headed of “honored.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.   Watch again how this works.  Dr. King is BEST known as a vital leader in the Civil Rights Movement in the US and one who championed non-violent methods of demanding change.   Without a doubt, this is what he is best known for.  The phrase “I have a dream” may be one of the most recognized phrases in American history!  Protesting systemic wrongs, standing up for the dignity of all people, shifting an entire culture with non-violent means… these are all things we would want to honor in the US.

At the same time, it seems at least likely at this point that Dr. King was not good to the women in his life and influence.  This has been known for some time, but the decision has been that though this was the case, this is NOT what he is known for, and therefore, we can honor him.  All humans (except one) have awful sins in their pasts.  

In 2019, new evidence came out that made this issue with the mistreatment of women even more disconcerting, to say the least.  For various reasons, though, this did not replace Dr. King’s legacy as primarily being known as a civil rights leader.  If this had been more universally trusted information, it might have changed what Dr. King is best known for.  If it did, then we might have to repent of our honoring of him and move him into the category of “remembered”.

Further, apparently, he had the unethical habit of plagiarism, even in scholarly papers.  In the early 1990’s considerable evidence of this began to surface.

Bill Cosby.  What Cosby was best known for was his comedy, or maybe his role as the father of an endearing family in a television show.  He actually started with a more serious acting job and was a trend-setter in that he starred in the first weekly television show to star a black man.  He was even particularly known for being a relatively family-friendly clean comedian.  Until the 21^st century, this is what he was best known for.  Perhaps not society-impacting enough to gain a large honoring role in our culture, but important for sure.

Then in the early 2000’s, allegations against him for sexual assault began to stack up.  At this point, more than 60 womenhave alleged crimes against him.  He was found guilty of three counts and is in prison. 

I think this is what Cosby is NOW best known for.  So, it would be natural that we would say, despite the positives, which can still be remembered, we would not name streets, schools or awards after him. 

Apply this to the various people who our culture is looking at right now and questioning our decision to honor them… George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, Karl Marx, Che Guevara,… were they frail, sinful humans?  Yep.  Human race.  But what are they BEST known for?  Leading and letting go of power?  Penning our founding documents?  Bringing European advances to the Western Hemisphere?  Illuminating communist ideas?  Leading a communist revolution in Cuba?  Clearly, these are what they are best known for.

Now, are these things we want to honor?

So, all we would have to find agreement on is:  what is this person best known for?  Of course, all humans are frail, fallen, and have traits that are embarrassing to them (and the rest of us).  Only one person avoided actual moral failing their entire life.  Everyone else has imperfections – and we will be stuck honoring NO ONE if we insist on perfection.

Of course, new evidence could cause that question to be answered differently.  In those cases, it would be appropriate for us to re-evaluate them in our culture.  

I believe that the vast majority of historical figures can be filtered through this question alone. This, we can look at in the last part of this series.