What is the term “erasing history” supposed to mean?
It’s a curious approach to arguing against the removal of the statues of slave owners, removing a Confederate flag from NASCAR, removing the name of William H. Murray from buildings on Oklahoma State’s Campus.
If you think about the difference between history and prehistory, there’s a pretty simple definition. History began when we started recording it, whether through memorizing stories or writing them down. Anything before that time, is prehistoric.
Does a statue tell a story? Does a flag? Does a name on a building?
If you saw any of these things at distance, and didn’t know what they were, you’d probably have to look up the written history of those objects.
A written history that hasn’t been erased.
But, really, isn’t that just a semantic issue, nibbling around the edges of something larger?
People who really have a problem with this removal, won’t actually miss any of things. What’s to miss? They’re mostly bothered that the protests have worked. They’ve placed themselves, all by themselves, on the other side of an issue that enough people cared about to kick up a big enough fuss they got something done.
That’s the real issue. They picked the losing side, and they just can’t stand it.
Maybe it’s time to switch teams, and be on the right side of history.
History, as they say, is written by the winners.