Good Guys Versus Bad Guys and Being a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars
The way we spend time as a family has significantly changed over the past two years. I give credit to two catalysts: a global pandemic affording us numerous free weekends, and protests and riots centering around racial equity, effective democracy, and how history is being taught in schools.
As an observer, I have questions: who’s history is being taught? Who has a right to question someone else’s history? And why is vandalism and violence a part of any of this? Against a backdrop of statue removal being justified with a well-intentioned refrain of “they belong in museums!”, I wondered who would visit these Museums of Approved Items. Certainly not the people so intent on removing them; after all, the attempts to cleanse the present by leaving nothing but Perfect Historical Figures eventually lead to statutes being removed from museums too.
As a participant, I’m about as willing to deface a statue as I am to succumb to the boogeyman that is CRT (which is zero). I’m happy to be a conscientious objector in this culture war.
But as a mother, I am determined to use these nagging questions as a guide in raising our sons to be educated and empathetic contributing citizens. For me, “they belong in museums” is not a lament against what society deems appropriate, but a call to action to expose my kids to as much history as possible before someone else decides what they cannot not see. My husband and I committed to contextualize the present with the touchable past and an objective of preventing a single paragraph in a history textbook from being all our kids ever learned about a subject.
We are fortunate to be living in an original American colony, where land was stolen from indigenous people by settlers and patriots with a beautiful, yet often exclusionary, vision for America. Our state has seen battles of both the Revolutionary and the Civil—“ain’t nothin’ civil about it”—War, and is also home to giants of the Civil Rights movement—which clearly is not over. We would use it to our kids’ advantage.
I believe that Black lives matter. I also believe that history has various perspectives. Facts are facts, but truth often involves the way people felt (and feel). It is never a lost cause to investigate the perspective of another. Although we’ve hopefully evolved to better achieve concepts like equity and justice, we also need to acknowledge that Presentism and prejudice are both roadblocks to learning and growth, and we’ve got a long way to go. We need to understand the way it was so that we can understand the way it is. History is messy and complicated, but history is comprised of people who are also messy and complicated, people who are more than their one worst thing, and less than their one best thing.
We’ve taken our kids to the MLK historical site and Sweet Auburn, the First White House of the Confederacy, the Atlanta Civil Rights Museum, The National Memorial to Peace and Justice, The Equal Justice Initiative, Stone Mountain, a Confederate Cemetery, and toured plantations to listen to members of the Slave Dwelling Project explain how life in the big house depended on life in the slave quarters. They’ve seen countless monuments of Founding Fathers, Presidents, and war-time leaders from Montgomery all the way to DC. As we road trip, we queue up podcasts narrating the lives of pirates, Revolutionaries, explorers and the enslaved. I’ve taught them to read inscriptions on monuments and think about what else was happening at that time. Was it a memorial erected as Civil War veterans were dying? Or was it a statue cheaply thrown up during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? Is it a statue of a generic CSA soldier, or a statue of a Southern military officer? Regardless of the answers, there are historical reasons for why the statue is there at all, so we learn about those reasons.
I grew up in a small town in Kansas; there were less than a handful of Black students in my high school of 700+. Our history lessons included John Brown, Free-Staters, and Bleeding Kansas. We learned about the Civil War, Lincoln freeing enslaved people, and that the North won. That chapter in our textbooks was easy: slavery was bad, good guys fought bad guys in a war about it, and the good guys won. Kansas was on the right side with the good guys. But I didn’t learn about slavery sitting next to Black classmates, and I assumed that because of where I was in both geography and time, slavery hadn’t touched the lives of anyone I knew.
When I was in my mid-twenties, I relocated to Atlanta and became a traveling salesperson. My territory included extreme South Georgia and the South Carolina Low Country. I remember the moment it occurred to me that the Black populations residing in the rural towns I frequented lived there because they were the direct descendants of slaves. I had stopped on a town square to let an older Black man driving an open cab tractor putter through, and I naively thought “why are all these Black people here?” To this Dorothy from Oz, Black people lived in cities and all farmers were white. I sat in my car and cried. It was the first time I had internalized slaves were real, and the few Black classmates I’d had growing up were descendants of slaves too. Faulkner’s words smacked me upside the head: the past wasn’t even the past. It was passing me on a John Deere.
