The Cancellation of History

Why?

In New Orleans, statues of prominent Confederate era men were taken down in the name of removing the association of those men with the city of New Orleans. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were the most visible statues, and these men were believed to be nothing more than evil racists who represented a shameful era of American history. This is nonsense. (The picture at right is the statue of Robert E. Lee that was taken down).

If these statues were morally wrong and offensive to be publicly displayed, why weren't they removed long ago? Perhaps because New Orleans was dominated by white racists, until the enlightened, woke, evolved and mostly Leftist politicians took over the city? New Orleans politics has been dominated by such Leftists for at least fifty years; Earnest Morial, the first black mayor of New Orleans, was elected back in 1978. It is also relevant to note that New Orleans has not had a Republican mayor since 1870. It is also relevant to note that Democrat/Progressive-run New Orleans has one of the highest crime and poverty rates in America. I mention this only to point out that perhaps the removal of old statues that may or may not offend someone is a misplaced priority, to say the least.

It seems unlikely that the statues-and various street names-were removed simply because a better class of New Orleanians took over the city. "Better" meaning those people who have developed a strong hatred for racism, slavery, the Confederacy, and everything associated with it. So why has all this statue removal and street renaming taken place just now? Why have New Orleanians voluntarily erased a major portion of their history, as if in so doing, that history can be forgotten? Again, people don't want so-called evildoers like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to be celebrated with statues in their city, to be thusly honored and remembered. Many people would agree; yes, let's stop celebrating racists and slaveholders. Unfortunately, this completely ignores the fact that Lee and Davis were human beings, who were nothing more than the product of their times. Also, both men were accomplished professionals who achieved far more than just owning slaves. Lee graduated from West Point, was a military engineer, was the president of Washington College, and served honorably in the Mexican war. Davis, also a graduate of West Point, served in the cabinet of President Franklin Pierce as Secretary of War, and had attitudes about slavery that were very much common in the south during those unenlightened times.  By the way, if you feel strongly about the fact that both men owned slaves, human beings of all races and colors have been slaves, and have enslaved others for millennia, and it is still going on today. Slavery is by no means an experience unique to dark skinned people from Africa, and while none of these facts make slavery right, let's keep this issue in perspective and stop with the hysterics! Erasing history will not prevent human beings from acting badly again, it will not make the plight of the victims of racism any better, and serves only to alienate those who believe history should be preserved, and respected as part of our common culture.  Also, it seems obvious that erasing history will only make it harder to learn how not to make the same mistakes made by our ancestors. 

So again, why is this cancellation of history-and not just in New Orleans-happening now? Why are people judging historical figures by today's standards? Do they really believe that all the cancelling will do any real, positive good? Could it be, at least in New Orleans, that the ruling class believe that this would help attract people to the city? "Come to New Orleans, because we are woke!" I am grasping at straws in an effort to answer this totally bewildering question. There is no logical reason for it all. 

Perfect Skepticism

Why do most conservatives claim that morality without God is dangerous? Short answer: because Man is prone to error, imperfect, and capable of corruption.  To answer at length, let's look at the broad field of morality and moral codes.

All moral codes are based on some standard, answering the question: if an action is good, bad, or merely neutral, then why is it so? Good, by what standard? Bad, by what standard? Neutral, by what standard? There are only two, possibly three answers: something can be good, because someone other than man (God) declared it to be so. Or, something can be good because Man declared it to be so. The philosopher Ayn Rand proposed a third definition, or so she claimed: what is good or evil is dependent upon how an action affects human beings. What harms an individual is evil. What benefits him, is good. Ayn Rand's ideological dependence on the reliability of human rationality aside, in other words, what is good or bad is determined from the declarations of God, or from the feelings, laws, customs, etc., of humans. In other words, what actions are good or bad is determined either objectively, or subjectively, from the perspective of humans, who act. 

To claim an action is good merely because I said so, based solely on my feelings, is to claim that my words (and the feelings underneath those words) are sufficient to define what is good. If I were God, then this would be justified, but since neither I nor any individual is anything but human, such a claim is preposterous. No man created the world. No man is God. Even so, if all I do is simply live my life and act according to what I feel is good, that is one thing, perhaps a good thing, perhaps not. On the other hand, if I-or any other human- require by force others to act solely according to what I feel is good, that is to arrogate my identity as God. In other words, when morality comes from Man, it is subject to human imperfection and corruption. When morality comes from God, then and only then does it have any chance of being true, correct, and perfect. Notice the assumptions here: that humans normally wish to lead happy, flourishing lives, and the purpose of ethics is to answer the question how to live such a life. The answer is what we call a moral code, or in general, morality. 

Conservatives in general tend to think that human beings can be perfected only in a relation to God; liberals tend to think that we can be perfected by evolving into perfection. When you start talking about the specifics, however, the sparks fly. When you postulate the imperfections of Man, basing a moral code on Man's conscience, laws, culture,  on anything other than God, you are inviting the Holocaust. With Man, there is the possibility of injustice. With God, there is the inevitability of  justice. So the atheists can have their faith in human rationality and reason: I will have my faith in God. Just as America is a nation of laws and not men, morality is based on God, not men.