On Toppling Statues but Missing the Main Point
Just curious:
If we are setting out to dishonor (or at least to stop
honoring) history's villains, then I would like to throw something into the
mix.
Why stop at toppling a few token statues that are hardly seen by anyone? Much more ought to be done to further our efforts to right the wrongs of history.
I propose that we change the names of numerous cities
throughout the United States that were originally named to honor villainous
individuals who are unworthy of honor. Moreover, the mere enunciation of the
actual names of these cities bestow honor. Not only do they bestow honor, they
glorify and exalt these murderous thugs.
1) San Diego, CA --
Diego de Alcalá de Henares was a zealous Franciscan
missionary who preached hatred, intolerance and incitement against the hapless
Jews of pre-expulsion Spain. He is remembered in Jewish history as an
incorrigibly cruel individual. "San" means saint, because this
individual was canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church. He does not deserve
the title, and certainly doesn't deserve a city named after him! I propose we
rename the California Mission that bears his name too. In fact, I lived in this
city many years ago, and could never allow myself to pronounce the city's full
name. Instead, I just called it "Diego," so as to not ascribe
saintliness to this low-life. However, I wish I'd not have to ever pronounce
his name at all. "The name of the wicked shall rot." (Proverbs 10:7)
Only the "righteous' name" deserves to be mentioned, "for
blessing."
2) St Louis, MO --
Louis IX of France was a fanatical Jew-hater. He cruelly
subjected Jews to humiliation, scorn, persecution, expulsion, forced them to
wear "Jew badges" (like the Nazis did centuries later), confiscated
and burnt many thousands of their books (which were painstakingly hand-written
manuscripts in those days). and did little to protect them from murderous crusaders.
He was the only king to be canonized by the Church because of his extreme
Catholic piety and intolerance of Jews and other non-Catholics. In short, he
was an evil man, NOT a saint by any conceivable definition. I propose we rename this city once and for
all to honor a more benign or virtuous human being.
3) San Luis, CO, San Luis, AZ, & St Louis, OR – same reason
as above. Named after Louis IX. Change the names of these cities!
4) San Bernadino, CA –
Named after St. Bernard of Siena, a rabid Jew-hater. Widely
considered the "major protagonist of Christian antisemitism.” Bernard vilified
and marginalized the Jews of Italy and repeatedly called for their expulsion or
worse. Wikipedia: “Blaming the poverty of local Christians on Jewish usury, his
call for Jews to be banished and isolated from their wider communities led to
segregation. His audiences often used his words to reinforce actions against
Jews, and his preaching left a legacy of resentment on the part of Jews.” Not
only did he incite against Jews, he also preached hate against homosexuals and women
who didn't conform to societal norms, brandishing them as witches and conducting
witch-hunts against them. Clearly a downright villain and NOT a saint (or San
in Spanish). Change the city’s name at once, or at least erase the absurd “San”
part!
5) San Vicente Reservoir and San Vicente Blvd, Los Angeles,
CA –
Presumably named after Vincent Ferrar, a Dominican friar,
also a rabid anti-Semite. Ferrar was NO saint for the same reasons I stated
above with regards to his infamous contemporary, Bernard. Vincent’s incitement
is partially responsible for the widespread mass murder and forced conversions
of Jews in 1391 that began in Seville and spread throughout Spain. Vincent
personally coerced 25,000 Jews to submit to baptism under pain of death or incarceration.
He was an evil dude. The reservoir and boulevard both need a new name!
6) San Juan Capistrano, CA –
John of Capestrano was a Franciscan friar and inquisitor who
terrorized untold numbers of innocent people in Italy. The inquisition was a
Catholic institution that tortured and executed hundreds of thousands of
innocent people whom the Catholic Church considered heretics. Many of these victims
were burnt alive auto-de-fé. Wikipedia: “John
was known as the ‘Scourge of the Jews’ for his inciting of antisemitic violence.
Like some other Franciscans, he ranged over a broad area on both sides of the
Alps, and John's preaching to mass open-air congregations often led to pogroms.
In 1450 the Franciscan ‘Jew-baiter’ arranged a forced disputation at Rome” in
which he coerced Jews to participate in a debate with Catholic clergy during
which the Jews did not have free speech, and would be severely punished for
saying anything “blasphemous.” (Louis IX above did the same and forced Jews to
participate in the Disputation of Paris in 1241, after which thousands of
Jewish books were confiscated and burned.) More about John of Capestrano from
Wikipedia: “Between 1451 and 1453, his fiery sermons against Jews persuaded
many southern German regions to expel their entire Jewish population, and in
Silesia, then Kingdom of Bohemia, at Breslau some were burned at the stake.”
