Ah, Andy, I am not rushing to condemn anyone. I am simply conveying information that others have provided that seems to run counter to what the standard images and beliefs may be. In doing so, it raises the problem that can arise in discussing even the most simple aspects of history and foundational beliefs. Based on my examination of history, the telling of history is always changing based upon new information and new values. What I see happening at Amherst, and Oxford, and Cape Town represents a new evaluation based upon new perspectives. Such events occur over time. You may remember what happened when someone once said "You have heard it said ... but I say unto you..."
I am watching a documentary about Einstein on the history channel which demonstrates that not only was Einstein a trailblazing physicist but a very fortunate one as well. His ideas ultimately superceded many of the fundamental beliefs that had been held by physicists for many centuries. The documentary also profiles Einstein's pacifist leanings and the role another pacifist Arthur Eddington played in proving Einstein's general theory of relativity. Simply amazing stuff.
In reading what is being written in newspapers in New York and London, I sometimes wonder if our generation is being "eclipsed" by this Millennial Generation. I wonder if what is occurring is simply a new paradigm that challenges the values that our generation holds dear and says "but I say unto you..."
Peace,
Everett "Skip" Jenkins
________________________________________________________________________________________
Bill Clinton and JFK philandered; Clinton got crucified for it in a way he thought was unjustifiable - or even nobody's business - while JFK is still a hero. Andrew Jackson was criticized when I was a history student for being a military "loose cannon" like MacArthur (in Korea over a century later); nowadays Jackson is vilified for slaveholding more than anything else, as is George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ... but Jackson is targeted for removal from US currency, while GW and TJ aren't. FDR resisted the entreaties of many - including his enlightened and whip-smart wife - to bomb the railroad tracks into the Nazi death "camps" and to desegregate the US Army; few know or care today, though those few care deeply, just as our fellow alum Dr. Charles Drew cared (he was forced to maintain segregated blood banks for the Army, so white soldiers wouldn't get "black blood"). What a crapshoot. The result? --
Some of the most embarrassing moral failures are those of our best presidents. Another of my favorite presidents in history is Jimmy Carter, whose morality seems unimpeachable - yet he's ridiculed for having "committed adultery in my heart" (i.e. fantasized a few times since marrying), and he's widely considered one of our "worst" presidents anyway (which he probably wouldn't be, had a sandstorm held off long enough to let his helicopters rescue the embassy hostages in Iran).
Skip, by skipping (literally) the rush to condemn Wilson and others, you've saved yourself a lot of effort. Those who join the rush may have to make a new effort to reverse themselves next time the popular whim changes - and the rules of the game with them.
We'd all do a hell of a lot better spending our attention on making ourselves the best citizens we can. That includes a real challenge: to give some forethought to which of the standards and principles by which we can judge ourselves best represent truly eternal human values, and not just the most accepted ideas or cultural traditions of our time.
- Andy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/the-case-against-woodrow-wilson-at-princeton.html?_r=0
But no, I will not be leading the charge to change the names of any place or any college or any building soon. However, I suspect that those with younger legs and more energetic hearts will.
I always admired Woodrow Wilson. "He kept us out of war" (1916 re-election campaign slogan) had a certain appeal for me as the Vietnam "war" dragged on. And we may well owe the UN to him, not to mention concepts like NATO. But . . .
The "rules" by which presidents are judged - and perhaps any citizen of any country - tend to change once it's too late, and blink on and off at a whim. Wilson's name recently became mud. Bill Clinton and JFK philandered; Clinton got crucified for it in a way he thought was unjustifiable - or even nobody's business - while JFK is still a hero. Andrew Jackson was criticized when I was a history student for being a military "loose cannon" like MacArthur (in Korea over a century later); nowadays Jackson is vilified for slaveholding more than anything else, as is George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ... but Jackson is targeted for removal from US currency, while GW and TJ aren't. FDR resisted the entreaties of many - including his enlightened and whip-smart wife - to bomb the railroad tracks into the Nazi death "camps" and to desegregate the US Army; few know or care today, though those few care deeply, just as our fellow alum Dr. Charles Drew cared (he was forced to maintain segregated blood banks for the Army, so white soldiers wouldn't get "black blood"). What a crapshoot. The result? --
________________________________________________________________________________________
Peter,
There is a tremendous amount of injustice in this world and there are perceptions that are held by some that may not be held by all. I have found that to attempt to address all of the injustices in the world tends to drain one's energy and so addressing the legacy of Woodrow Wilson I must leave to others. In that vein, this is what others have said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/the-case-against-woodrow-wilson-at-princeton.html?_r=0
But no, I will not be leading the charge to change the names of any place or any college or any building soon. However, I suspect that those with younger legs and more energetic hearts will.
Peace,
Everett "Skip" Jenkins
No comments:
Post a Comment