There is some interesting discussion that has transpired and is still under debate surrounding Robert E. Lee and his “legacy.†I happened across this interesting article from just a day or so ago.
As with every new generation of historians the past is re-evaluated through the prism of the modern point of view. According to one argument in this article, “[as] the South has become more racially and ethnically diverse and has prospered economically, perhaps the South doesn’t need Lee so much anymore, or at least not in the same way.†A good point, but then he continues.
“Now there are all sorts of other ways in which Southerners identify themselves — Salvadorans, Mexicans, Asians — [and] the politics and economics of the region are no longer based on white supremacy,†said W. Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina.
“It makes all the sense in the world that for more and more Southerners,†he said, “Robert E. Lee is just a footnote.â€
I guess I am both in agreement with this analogy but also distressed by it. What does it say about the future of our history? This analogy does not stop with Lee but could be continued with countless other notable figures: Washington, Jefferson, ect.
As a country we are diversifying, it is a constant process that is a part of us. A 1930 census put 10% of all Americans as foreign born. I think the figure today, counting illegal immigrants, is somewhere around there if not higher.
So how do we teach American history? Is it appropriate that dead white men become “footnotes� I understand that there is more to it with someone like Lee; after all he was the military figurehead of a Civil War that sought to protect the institution slavery.
However, I think it does not take much for many to take the intellectual leap and associate Lee with all the “rest†of the dead white guys.
I’m not saying that Brundage doesn’t have a valid point, I am only saying I’m not sure I am comfortable with it and what its implications might be in the future.
