Wanting to flag a symbol of it, and use it as a teaching opportunity is a fine example "wanting to remember, and not repeat the past." And that seems to be exactly what has happened with "Cutter 37." The ship is indeed not repugnant. Taney is. They will teach that. I then have no idea what your complaint is. There are fools in the world? Yes, there are! Thank you! Baltimore is a cesspool? I could not say, but living near Boston, which certainly has its own share of issues, I could probably be easily pursuaded. Our major urban areas in general sure seem to be.
Cancel culture in a broad context needs to be dealt with on a "case-by-case" basis. There is some good and proper motivation behind it, but it does indeed need to be prevented from going too far, and exactly erasing unpleasant history. As with all things, we need balance.
I will cite you a case from Boston. Faneuil Hall is a landmark marketplace building, named after an early French Canadian immigrant merchant. It turns out he owned slaves. A movement was created to remove the name, and turn it into the Crispus Attuks hall, after an African American martyr of the Boston Massacre. The movement did not get far. It is a good example of "cancel culture gone overboard." Last I checked, it is still Faneuil Hall, with no name change planned. It was also too extreme to switch it to a completely unconnected, unrelated individual's name, just because he was African American. If push had come to shove, some sort of neutral name like, "Old Marketplace Hall" could have been adopted, with a teaching display inside on why the name had been switched. That would be parallel to the cutter issue. In the end, old Mr. Faneuil was simply not as repugnant an individual simply by virtue of his having owned slaves. And this then boils down to "trusting public judgement." Cancel culture cries "Oooo-oooo! Racism-racism!" The public investigates. It's either "By golly it is!" or "Nope, you're carried away, bud." The American people have not quite yet totally lost all their collective judgement, though I can certainly see where it is easy to feel they have as you witness the everyday spectacle of our living zoo.
....it is still a symptom of cancel culture. Taney himself was repugnant. The ship not so. Meanwhile fools want to erase history because it offends them. Remember the words of George Santayana- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Thew willful erasure of history is no less dangerous.
And for those, Lars at least, who have never lived near the cesspit of corruption and crime that is the city of Baltimorgue I tell you now they are the root cause of their problems their own worst enemies.
Yes, there is certainly an explanation. I read the first four I got from my search, then stopped. They all looked interesting, but I have physical limits to my ability to "take in data."
This was the first one I read. I notice they are going to educate visitors about Taney:
https://www.chesapeakebaymagazine.com/name-dropping-coast-guard-cutter-taneys-name-removed/
So, it is because of his pro-slavery position, but also--as you note--to "avoid discussions." That is because the "discussions" can't be civil. From another article I read, there was fear at the time that they might become a target and be vandalized. Other racially motivated vandalizations were happening around the area at the time. So, they were acting to protect the ship, which I would like to see anyone object to. That they had to protect the ship is the tragedy. The man lived over 160 years ago, and was a product of his times. He wrote the majority court opinion...six other justices agreed with him. We should be learning from history, not seeking to "reject" it, ban it, remove it, or figures from it. Instead, we get all worked up over someone from over a century and a half ago which the Civil War, and the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional Amendments should have settled. What people are really (rightfully) fundamentally angry about is not Taney, it is racism. Neither the Civil War nor any amendments fixed that. I could not tell you what, if anything, would fix that (short of us all destroying each other.)
So, in the end, the ship's managers did what they had to, they will educate visitors as they should, and they kept the focus on the ship, where it should be. I think they navigated the situation well.
Is there an explanation somewhere, why the name was removed? I mean an explanation from those, who did it. My impression is that they simply want avoid discussions.
It if was done because of the pro-slavery activities of Taney, these would be mentioned - but they are not. Therefore, for me, it makes no sense to blame "cancel culture".
By the way: you wrote that it would be wrong to focus only on one aspect of history. That is correct. But that is exactly what is criticized when people like Roger B. Taney are honoured, but the their wrongdoings are not mentioned. In a museum ship, both should be possible - in case of a monument or a name of an active warship that is difficult.
The ambivalence of the founding fathers of the USA is tragic and had dramatic consequences. On the one hand, they wanted to implement human rights and democracy and went further with that than most others in their times. On the other hand, they did not took the meaning of "human rights" literally and denied them to both the slaves and Native Americans - and denied the right to vote not only to those, but also to half of the remaining population, which got it only in 1920. That ambivalence is not something special for the US, but a characteristic element of the Age of Enlightenment.
Responses