My children consider themselves Georgians. They attend a very diverse elementary school of 700+. When they learn about the Civil War they come at it from a different perspective than I did. They have Black friends, and their home state of Georgia lost the war. If wars are good guys vs. bad guys, how do my kids reconcile this part of America’s past with their present place in geography and time? Do their feelings depend skin color? If race is irrelevant, when should it be relevant? The adage about history being written by the winners makes me wonder what parts of the loser’s story they aren’t hearing about. My hope is that my boys are not ten years out of high school before they appreciate that the way it is still has a lot to do with the way it was.
There is a small town a couple of hours drive from me that I visit a few times a year. The town square is centered around a monument, an obelisk erected in 1900 that reads, “Erected by the women of [small southern town] to the memory of their Confederate dead.” A few blocks away there is another monument to Vietnam. I often think about that juxtaposition: the dead southern men who died in their own fields wearing grey, and the dead southern men who died in a jungle half a world away wearing the American flag. Is any one of them less dead for better reasons? Was any mother or wife less entitled to her grief? I don’t think so. I wonder how long that obelisk may last, who wants it put in a museum, and how long before its joined by its brother from down the street. History being written by the winner, and all.
During a presentation at Chickamauga on the experience of a CSA soldier and the subsistence farming family he left behind, my oldest son turned to me, confusion spreading across his face, “But who were the good guys, Mama?” We all need that moment, but in my opinion as his mother, it was best he came to that question himself. No one told him how to feel or what to think. He was exposed to realities of history that touched where he was in the moment, and it wasn’t comfortable. After all, we were not in Kansas anymore.
Nuance. Complications. Humanity.
I hope the boys love learning about history as much as their dad and I do. I hope that they realize history is simply a story that can’t be altered by the present. I hope they appreciate that while wars are started and ended by politics, they are fought by people, people who are neither all good, nor all bad. Lastly, I hope we are raising boys smart (and humble) enough to question everything. “But who were the Good Guys, Mama?” God bless you, my sweet son, for asking this. It’s complicated.
You are doing way better then a lot of Southern mothers. As a kid growing up in Louisiana my textbooks still called it the War of Northern Aggression, and we were fed a diet of drival about how slaves were only mistreated when they were “uppity” as if slavery wasn’t mistreatment. We almost elected David Duke governor once – my dad still has a bumper sticker that reads “Vote for the Crook – its important.” And when federal courts desegregated our city schools in 1980 roughly half my class went to private schools the next year. The White half.
The bad guys are way easier to find n the South.Report
It may be easier in the ?south, but I find that a positive not a negative. It took a long time (years) for me to “fine tune” my “radar” so I could screen out the “undesirables” when living in the Mid Atlantic.Report
Fair point.Report
Southern Mother—lol. I’m not sure how to take that. I’ve definitely been called worse.
Thanks for reading.Report
It was meant literally as a mother who resides in the South.Report
That dog will hunt.Report
One of the painful truths is that the bad guys are also good people. What makes the truth painful is that being a good person doesn’t make the bad any less bad.
I think this is one of the reasons we can’t see history when we are in the middle of it. If any of us were alive in the 1850s or 1920s or 1960swe would have socialized or played cards with or sat to supper with people, good loving decent warm hearted people who beat, raped or murdered black people.
Because when we look at those photos of lynchings or those photos of white people protesting school integration, who do we think those people were? Those white women in that photo screaming epithets at those little girls integrating a school- What do we imagine they were like?
Do we think they were horrible awful people? Nah. I’m sure that every single one was just like all of us here. Kind, sweet natured, loving people. But “just like us” carries with it a terrible meaning because we all have within us that cruelty and evil that allows us to turn our head and close our eyes.
We look back at speeches from people in various historical periods excusing slavery, or the German National Socialists, or the Stalinists or Jim Crow and shake our heads at how they could have been so deluded.
But history is still happening, right now all around us. Genocide, concentration camps, bigotry, disenfranchisement…Its never stopped ever.
And our children and grandchildren are going to be reading their history books about the early 21st century and wondering what side we were on.Report
It’s entirely possible that they were awful people across the board. After all, terrible people exist. I’ve met quite a few. Moreover, not every white person felt inclined to show up and harass those black students. Only some white people did. Which ones? What were they like? They certainly felt plenty of hate, and this should reflect on their general character.
If you met them, back then, if you were white, you might have found them entirely pleasant to be around. Sure. However, I’ve met plenty of pleasant people who, when you get close to them, turn out to be rather awful.
