Where Are The Jane Fonda's Of Yesteryear? [closed]

Question

Not long ago, New Orleans removed a well-known statue of Robert E. Lee that stood high on a pedestal in the middle of Lee Circle. That’s one of many recent examples of communities removing monuments to prewar Southern figures or institutions. Flags and seals and street names have been changed too, to deny such honors to Confederate officers.

I have a friend who’s angry about this sort of thing. I think that he feels some emotional connection with ancestors who fought for the South, and his pride in them is being tainted. He tends to suggest that this changing social attitude to the pre-war South is somehow kooky and out-of-proportion. I thought it would be relevant to show him widespread European public opinion during the slavery period. I had assumed that polite educated society in non-slave-holding Europe would be frank in the view that American slavery was horrifying and barbaric.

But it seems I’m wrong about that. I have not found the moral attitude I expected from any well-known figures of the day (except for Charles Darwin and Charles Dickens). I find occasion disapproval of slavery per se, but not what I expected at all towards the South of US.

Was my expectation just anachronistic? Were those sorts of outpourings of opinion just a phenomenon of the days of Watergate or the Viet Nam war – and since then? Prominent public figures taking sides against each other thereby give us indirect evidence about feelings of ordinary people. What slavery-related issues were most controversial in terms of popular support in Europe in 1800-1860s? I'm asking about mainstream, not fringe.

(I realize the arguable irrelevance of all the personal content in this question, but I recently asked directly for the evidence I’m wondering about, and as happens so often in Stack Exchange, I found that lots of people couldn’t understand what I was trying to ask, and clarifications were repeatedly suggested, etc.)

Answer 1

It is important, when judging past events, to put those events in the context of the time in which they occurred. Trying to judge by today's standards will lead to very incorrect conclusions.

There was a thriving trade in African slaves from the 1600's to the early 1800's. Over 12 million Africans were taken into slavery during this time. Obviously, there was general approval for this activity by a lot of people. Slavery back then was not viewed with the disgust with which it is thought of today.

Consider this chart of African slavery, divided up by destination. From this, you learn some very interesting facts not highlighted in contemporary narratives.

Statistically speaking, the US had relatively few African slaves. Around 300,000, were brought to the US as slaves. The most prolific slavers were the Portuguese, who used over five million Africans in the copper, gold and silver mines of central and south America. The British took over three million, and many fortunes were made on the sugar plantations in the British controlled Caribbean islands.

But, when it comes to denigrating a culture for slavery, the Spanish, Portuguese, British and French aren't mentioned. Only the people from the southeast US, who were second only to Denmark in having the fewest number of slaves. The UK is remembered for trying to stop a trade in which it was the second largest player.

Consider also that most of the founders of the US government were also slaveowners. No one is taking down statues of Washington or Jefferson.

So your friend has a valid reason to feel indignant. Not because slavery was not wrong, but because the real perpetrators have been largely ignored.

I don't know that Jane Fonda is the best example of genuine activism, her protest activities tended to boost her acting career.

One person who spoke out against the war, and sacrificed quite a bit in the process was Muhammed Ali, who gave up his championship by refusing the draft.

Nor are antiwar activities always well received. Charles Lindbergh was a dedicated isolationist who opposed military action in the years leading up to WW2. This public stance, along with expressing admiration for Germany of the mid 1930's, more or less destroyed his previously revered image.

Answer 2

Put another way, your question is "where is the tolerance for the protesters of the 1960s?" Because Robert E. Lee was still a "patriot" compared to Jane Fonda (at least Lee wasn't aligned with a "foreign" country). So why is Lee being banned while Fonda is still honored?

That question was answered in the book "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. The issue is that we're in something like the modern 1930s, in a so-called "crisis" era, in the shadow of the 2008 stock market crash (the modern 1929), and 9/11 (the "modern Pearl Harbor") and ISIS. These are times when the ethos is "circle the wagons." and "let's get rid of what doesn't belong." The intolerance of Robert E. Lee (a past bugaboo) is part of the pattern.

According to the book, an era like the 1960s occurs about every 80 years or so, historically in the 1880s, prospectively in the 2040s. This is a very different kind of time, an era of peace and prosperity, like that enjoyed after World War II, when people care more about the less fortunate and fight harder against "injustice" real or perceived.

The "civil rights" generation was the so-called Silent generation of Jane Fonda (born 1937 during the Depression, came of age in prosperity). The modern Silent Generation is the Homeland Security generation, born in the 2000s and 2010s, after "9/11" who will produce and support the new "Jane Fonda's," around 2040.