Simple Solutions

   I have been busy for a bit and the weather is nice, but it is time to post something. I will again rely on the creativity of others, which you readers will find reassuring since I, myself, so far have demonstrated little of it. Here I will present two solutions to the problem that arises, when people who are more sensitive than I, come across something horrible or frightening when they are reading or watching in the privacy of their home or out walking in the public square. 

Caveat Lector

    I will keep this simple because it is and because I have touched upon it before in, for example, the appropriately titled, "WARNING."  This simple headline summarizes it all: "Only Trigger Warning Needed: Caveat Lector," and it is at the top of an an article in the National Post (June 29, 2023.) The solution occurred to the author, William Watson, who thought of it after watching Casablanca. In it Ilsa refers to the black piano player as the "boy." Since Ilsa (or Ingrid) were likely not racists and since the film otherwise embraces and exhibits values the sensitive will appreciate (anti-fascism, for example), does the movie really need to be banned or severely edited? Mr. Watson, thinks not, and notes that "the harm done by giving offence to some readers or viewers is outweighed by the benefit from the work itself."

  I agree and implied as much when I discussed in "WARNING"  the new propriety pronouncements being produced on Turner Classic Movies.  Mr. Watson suggests that Caveat Lector is better than "Contains Explicit Language" because generally we like language to be clear. I argued that "Viewer Discretion Advised" be placed before all films since now something in them will be offensive to someone. To be safe and to ensure the sensitive are not harmed perhaps all films and books be labeled with all of the warnings: Caveat Emptor, Caveat Lector, Caveat Auditor, Contains Explicit Language and Viewer (Reader) Discretion Advised. And, rather then ban or bowdlerize all older books and films or have librarians affix the above labels, a general public pronouncement, like the one found on beaches, should be widely promulgated indicating that all books or films produced before 2000 are to be approached cautiously: Danger: No Censors On Duty.

                                                     "Retain and Explain"

BEFORE

AFTER

   

   The solution to the problem of what to do with statues in squares or names on buildings which are problematic for those more sensitive than I, is encapsulated in the phrase, "Retain and Explain", which does have a nice ring to it. Rather than eliminate or subtract items and names from the landscape, we should add to them other objects or explanations which provide the historic context, as well as the present one which calls for the change. I will explain that the photos above portray the current view of many who believe that one should "Abolish and Remove." That is the statue of Edward Colston being dumped in the river in Bristol.

  "Retain and Explain" is an English suggestion, but I learned about it in an American article. I will provide the citation here since it helps explain things and because one reader told me they never look at the sources I usually dutifully apply at the bottom: "A Philosopher and a Slaver, But No Longer a Name on a Library: No One Disputes That George Berkeley Was Among Ireland's Greatest Thinkers, But He Was An Unapologetic Slaver. Now Trinity College Dublin Is Taking His Names Off One Of Its Buildings," Ed O'Loughlin, New York Times, May 8, 2023. Although his name is being removed from the library, "students will still encounter Berkeley in the form of a 19th century stained-glass window commemorating his life in the college chapel. The school decided to keep the window in place, but add information about the controversy -- adopting a so-called retain and explain approach." 

   "Retain and Explain" does sound nice, but it is not so simple. An explanatory plaque adjacent to a very large colonizer on a huge horse, would probably not be sufficient and the arguments over the statues would be endless. as would the debates about who should do the arguing. There would be other things to consider, but this day is a nice one and I will leave you to do the considering and will supply the sources to assist, although I know no one will read them. Do have a look at The Bonus, however, since it lists naming problems on the horizon. 

Sources: 

  This quotation -- "We believe that the right approach to statues, however contentious, is to retain and explain their presence" -- is found here: "Listing Controversy II: Staues, Contested Heritage And the Policy of "Retain and Explain", in Law & Place.

"Monumental Error: The Plan to 'Retain and Explain' Statues," Alexander Pelling-Bruce, The Spectator, April 10, 2021.

"The Times View on the Fate of Controversial Statues: Retain and Explain," The Times, Jan. 18, 2021.

"Retain and Explain is a Woke Trap To Rewrite History," Zareer Masani, The Sunday Telegraph, June 20, 2021. Here is his conclusion: 

"What such examples show is the near-impossibility of explaining in short captions what are often complex and contested reputations. Public spaces belong to the public, the vast majority of whom have little appetite for seeing monuments defaced by sanctimonious disclaimers. While most of us would back the policy to retain, must we really suffer it being accompanied by simplistic health warnings similar to those on cigarette packs? By all means let's also explain, but ensure those who do the explaining have the necessary expertise."

The Bonus:

   In the American article that started all of this it is noted that Berkeley came to America and that the University of California, Berkeley is named for him, but that the University is not changing the name. Yet.

  I have produced several posts about names, naming and statues and you likely will have read none of them and I won't bother pointing them out. A related one that you surely did not read was my year-end rant a few years ago. In it, you will note my prescience, in that I predicted that the names of some universities will be problematic for the sensitive ones (remember Ryerson?) Here is that small portion from a post that was too long:

The larger issue relates to the complete university not just the structures on the campus. What if the name applied to the entire university is tainted? I feel that it is my duty to alert you to some possible problems. In short, you would short the following colleges and universities if they were stocks or securities. The alphabetical list by institution includes the name of the person along with the alleged ‘crime’. 

Alcorn State (James L. He was a Confederate. Alcorn is largely black!)

Austin Peay  (Austin Peay. Like Jefferson, fathered a black child.)

Clemson ( Thomas Green. Married Calhoun’s daughter - see Yale above.)

Drake (Francis Marion. Killed a few Pawnees.)

Duke ( James Buchanan. Tobacco.)

Furman (Richard. The slave thing.)

George Mason (George Mason. The slave thing. See my related post - ASSOL)

Hofstra (William S. Lumber business - open to the charge of despoliation.)

Lamar ( Mirabeau Buonaparte. Slave trader AND Cherokee/Comanche killer.)

Marshall (John. His papers are online at the UVA. Find the problem yourself.)

Rice (William Marsh. Guy was a capitalist and died a rather messy death.)

Stanford (Leland Jr. The son of a robber baron.)

Tulane (Paul. Confederate donor.)

Vanderbilt (Cornelius. Rich - “unmannered brute.”)

Yale (Elihu. Corruption charges. Elis may become as rare as Jeffs.)

    Many colleges in the U.S. were founded by religious leaders and those named for such figures may be assumed to be safe from onomastic scrutiny (Wesleyan, for example) or maybe not (Oral Roberts). Otherwise if you are sending your sons or daughters off to college and you want them to have a ‘safe space’ , then perhaps you should consider a plainly-named land-grant university like the University of Iowa where the students are also likely to be less flighty. 

    As far as Canada goes, less work is required if you are trying to choose or avoid a university because of its name. Select one with a geographically-based name like ‘Toronto’, or  ‘Western’ which could exist anywhere and is surely not offensive. You could simply avoid any college that is named for a person unless she is Emily Carr. In the east, for example, I would not choose Dalhousie without thoroughly vetting the Earl. In the far west the choice is easy.  Go to UBC. It is clear that you should avoid Simon Fraser which will likely be attacked in the near future for reasons that are obvious. 

The source for the above, where there is even more, is my cleverly disguised post: "This Is NOT About Mariah Carey."