Back in the early-nineties, my father was run out of his job at a church because he openly supported gay marriage. The people who turned against him included literally his best friend. No lie. Were those people “good.” They had seemed good to me, although I was still pretty young back then. And yet … when the rubber hit the road, they turned shitty. They put a doctrine of hate ahead of compassion and friendship.
Were they “good people”?
No, they were bad people.
“By their fruits you shall know them.”Report
When I was a precocious 12 year old during the annual reading of the Passion play, where the priest plays the part of Jesus and the congregation plays the part of the mob, I found it annoying that we were forced to shout “Crucify him!”.
Because, I thought, if I were alive then, well, by golly, I would be nice to Jesus, and stand up for him and be a good person. But that’s when I had a mini-epiphany and realized that no, I wouldn’t have done that at all.
Because even at that tender age I realized that I liked being a part of the group, and liked the conventional wisdom and that the entire purpose of the Gospel reading was to drive home the point that we all, every last one of us, is fallible and weak and we all oftentimes take part in massive, systemic cruelty and injustice.Report
I’ve been that person also. I’m not proud of it. In fact, I feel some shame for it — as is appropriate. We have the emotions of guilt and shame for a reason. Sometimes we do a thing where we ought to feel guilt or shame.
The saving grace is I was young, and feeling ashamed is unpleasant, and thus I don’t want to feel shame, and in turn I work to be better. The fact is, I could be like that again, but I don’t want to. I have the capacity for evil, and it horrifies me.
I wonder if those women harassing those black students ever grew enough to feel ashamed.
Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.
“But Veronica!, don’t you think people can grow and change?”
Yes I do, but they have to actually do that. The capacity for change is not the same as actually changing.Report
I kind of like the doctrine of Martin Luther on this (and only offer it up here because the example includes reference to church activities):
Simul justus et peccator / Simultaneously Saint and Sinner / I am a Saint and Sinner, and so are you.
I’m sorry about the loss of your dad’s friend and his experience at church.Report
Thank you for saying so. The good news is he bounced back, by finding another church across state where they had an active gay outreach program. I admire him very much.Report
Very well put.Report
Really great perspective; I totally agree.
“Just like us” has the added darker side: just like them.
Sobering, indeed.Report
My 7th grade life science teacher used to intone regularly that “nature is gradational – man classifies.” Seems a pertinent add to your astute observations.Report
Were it so that evil was always a caricature. But it’s not. Many who commit evil are heroes in their own story.Report
I’m not really a fan of the banality of evil viewpoint. There is a good chance that the niceness, kindness, and sweetness of the people in the photographs depended on whom they were dealing with. A lot of them could have been extremely tribal and hostile to outsiders/others. I disagree with the notion that the bad guys are also good people. To go Godwin on you, there are photos of Nazi death camp guards joking around with each other while on leave. If it weren’t for the SS uniforms, they would look like any other 20-somethings palling around. This does not make them good people.Report
” A lot of them could have been extremely tribal and hostile to outsiders/others”
That IS a human characteristic. It’s wildly obvious if you look around. People self gather into groups: income, race, culture, etc. They are suspicious of outsiders. These defense mechanisms have been in place for thousands of years……because they worked, and still work. The key is understanding when to suppress those feelings and when it’s time to pay attention to them.Report
Good point. Saul’s comment implied that tribal is identical to evil.Report
I’m pretty sure that he’s using Russell’s Emotive Conjugation.
Dunno what the first two in the triad would be but the last is “He is tribal.”Report
I don’t know. I think he’s consistent on this. I’d guess that every one of his comments is, in some respect, a condemnation of tribalism. If you’re implying that his tribe is those who aren’t tribal, then yes, I see the paradox, but I’m not sure that it stems from bad faith.Report
I’m most immediately remembering him using the phrase “the kind of liberal too broadminded to take their own side in a fight” the other day.
Stuck with me.Report
This is the flipside of the Conjugation. He’s way off-base when he attacks me; he’s sometimes excessive when he criticizes you; he’s probably reasonable but I don’t remember specifics when he addresses someone else.Report
I am ethnic. You are tribal. He is xenophobic.Report
thumbsupReport
The good guys? That is easy peasy. The North were the Good Guys and the confeds were the Bad Guys. Does that mean politics and war and people aren’t complex and rarely any one shade of good or bad. No. Life is messy. I’m sure good people fought for the Slavers and plenty of crappy people fought for the North. To save simple people the time, plenty of people in the north had racist attitudes. Well duh of course they did.
