I don’t think it would be honoring him like we might Lafayette or Kościuszko. It would be recognizing his role in Western US history.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with you, Gary, but I think a great many people would not. They see him as just another white European warmonger. That would be a tough sell these days.
The three flags display sounds like a great idea, though.
The three flags display sounds like a great idea, though.
I think I'm with Gary on this one. Napoleon's legacy is complicated, and like our own founding fathers he certainly held plenty of views that have since been discredited, but his importance to the success of the French Revolution and the ideals of the Enlightenment it perpetuated cannot be overstated. While it will be difficult, I absolutely think it's important that we reexamine his contribution and what it means to us today.
Just don't look up why he sold Lousiana to the US. Napoleon was an evil piece of sh*t far worse than the Founding Fathers, he opposed democracy, he represents the worst of the enlightenment, the French Revolution was genuinely awful. He was an authoritarian and an autocrat who helped oversee the killing of millions and subjugation of even more. In no world should a city called "Saint Louis" be honoring him in any way.
Sounds like somebody living today. We should honor the slaves in Haiti who rebelled and forced Napoleon to send his troops there to protect his lucrative sugar operation. Like a well known politician today, sounds like Napoleon wanted to make big money for himself today, and didn’t care what was best for his country after his death.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting we hold him up as some kind of ideal. He held some absolutely abhorrent views. (Largely the same ones as Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, and others.) But his role was pretty vital, and I don't think you can tell our story without him. He was the leader France needed to stave off the First and Second Coalitions. If France falls to them you get the Bourbons back earlier and without the example of a successful French army defeating them. The Coalitions have more money to put down the Revolution. Without France distracting the Royal Navy I'm not sure how the US survives the War of 1812 intact. Without the Louisiana territory the United States never becomes anything more than a small, regional power. Without his code, France reverts back to an absolutist monarchy. Without him we probably don't get the metric system as the standard of measurement. He also did a lot for French universities and the sciences generally, funding them.
His plans in Haiti were despicable . . . and very much like what we did here. Of a piece. He was a racist. He was a believer in slavery. That's a real problem. But he was also a believer in the revolution. The fact that he felt he needed power concentrated in a single executive is . . . unfortunate. But remarkably common, particularly among charismatic populist leaders. He modeled himself on Caesar, for both better and worse. The only real difference is that he was a Caesar who helped overthrow the monarchy and who left the institutions from which a republic could be built rather than the reverse. Good luck finding a leader at that time who doesn't harbor some pretty abhorrent views. I don't for a moment doubt that we ourselves hold views that will one day be seen as pretty unbelievable. I only hope that the future has a little more sense about seeing people in their context than we seem to presently.
His plans in Haiti were despicable . . . and very much like what we did here. Of a piece. He was a racist. He was a believer in slavery. That's a real problem. But he was also a believer in the revolution. The fact that he felt he needed power concentrated in a single executive is . . . unfortunate. But remarkably common, particularly among charismatic populist leaders. He modeled himself on Caesar, for both better and worse. The only real difference is that he was a Caesar who helped overthrow the monarchy and who left the institutions from which a republic could be built rather than the reverse. Good luck finding a leader at that time who doesn't harbor some pretty abhorrent views. I don't for a moment doubt that we ourselves hold views that will one day be seen as pretty unbelievable. I only hope that the future has a little more sense about seeing people in their context than we seem to presently.
I think the statue of Napoleon is appropriate to display only if placed near the Jefferson statue. In that way we aren't celebrating the people so much as the moment of the signing of the Louisiana Purchase. Surround those bad boys in contextual signs too.
^Sure. Put them both out and explain the context and the connection. Don't stick them on a pedestal in a park, but the bronzes could fit in a case, I would think, with appropriate artifacts. And the Three Flags Day story would be the best one for them, I would think. On the other hand, there's also probably no harm leaving them in the attic. I'd be interested in seeing them out, and I think it could be done respectfully. But it's not a hill worth dying on. It's not as though Three Flags Day or the Louisiana Purchase have been forgotten. Or the Napoleonic Wars, for that matter.