Real nice guy, that John. Such a beautiful seaside city doesn’t deserve to be
named after such an incorrigible villain. Change the name of its historic
mission too. Speaking of which, missions enslaved and forcibly converted Native
Americans to Catholicism. Why allow such edifices to remain standing? After
all, they pay tribute to horrific injustices that were cruelly perpetrated
against helpless Native Americans. Tear down the Missions!
There are many more examples, but I’ll suffice with the six
I mentioned above. Cities named after Catholic clergy who participated in the Inquisition,
enslavement or forced conversions of Jews or Native Americans or others, or any
other form of persecution of innocents, all ought to be renamed. Why should the
memories of wicked people be enshrined in perpetuity in the name of a city,
street, institution or geographic location?
Furthermore, the names of all cities that start with Saint,
San or Santa ought to be modified. I do not accept the saintliness of any of
these individuals, give the criteria that the Church used to pick their saints.
This is clearly evidenced by the six ignominious individuals delineated above,
plus many, many more like them. Cities like San Juan or St Paul are named after
Catholic apostles who were up to no good. Paul’s writings are clearly anti-Semitic.
I say remove his name from the city, or at least the “Saint” part. It’s
offensive to people who are not of the Catholic faith to be forced to ascribe saintliness
to someone they consider unsaintly. Why must I invoke “Saint” every time I
refer to the city by name?
Moreover, cities like “Holy Cross, AK” or “St Croix Falls,
WI” (“St Croix literally means “holy cross”) need to be renamed too. I do not
believe that there is anything venerable or holy about the cross. Many consider
it an unholy symbol. (Don’t mean to single out the Cross. I consider the Muslim
Crescent unholy as well). So why must I be forced to venerate it by calling it
holy every time I mention that city’s name? Plus, cities called “Holy Cross” are
offensive to the millions throughout history who were murdered and persecuted in
the name of the Cross. Corpus Christi is another problematic city name, in my
opinion. But let’s not go there…
Cities, schools or streets named after any conquistador need
to be renamed too. Spanish Conquistadors were often mass murderers and
decimated or enslaved Native Americans, like Hernán Cortés and others of his
ilk. So anything named after Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, Hernando de Soto,
or Vasco Núñez de Balboa, for example, all need to be renamed. Speaking of
Balboa, he executed homosexuals as well.
Christopher Columbus is personally responsible for the
murder and enslavement of thousands of Native Americans too. He was the first
to capture and send Native slaves back to Europe by the thousands. Many died due
to squalid and subhuman conditions during transit. Why name cities (or anything
else) after him? Lots of US cities (schools
and streets too) called Columbus or Columbia ought to consider being renamed,
not to mention our capital, “District of Columbia.” Why can’t we think of a
more impeccably-virtuous person after whom to name our capital?
St. Helena, CA, is presumably named after another Catholic
saint, a Roman empress who was the mother of Emperor Constantine. Personally, I
do not consider any Roman emperor or empress worthy to deserve the title “saint.”
Don’t wish to elaborate, but the Roman ruling class was a particularly savage
bunch of people.
Till now, we’ve just been discussing US cities. Worldwide,
there are many more names of cities that I find objectionable.
Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine, is perhaps the most deplorable.
Bogdan Chmielnicki was a genocidal mass murderer who was guilty of unspeakable
crimes against humanity. He murdered
hundreds of thousands of Jews in the most horrific ways. He is possibly one of
the most egregious villains in history, along with Hitler and Stalin.
Not only do the Ukrainians have a city in his wretched name,
they also have the “Bohdan Khmelnytsky” state military award. And it’s not only
Ukraine. Russia also has a Bohdan Khmelnytsky Bridge in Moscow named in his
honor. The depraved rogue does not deserve any honor!
Don’t counter that it’s too hard to change the name of an
entire city of a developed nation. It’s not hard at all. In fact, it’s easier
than toppling statues. Plus, there is already a precedent.
The Russians did it
numerous times, from the early days of Bolshevism, to the period of
de-Stalinization, all the way to the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Examples
include Volgograd (from Stalingrad, and Tsaritsyn before that), Dniepropetrovsk
(from Yekaterinoslav, and many other names before that), and the return to the
original Petersburg (from Leningrad.
Please note that I specifically did not use the prefix “Saint”
when mentioning the latter city, since Czar Peter was no saint in
my book.
It’s not just cities or streets that need a name change.
Entire religious affiliations ought to consider re-branding themselves as well,
for the very same reason.
Martin Luther was a rabid anti-Semite, as is apparent from
his writings, especially in his later years. Read his infamous “The Jews and
their Lies.” I find it rather shocking
that there is a modern-day branch of religion that still bears his name,
Lutheranism. Have these people no shame? Can’t they change their name? Do they
not know that Martin Luther’s name and writings were invoked by Nazi war
criminals at the Nuremberg Trials? The notorious Nazi propagandist, Julius
Streicher said in his defense that he was, after all, only repeating what
Martin Luther had written.