But the overall causes of the war and it’s larger meaning seems clear to me. It’s been america’s burden and curse that we discuss the treatment of blacks and native americans with feelings of white people as most important.
Most of the battles about statues or what to teach are proxy fights for how we remember and learn our history. It’s easier to say we should keep a statue up then argue for why a person who did terrible things should be held in a place of honor.
On a separate note, the phrases “history is written by the winner” has a lot of truth to it but is so clearly wildly proven wrong by our discussion of the civil war. The south lost. They were crushed since they were poorly led and were far weaker then their silly ego’s thought they were. They lost the war but so much memory coalesced around their lost cause bs and they certainly managed to win against reconstruction( free black people coexisting with them). History was not written by the winners of the war because everybody writes their own history. People with printing presses can get their asses whipped in battle but still propagate their version of history. The losers are writing much of the history of the civil war.Report
What I’ve also found interesting in discussions where the phrase ‘history gets written by the winners’ gets quoted, is that the assumption is – consistently – that the quotor identifies with the ‘losers’, not the winners.
People absolutely LOVE feeling like they are victims, the losers, the underdog.Report
Really? That’s interesting.
I’ve heard it in varied context, but most often with regard to Native and Indigenous Peoples.Report
The Civil War was a war of treason in defense of slavery. The North were not fully formed saints and many abolitionists had views that were racist. But attempts to defend secession always fall flat on their face because in the end, any high minded talk of states’ rights, was largely used to defend the rights of white people to hold black people in bondage in perpetuity and to break up their families for pleasure and for profit.
It is true that you can do a lot in historical context with spaces. From what I’ve heard, the caretakers of Montecillo are addressing Jefferson’s slaveholding and likely rape of Sally Hemmings quite well and educating people on it. However, “it belongs in a museum” can and often is a defensive canard from people who either still fondly support the war of treason in defense of slavery and/or are very reluctant to confront the legacy of the south. It is a soft peddle. You can also teach history without the monuments to the traitor Lee.
Society can not change at the speed that makes the slowest and most reluctant to change feel safe, warm, and fuzzy. If it was forced to do that, progress would be ground to a standstill. Attitudes change as time goes on. The monuments were intended to honor slavers and the slavers’ rebellion. There is no way to complicate this or sugarcoat this or nuance it. Another thing that hurts any of the “we are just trying to teach history” is that a lot of southern legislatures are currently trying to do anything to make it so nothing about racism is ever stated again.
https://apnews.com/article/business-florida-lawsuits-ron-desantis-racial-injustice-3ec10492b7421543315acf4491813c1bReport
The slave states literally created a law, the Fugitive Slave Act, which allow their citizens to go into free states and enslave random Black people without a trial, dragging them back to their slave state with the help of the Federal government. Not just enslaved people who had fled, which is what the law claimed, but because of the lack of a trial and it requiring merely an affidavit from a white person, plenty of free Black people were just randomly pointed at and enslaved.
Anyone who seriously utters the phrase ‘state rights’ should be punched in the mouth. It’s almost impossible to think of a worse violation of ‘states rights’ than to have some random person from another state, backed by Federal marshals, able to walk up and point at some person and say ‘Yup, that’s my property, I’ll be taking that back now’.Report
We shouldn’t confuse good guys / bad guys and good causes / bad causes. We also shouldn’t be surprised when the people or the causes have shades of gray.
We get tripped up when we try to judge people by their causes. The good person should be trying to support better causes and work to make things better overall. But it’s hard to identify those actions from a distance in time.
That’s a lot of “things might not match” caveats. And that’s fine. There’s no real value in our judging people of the past, or the present for that matter. We can judge the quality of the causes.Report
“We shouldn’t confuse good guys / bad guys and good causes / bad causes.”
I like that; nice point.Report
Excellent point, and it’s not always easy to do this, especially from the inside.
Communism has never been really tried. God wants this.Report
There’s a lot of “judge not” and “hate the sin, love the sinner” in the idea. It’s counter-intuitive enough, but when it gets to “fight the sinner” or “shoot at the sinner across a battlefield” but still love the sinner, that requires some serious self-control.Report
I like including some self control in here too because poor applications could easily become “ends justify the means.”Report
Kids tend to use the language they have. “But who were the good guys?” shouldn’t necessarily be taken literally. Also, depending on their age, kids have limited cognitive ability to really understand nuance, so they kinda need to sort the world somewhat bluntly.
