AIBU to ask when a crime against humanity becomes just “history“

[Flyingfish2019]

About me: I have relatives still alive today who had to do forced labour. The regime who did that to them is no longer in power, the statues gone, streets have been renamed. I think it is good that this has been done.
My relatives never talk about that time and out of respect I never discussed it with them.

However: I heard about the statue of that slave owner coming down and the first thing that I thought was that it was a good thing to happen but then when I heard the discussion about erasing history I thought they had a point.

I thought of the king of Egypt who where the worst kind of slave holders yet the pyramids are not demolished though they where build with slave labour. Because we say that this is just history. Same with Roman and Greek sites. Romans and Greeks used slave labour. But most obviously most people think that this is just history.

So my question: do you agree that a crime against humanity becomes just history one day and when is that day reached... and no I cannot answer the question myself and it’s not a rhetorical question.

I would tend to say that yes, it becomes history one day but I could not really say when the time has come.

They are going to rename all the institutions that bear his name and have removed his statues from the buildings, as of last week. He lived in the late 17th century.

So in 10 years time, nobody will ever know ?

Yes. though the foundation itself presumably will continue under another name.. despite being rooted in slavery. It’s all very complicated- how do you erase the legacy of something in the present?

Yes. though the foundation itself presumably will continue under another name.. despite being rooted in slavery. It’s all very complicated- how do you erase the legacy of something in the present?

Lots of squirrels ?

Or just lie. It's all the rage right now.

@Checkers88

Might be outing but my dc’s school was founded by a few philanthropist described as a “prominent slave trader” (he also founded other institutions and his eponymous foundation endows other institutions today). They are going to rename all the institutions that bear his name and have removed his statues from the buildings, as of last week. He lived in the late 17th century. I don’t know how I feel about this. For one thing his links to the slave trade have always been there to know about and the institutions who received his funding in the modern day clearly didn’t research his history at the time, or they didn’t feel it was a reason enough to not take advantage of that link or campaign for the change before now. It feels a bit knee jerk react. Especially because the name (his surname) is very highly regarded in various industries due to the quality of the education. People may well argue that it’s affecting their prospects in the present, for the sake of a guy who died around 300 years ago. For me it’s frustrating that presumably we will have to buy yet more new uniform, but I know that’s incredibly facetious!!

I wonder how black children may feel being sent to a school that bears the name of a prominent slave trader?

I think that’s probably the main question and then the answer becomes easy.

I guess my point is that he was well known as a slave trader for around 300 years. Why are they only changing the name now? The foundation has endowed institutions in the 2000s, why didn’t anyone raise it before?