If millions of Americans were to name a religious cult after
Robert E Lee, or declared him a saint, don’t you think they’d be rightfully dubbed
bigots, nominally at least? The media would be up in arms, and rightfully so. Why
are Lutherans any different?
I don’t mean to insult any individuals who adhere to that
particular faith, but am merely wondering about the name of their religion, and
about the movement as a whole. Why would they ever wish to perpetuate the name
of such a vicious hater? Let his memory be erased, as per Proverbs 10:7 cited
above.
It is morally revolting when so-called Palestinian Arabs
name their streets or institutions after genocidal terrorist masterminds, or,
for example, when they named an elementary school after a woman who personally
murdered 37 innocent civilians, twelve of whom were young children. It is a sorry
sign of the appalling depravity of the Palestinian society to glorify such unspeakable
crimes against humanity. But we expect more from “enlightened” western society.
So why do we here in the West still have cities etc that venerate the memories
of truly unvenerable degenerates? Why honor someone so dishonorable?
If we are seeking to sanitize our society by removing statues
of prominent Confederates because of their historic crimes that were committed long
ago, then let’s be consistent. Otherwise, it appears like we’re being
selective, politically divisive, and agenda-based. When we’re only interested in
righting one particular historical wrong but not others, it seems disingenuous,
as though there’s some subjective or ulterior motive, perhaps financial or
political. If we’re truly altruistic about this, then let’s be consistent and
do it right.
You are certainly entitled to feel that history’s secessionist
bigots are undeserving of honor, but what about history’s supersessionist
bigots like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo? And what about lay authors
who maligned Jews in their writings with anti-Semitic tropes, canards, and stereotypes
that were typically used to incite the masses to actual violence against Jews?
I’m referring to revered literary giants like Chaucer and Shakespeare. Why do
they deserve our reverence? They were guilty of hate speech, calumny and (arguably)
incitement?
(Please forgive me for not including prominent people from
history who were guilty of similar crimes against others. As a Jew, I tend to
know more about historical bad guys who hit closer to home.)
One last point:
Perhaps one might see fit to advocate for the toppling of Confederate
statues but have no problem with a city named for a bigoted genocidal Inquisitor,
for example. He or she might argue that slavery was a more recent atrocity, and that bigotry against “Blacks” persists to
this day, while the Inquisition is like ancient history. This is a seriously-flawed
argument.
As mentioned above, adherence to Luther and his writings was cited in defense of Nazi war criminals. The Holocaust is much more recent than the end of slavery in the US. The Catholic Church and much of Christian Europe turned a blind eye to this recent genocide of the Jews, and in many places assisted the Germans or even carried out the horrific murders themselves. Catholic and European marginalization of Jews has continued till very recent times.
In fact, hatred of Jews persists to this day, in many ways at a much
greater degree than any other form of bigotry in history. Jews are many
more times likely to be victims of hate crimes here in the US than any other
ethnic group, and that ratio has been growing at an alarming rate in recent
years. Around the world, hatred of Jews has swelled to unprecedented levels
that haven’t been seen since pre-WWII. In US universities and college campuses,
Jews are routinely marginalized and bullied.
Millions throughout the world deny
that the Holocaust ever happened, though no one has ever disputed the dark crimes
committed against African slaves. Hundreds of millions of people around the
world openly call for genocide of the Jews,[1]
as do numerous countries and their dictators.
If anything, we ought to be more averse to honoring historical
anti-Semites than any other type of bigot in history.
Oh well. I’m doubtful whether anyone will take my rant
seriously. Everyone will probably fall in line with which ever political side
they belong to, either for or against Robert E Lee statues. Well, let it be
known that at least one disgruntled American refuses to refer to many US cities
by name, or by their complete name.
In my book, it’s just plain Diego, CA or Louis, MO. When I’m
forced to write it as an address or for other official reasons (and I lived in
Diego for a few years, as I may have mentioned above), I simply write “S Diego.”
“S” doesn’t stand for “San” or “Saint,” but for “Shameful.”
PS: since we're discussing statues, it's worthwhile to point out that statues of human beings are prohibited by Torah (see Rambam, Laws of Idolatry 3:15-16), even if they're not for the purpose of idolatrous worship. This applies to statues or 3-d forms of any human likeness, not just of offensive bad guys.
PS: since we're discussing statues, it's worthwhile to point out that statues of human beings are prohibited by Torah (see Rambam, Laws of Idolatry 3:15-16), even if they're not for the purpose of idolatrous worship. This applies to statues or 3-d forms of any human likeness, not just of offensive bad guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment