If This Goes On: Statues and Names That Annoy

We a name places. That is how we identify them. I suppose we could use of numbers, but “State 06” does doesn’t have the ring to it than “California” does.

And we name places after people, events, use Indian words, use European, Greek or Roman words, and some times we just make stuff up.

We even change the name of places from time to time. The Town of Monongah, West Virginia (that came from “Monongahela,” the name of a river, Shawnee for “The River of Falling Banks”) was first known as “BriarTown” for all of the briars there.  Fairmont, West Virginia, was originally known as “Middletown.” The Town of Fairview was originally known as “Amos.” Significantly – to me – there was a town in West Virginia named “Mole Hill,” which change its name to “Mountain,” which goes to show you that you can make a Mountain out of a Mole Hill. No kidding.

The current civil unrest is resulting in a press to rename locations by government.  It’s also urging government to remove statues of people now deemed unpopular.  Some  highly motivated individuals are even willing to tear down statues.

Let’s look at statues.  When one makes a statue, that requires considerable work. That should be done only for somebody who, when the artist does it, is admired. Christopher Columbus discovered America, sort of, and 1492. “Sort of” because it was previously discovered by the Vikings and maybe by Irish priests, and in any event was “discovered” 10,000 (or so) years ago by people who migrated from a Asia over the land bridge that is currently the Bering Sea. Columbus, to be fair, started the Central- and Southern European interest in America around 1500.

Also statues exist of various people who were associated with African slavery. This includes any number of people who lived in the southern states and fought for the Confederacy and many public officials who preceded the Civil War. The Civil War figures include Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, John C Calhoun, and others. They include various speakers of the house, Presidents Jackson (a slaveholder), President/General George Washington (a slave owner) and other historical figures who owned slaves or tolerated slavery.  (George Washington was bothered by slavery, but only manumitted them in his will.)

Now, the people who tear down statues are apparently not all learned in history. They have torn down statues of Ulysses Grant, who was the commander of the Union forces which led to universal manumission, Theodore Roosevelt (who took endless noise about inviting an African-American gent to dine at the White House) and even Abraham Lincoln, who is commonly – and really accurately – credited with freeing the slaves. Well, I don’t expect that people in America now have a intimate knowledge of history, but you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking.

Let’s consider people statues of who we agree that in modern terms were greatly in error.

Christopher Columbus. He was an Italian navigator working for Spain who missed his goal by 10,000 miles. He wanted to get to the Indian Ocean and mistook the Caribbean for that. In doing so, he “discovered” a “new world,” previously only feebly known in Europe. The European presence in the Caribbean and, later, in the North America, introduced European viruses and bacteria, diseases against which the natives of the continent had no natural immunity. So, those diseases ran rife over the native North Americans.

(I am aware that Russell Means, who founded the American Indian Movement, called the native Americans “American Indians,” because that is what Columbus, etc. called them. Personally, I think Russell Means was a valuable figure in American life.)

I have read that people want to some people want to change the name of Columbus, Ohio. Presumably, the same people would like to change the name of Columbus, Georgia, and probably the “Federal district,” now known as the District of Columbia.

So let me stop for a minute there. When you think of Columbus, Ohio, do you have a picture of Christopher Columbus in your mind?  Do you think of Columbus, Ohio, as celebrating imperialism (which, after all, Columbus was a part of) and rampant disease?

I don’t. I don’t think of the District of Columbia or Columbus, Ohio, as honoring Christopher Columbus. It’s just a name. And this is a question: Does it really offend people that we have named locations after somebody who has been dead for 500 years? That is a real question. Does it offend you? Why? And why now?  The names are 150+ years old.  Why now?  He’s still dead.  On the biblically questionable theory that he knows, what can he do about it?  Do you think it hurts him?

Of course, I can make a good case for not naming something out after somebody is who is universally hated. Hitlerville is the name of no place. I think Mussoliniburg and Tojo City are likewise non-existent. I don’t even think there is anything named after Edmund Ruffin.  (Look him up.)  But we serve have a lot of counties and cities named after John C. Calhoun.  A WHOLE lot of places named after George Washington.  Is the mayor of Washingon, DC, ashamed?  How about the mayor of Washington, PA; the Governor of Washington State; even the mayor of Washington, WV?  

Consider the name of Virginia, West Virginia, Virginia Beach, and Virginia City, NV and MT. They all refer to “the Virgin Queen,” Queen Elizabeth I. This is a direct reference to her sexual activity. Does that offend you? Or do you not think of “virginity” when you hear the name “Virginia”?  Is it really our business?

A couple of days ago, protestors/rioters/or people who like to pull down statuary pulled down and burned a (metal!) statue of Albert Pike.  (There are products which produce enough heat to melt bronze.  Lighter fluid is not one of them.)  I know of maybe two or three readers of these Dispatches who really know what Albert Pike was known for.  He was a Confederate general who had a thoroughly undistinguished military career.  I just off the top of my head mentally named 16 Civil War generals who were much more prominent.  (Grant, Lee, Rosecrans, Chamberlain, Bragg, Johnston, McClellan, Custer, Sherman, Sheridan, Longstreet, Stuart, Forrest, Scott, “Grumble” Jones, Garfield.)  (Now for the rest of the day, I’ll keep thinking of them.  Let’s see, Hancock, Burnside, Wheeler, . . .)  Albert Pike also was an appellate judge, equally undistinguished and thoroughly average.  I doubt very much is the people who tore the statue down had any clue who he was, other than hearing that he was a Confederate general.  What Pike was known for was being a leader of Freemasonry long after the Civil War.  He was instrumental in founding the “Scottish Rite,” and wrote a seminal (and strange) book, Morals and Dogma.  The problem with Morals and Dogma is that the author was a classical scholar who wrote lots in Latin, Greek and Old Egyptian, all without translations, and the author expected to make a point.  Do you accidentally punish him for obscure writing?  Does he care? 

