Holding History Accountable

Stuyvesant High School’s namesake is former Dutch Governor of New Amsterdam Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant was crucial to the prosperity of colonial New York but also had a grim legacy as a slave owner, staunch anti-semite, and early colonist. As a result, Stuyvesant High School has faced demands to rename the school in order to avoid honoring the legacy of such a controversial figure. However, others adamantly defend the namesake, arguing that we must celebrate his legacy and recognize his actions as a product of their time. This ongoing debate is representative of a dynamic controversy across the country: the dilemma of whether we should dismantle the namesakes and monuments representing morally controversial historical figures. 

Over recent years, hundreds of American institutions have been the subject of renaming campaigns. Just in San Francisco, over 44 schools have been renamed, and in New Jersey, Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College were recently renamed, considering President Wilson’s segregationist policies and deeply racist beliefs. In 2020, 168 Confederate monuments were dismantled. These controversial changes were met with intense opposition from news outlets, politicians, and people around the country. Despite the widespread coverage, there is a large lack of consensus over this issue. While many insist that monuments named for supposedly problematic individuals should all be removed, their adversaries defend these depictions, and the public struggles to reach a conclusion on how to hold past figures accountable. 

People on both sides of this debate adamantly defend incorrect, flawed extremes. Those who demand the removal of statues incorrectly assume that dismantling statues is the correct way to “fix” the wrongs of history, and those who refuse to recognize these wrongs strip us of valuable lessons. Both also assume that monuments must celebrate the entirety of a person’s legacy, which should not always be the case. Instead, we should judge the character of a historical figure based on the social standards of their time while simultaneously recognizing these standards as outdated and immoral. If a figure was morally abhorrent even for their time, then they should subsequently not be celebrated. Furthermore, by deciding that some of their legacy deserves to be celebrated, we posit statues as recognition of actions rather than their overall legacy.

On one hand, the demand to dismantle or rename any depiction of a controversial historical figure is unethical and a misunderstanding of history. Oftentimes, many argue that if a prominent figure’s actions are deemed unethical, we must dismantle any representation of them. 

However, this stance ignores historical context. Presentism—the application of modern-day views on the past—is a phenomenon that concerns many historians. Many often use presentism to judge people and events based on the current conception of ethics, as opposed to viewing them within the context of what was socially acceptable for their time. Yet, much like how those who lived 100 years in the past had no idea what modern morals would be, we in the present have no idea what morals will be 100 years into the future. Therefore, it is crucial that the circumstances and social realities of a historical time period are taken into account when judging historical figures.

Additionally, those who support renaming institutions or dismantling monuments also fail to recognize the complexity of historical figures. Many of the controversial historical figures that are celebrated today have taken certain actions that are worthy of recognition. For example, Mahatma Gandhi famously led the Indian independence movement against the imperialist rule of the British through nonviolent protest and succeeded. However, Gandhi has been scrutinized for his early racism towards Africans. Gandhi created an otherwise massively positive political legacy, but many of his actions raise concerns over his idolatry. Even so, only recognizing the negative legacies of historical figures strips us of valuable lessons and pieces of history. Figures like Gandhi especially teach the importance of nonviolent resistance to oppression. Consequently, refusing to platform his praiseworthy actions deprives us of these lessons.

This conclusion that we must fully dismiss these historical figures also inaccurately assumes that condemning the actions of a historical figure and recognizing that their actions were products of their time are wholly incompatible concepts. Recognizing someone’s actions as a product of their environment doesn’t necessitate that we ought to celebrate said actions that we deem unacceptable by modern standards. Instead, it allows us to balance condemning them with recognizing certain laudable aspects.

The other side of the debate contains zealous defenders of these historical figures’ portrayals, arguing that recognizing an action as a product of its time means that celebrating a figure’s entire legacy is permissible.

In a contrary manner, this stance also fails to realize that our recognition of a person as a product of their time can happen in conjunction with our recognition that their actions were immoral. Because we recognize that certain prejudiced beliefs were standardized hundreds of years ago means that we should be careful to not celebrate them.

Furthermore, those who strongly oppose the criticisms of historical figures often misconstrue anti-presentist logic that vindicates historical figures of all responsibility. If we absolve all historical figures of responsibility, then we could end up excusing and celebrating the actions of dictators, war criminals, and perpetrators of genocide. One glaring example of how this has occurred is the public opinion of Christopher Columbus’s legacy. Christopher Columbus, the Italian colonist who “found” the already inhabited America, has been celebrated as a hero for “discovering” America—so much so that over 6,000 places in the United States honor him. Many reject the condemnation of him under the pretense that his actions were acceptable for his time, but this conclusion is the result of a misunderstanding. Even for the standards of Columbus’s time, he was exceptionally cruel, as proven by the Spanish crown arresting him and contemporary criticisms. This misinterpretation of Christopher Columbus’s actions within his time is one of the most glaring examples of how anti-presentism can be misused. This flawed logic is similarly applied to members of the American Confederacy, who lived in a time where slavery had already been deemed socially unacceptable for decades in many parts of the world. Since figures like Christopher Columbus were willfully morally abhorrent even by the standards of their time, we ought not to represent their legacy whatsoever through statues and names.

Therefore, there are two criteria by which we should judge historical figures and monuments. First, the public should hold figures accountable based on the social norms of their time, rather than by modern standards. We can judge historical figures through this lens while still recognizing that those social norms are antiquated and outdated. What this could look like in practice is maintaining statues of figures like Gandhi, who reflected the values that were widely accepted in his life, while rejecting statues of figures like Robert E. Lee, who was morally bankrupt even for his time. 

Second, schools and institutions should play an active role in teaching that historical figures in their entirety should not necessarily be idolized—instead, we should recognize the underbelly of their legacy in addition to their positive contributions. In the end, this is the most beneficial method because it makes us more cognizant of our history, teaching us not only the historical lessons of how to act but also how not to act. This could look like celebrating Gandhi’s approach to nonviolent resistance while still acknowledging his racist beliefs. This could also look like teaching the importance of Thomas Jefferson’s creation of the Declaration of Independence while still recognizing that his use of slavery was disgraceful. Although some would argue that monuments are inherently celebratory, they do not have to be. Monuments such as The Princeton Battle, which specifically depicts Washington’s contributions to the Revolutionary War, prove that it is entirely possible to celebrate certain actions of a historical figure while avoiding idolatry and glorification. Looking back at Stuyvesant High School, it is not morally reprehensible to keep Peter Stuyvesant’s namesake, as long as we recognize his complete legacy. Whether that be through education or recognition, simply renaming the school is not the answer.