So, if my own kids (ages 6 and 8) asked me that, I’d probably reframe and say, “Slavery was and is wrong. It is never okay to treat people that way.” I could probably layer on a bit more depending on the specific context. And then, as they age, I could layer on more and more. The answer offers them if not an objective truth, at least something I’d say is a moral truth and rooted in a value I’d absolutely want to impart (e.g., *gasp* indoctrinate *gasp*) on them.Report
To answer your son’s question, George Thomas.Report
For a bit, I was thinking it’s odd to call oneself a “conscientious objector” while clearly taking a side, as you have, but then I thought to myself, “I imagine the WWII conscientious objectors generally thought the Nazis were bad,” so I guess that’s not unusual, though I question whether writing a post effectively showing yourself to have taken sides is the same as not fighting at all.
Regardless, it’s important, I think, to recognize that we’ve always taken stands on who is, and who is not celebrated/honored/recognized from our history, and that taking such stands is always an inherently political act, with social, cultural, and political implications. I think a pretty good stand is that we don’t publicly celebrate or honor (in the form of statues or plaques or faces on currency, say) anyone who actively took part in slavery, genocide, or ethnic cleansing. This will mean removing from the rolls of public heroes some people who did good things (e.g., Sherman gets gone for his role in the military campaign against the Native Americans of the plains), but that’s because it’s not about whether the individual was “good” or “bad”, which is in some ways a ridiculous way of classifying individuals, but about drawing lines about what we absolutely will not honor. And while “presentism” is almost always a spurious accusation — it’s not as though abolitionist arguments hadn’t existed for centuries prior to the Civil War, and it’s not as if there weren’t people in the 19th century who objected to the way confinement of the plains nations to relatively small reservations — it is more important, as I said, to recognize that we are continually deciding whom and what to honor, and that what we choose has implications for today, because those choices make clear what and whom we value, and what and whom we do not.
And of course, conservatives realize all this. If they didn’t, they would not be currently waging a nationwide campaign to determine what teachers can, and cannot, teach about American history (a campaign that they’ve been waging in many places, like Texas, for well over a century). If they didn’t, they wouldn’t spend so much time trying to impugn figures who are celebrated for reasons they dislike (e.g., all the attempts to use Dr. King’s personal life, or parts of his education, to make him seem unworthy of the status he’s achieved in our society).
In conclusion, demolish the disgusting and ridiculously ugly Stone Mountain mural!Report
If it is of comfort, I believe they’ve stopped cleaning it so the sculpture isn’t really as visible as it used to be. Don’t forget its problematic for as much as who worked on it as for the subjects it depicts.
I do find it curious that you believe I’m taking “a side.” The only position I’m taking is that its a child’s mind that reduces things to the simplicity of good and bad, that history is as complicated as human beings.Report
Our recent military adventures has shown that one can think both that ISIS is bad and that the war in Afghanistan wasn’t a good idea.
That’s something we tend to ignore in the judging of history.
[X] is bad. Dealing with [X] might be very painful, expensive, and have side effects that are almost as bad or worse than the original problem.
Idiots not wearing masks (or getting vaccinated) is a problem, making them do the right thing (i.e. what I want them to do) would presumably involve draconian punishments and law enforcement.
Creating the legal machinery to carry out those draconian punishments would enable that machinery to be used for all sorts of things.Report
If you don’t think the paragraph beginning with ”As an observer” takes a position, I can’t imagine what you think a position looks like.Report
Sorry, that did not thread right.Report
Lots of people were observers of this. There was a raging pandemic.
I am lucky enough to live where my kids can easily learn about both the horrors of slavery and the horrors of war outside the pages of a textbook.Report
Lots of people were observers of this, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that “observing” it in the way that you did is not taking a pretty clear position on it, as you do throughout the piece. I mean, you’ve basically taken the position against statue removal that everyone who’s against statue removal takes, and then said you haven’t taken a position, you’re just observing. It’s not original, or unique, or profound: it’s reactionary, it’s poorly reasoned, and in demanding nuanced perspectives on history, lacks any real nuance.
This is consistent with American conservative practice in general: seeing mainstream conservativism as neutral, and everything else (especially everything to its left) as ideological. It’s repeated every day on social media and in conservative publications. It’s been a central component of conservative views on this site for well over a decade. It’s ridiculous and counterproductive, but so ingrained in the very ideology of mainstream conservatism that I don’t see conservatives recognizing it anytime soon.Report
Agreed.Report