Can you honestly look at the list of generals and identify who fought for the Union and who Confederate? 

A CONTEST!  The first person who tells me in an email or comment that s/he correctly identifies the Federals from the Confederates wins a book of my choosing from the Never-Ending Bookshelf™.

Is it time to think and discuss before we demand – after just a bit of thought and sober discussion – that name be changed? Is it time to consider who we honor with statuary? Is it time to judge whether to judge those people by our times or their time? I don’t have an answer.  I really don’t much care.  But I really do think the question deserves to be discussed before we change in names, pull down statues, and do other things which really don’t solve much in the way of problems. 

Mizpah!


(The book prize will probably not be the first edition Gutenberg Bible.  I think I'll keep that.)

If This Goes On - The Atlanta Police Killing

First, let me say that it misses the point to concentrate on one violent act, whether justified or not.  We constantly deny it, but the world is a violent place. People die by  violence every day.  Not many people are involved with violence, and those who do really do not talk about it.  So it’s one of the many avoided topics of our society. But it’s real, whether it is violence from a motor vehicle accident, a fall, a shooting, or any of the many, many ways that violence can intervene in life and death.

Rayshard Brooks was asleep at a Wendy’s drive-through.  That is a distinctly odd place to fall asleep.  Management called the police, which was entirely proper. The police responded and interacted with Brooks and both police officers and Rayshard Brooks were low-key, polite and friendly.  One officer did a preliminary blood alcohol test on Brooks, and we don’t know what it showed.  Presumably, it showed the use of alcohol, probably more than 0.8%, because one officer said that he had had too much to drink and proceeded to start to handcuff him.

A word about handcuffs – when one is handcuffed, one is largely defenseless.  When one is handcuffed by an officer, it accomplishes two things. First, the individual is far less dangerous to the officer and the officer can relax. That is why, in the event of a citizen-shooting, one should expected to be handcuffed when the police get there because the police do not know what happened. And that’s okay. Second, the person handcuffed has to trust that the police will not assassinate him or her. In a vast majority of the cases, in all but cases which make the news, that’s true. But it takes only one or two occasions contrary to make people doubt. The video of the George Floyd murder is there for anybody to see, and an example of now you CAN be dealt with while you are handcuffed. That is unfortunate, that is this distinctly improbable, but still, many citizens have a little bit of doubt. The fact that the George Floyd murder might have had personal causes has been lost in the discussion. Apparently, the officer had worked with him and knew him and, so far, we have no idea what the officer was thinking when he killed him.

(There, I violate my own role. I do realize that it is not a murder until 12 old darlings on the jury unanimously agree. But I can have an opinion, and the First Amendment applies to me, too.  It does point out that it will be DAMN hard to get an impartial jury in the murder trial.)

So to continue with the Rayshard Brooks story: When the officer started to handcuff Brooks, Brooks resisted and fought the officers. He was apparently strong and in good shape for he fought to officers to a standstill. Mind you, the officers should have been trying to avoid hurting him, but we don’t know as we were not in the officers’ minds. Brooks seized a Taser and ran. As he was running, he turned and fired the Taser at a pursuing officer,  The officer then drew his weapon and the killed Rayshard Brooks.

Another word: Here, the undeniable images of video tell us all what happened from the perspective of the camera. It doesn’t tell us what people intended, but it tells us more than mere witness testimony, particularly where one of the witnesses is dead.

The Atlanta mayor immediately fired the officer and suspended the other officer.

Now, we have a advantage which is inherently unfair. We get to judge the videos by looking at them repeatedly, judging what what the officers intended and whether they were justified. Mind you, this happened in real time for the officers and they could not and did not have the time to the reflect that the we now do. But law enforcement requires real time awareness. So what do we determine?

From here on, it is my opinion. My opinion may or may not be a knowledgeable one, but it is merely mine, and not binding on anybody.  And I approach this from the aspect of being a former prosecutor who very much sympathizes with the police.

In my judgment, the officer did not need to shoot Brooks. It was an excessive use of force. It is nothing vaguely like the George Floyd murder. But we have to examine each case without being our judgment being affected by any other particular case. In this case, Brooks had a Taser. If you look at the video, you will see that the Taser is a bright yellow. There is a reason for that. Police carry a number of weapons. One is a pistol, which introduces lethality into the mix. Usually, it is black, dark blue or stainless and it is worn on the predominant hand side. So when an officer reaches for a pistol, it is the only weapon located on that part of that officer’s body. This comes from a San Francisco case where a “security officer”, who was armed and not trained very well, meant to pull his Taser and pulled his gun and shot somebody by accident. With the body alarm reaction being what it is, the makers of Tasers recognized that they needed to delineate their products clearly. That’s why it’s a bright yellow and that’s why it is worn cross-draw, so the officer needs to reach across his body to draw it.

Is it murder? Frankly, it beats me, it looks more like a manslaughter, but bear in mind that any homicide results in a dead person. Should he had been fired? It may have been driven by politics, but it was not clearly wrong and in the end, it should not matter because he should stay fired.   It may be unfair. But we expect police officers to exercise good judgment in lousy circumstances.

This is a very rough time to be an officer. It is also a rough time to be arrested, because we have been sensitized to realize that when an officer has arrested us, we are essentially helpless. Only the passage of the time will help. We need to relearn, again and again, to trust officers. One guy, the George Floyd murderer, has caused many people to fear officers. That may be justified, it may not, but the important thing to remember is that the condition exists. We have to deal with it.

God, save this nation. And I don’t know exactly what that means yet.

Mizpah!