Politically correct, or simply correct?
That is the crux of a debate surrounding historical markers and monuments throughout the United States, including Washington and even Vancouver. It also is the crux of discussions surrounding how America remembers and records its history.
Locally, such debates have extended to a historical monument at the west end of Officers Row on city of Vancouver property. It is among dozens of markers throughout the state that are being reexamined by the Washington State Historical Society, an analysis that included a public meeting last month.
Vancouver’s monument, a hexagonal obelisk that is partially obscured by shrubbery, includes a statement claiming that “civilization of Washington started at Vancouver.” In the narrow view that prevailed when the monument was placed a century ago, that meant white civilization.
As Columbian reporter Scott Hewitt wrote recently: “Many interested people — from historical experts to Native Americans whose ancestors lived in the Pacific Northwest for thousands of years before white people arrived — are questioning the wording, underlying implications and blatant omissions on Vancouver’s ‘Firsts’ monument, and all those others across the state.”
With that, an easily overlooked obelisk places Vancouver at the center of an important national discussion. From historical markers to Confederate monuments to the naming of military bases to school curriculum, Americans are reassessing how we tell our history.
A historical marker, it seems, should be historically accurate. Suggesting that “civilization” arrived with white people is provably false. By omission, it embraces the racist trope that Native Americans who lived on these lands for centuries were uncivilized until European settlers arrived.
The marker should be removed, but the discussion should continue if the United States is to live up to its creed that all people are created equal. And that calls to mind a profound speech by Mitch Landrieu in 2017, when he was mayor of New Orleans and the city removed several Confederate monuments.
“There is a difference, you see, between remembrance of history and the reverence of it,” Landrieu said. “It has been a long and winding road marked by tragedy and triumph, but we cannot be afraid of the truth. As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and I quote, ‘A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and it corrects them.’ ”
Some Americans decry such viewpoints as political correctness and a rewriting of history. This is a deeply flawed opinion, ignoring the fact that wild inaccuracies do not conflate with “history.” In several states, for example, lawmakers have limited the teaching of the history of slavery. Obfuscating such history does not change what happened; it simply leads to ill-informed students and prevents our nation from building upon the lessons of the past.
In another example, President-elect Donald Trump has said he will restore Confederate names to U.S. military bases that were renamed in recent years. Honoring traitors who took up arms in defense of slavery should be offensive to all Americans — but many would embrace the move.
Those examples represent broad discussions about significant issues. But from a local standpoint, we would hope that a historical marker meets the minimum requirement of being historically accurate. There is, after all, a difference between politically correct and simply correct.
