As the son of a U.S. history teacher, I have always had a deep-seated appreciation for our national heritage. It's imperative for us to remember who we once were, if we want to know who we are going to be. It's crucial to know where we've been, if we want to know where we're going.
That said, I believe a bill making its way through the Arkansas Legislature to end the state's practice of honoring Civil War Gen. Robert E. Lee on the same day it honors Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. every January is absolutely the right thing to do.
Simply put, the Robert E. Lee commemoration is mostly antiquated and frivolous, and continuing the joint holiday does nothing but perpetuate racial disharmony.
I'm willing to bet that most Arkansans didn't event know that the state had a joint holiday. While most schools and many office close for "Martin Luther King Jr. Day," they are also closing for "Robert E. Lee Day," at least technically speaking. Arkansas is one of three states, along with Mississippi and Alabama, that marks the Lee holiday in this manner.
The bill in the Arkansas House, sponsored by Rep. Charles Blake (D-Little Rock), doesn't actually completely remove the Robert E. Lee holiday -- it just moves it. Specifically, it would create a new "Patrick Cleburne-Robert E. Lee Southern Heritage Day" in November. Cleburne was a Confederate general who lived in east Arkansas.
The proposal was rejected by a state committee last week, but backers of the legislation aren't giving up, and the Legislative Black Caucus announced this week its support of the measure.
The thing is this: Continuing to have a joint Martin Luther King Jr./Robert E. Lee holiday just makes our state look bad. It makes us look like we are so loath to honor a black man that we won't do it unless we can honor a Confederate general at the same time. It makes us look like we are the country bumpkins the rest of the country says we are, still fighting a war that was lost 150 years ago.
It's not that I have anything against Robert E. Lee. Quite the contrary, I find him to be a fascinating historical figure. I have been to the Gettysburg Battlefield, and stood on the spot where Lee once stood, atop Seminary Ridge, where he watched 12,500 Confederate soldiers attack the center of the Union line, an assault remembered as "Pickett's Charge."
I have been to Arlington, and seen the home where Lee once lived (actually his wife's family's home), as well as the sprawling plantation grounds, which would later become a massive national cemetery just outside the nation's capital.
I have read about how Lee only fought for the Confederacy because Virginia seceded from the Union, and his first loyalty was to his home state. (It's interesting to note that Virginia has enough sense not to lump the Lee holiday and the King holiday together.)
Really, Lee is but one of several Southern Civil War generals with great stories. Guys like Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, James Longstreet and even Nathan Bedford Forrest all have a place in history, and their stories are worth remembering.
But "worth remembering" isn't the same as "having a holiday." And "having a holiday" isn't the same as "sharing a holiday with a civil rights icon."
In 21st century America, Martin Luther King Jr. needs to have a holiday of his own. MLK Day should be a day where we celebrate the ideas of freedom and equality, when we salute those who have fought, and continue to fight, for civil rights in our country, and across the world.
Intermingling a commemoration of a Confederate Civil War general -- a man who, for all intents and purposes, fought to preserve slavery, clouds that celebration.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate our Southern heritage. We absolutely should. Our history is part of who we are. But we need to be prudent and sensible about how we celebrate that heritage. And if we want our state to be a 21st century state, the King holiday and the Lee holiday need to be separated.
aweld@blythevillecourier.com