It’s a classic case of irony in many respects. Somewhere, the name of an individual who had or did something that we shall tactfully call “insensitively outdated” was quietly removed with no real fuss, once it was brought to the attention of those who make such decisions that this person isn’t exactly someone they would want to be associated with.
In response, someone who is Very Upset that Someone Would Do Such a Thing makes a stink, and as result, the uncomfortable and unfortunate words or actions of the person are brought starkly to the light in the present and any tactful shuffling of their deeds into the twilight of history is obliterated.
In yelling about “cancel culture” for Mead’s name being removed from the chapel he donated money to have built (with the understanding that he was functionally buying himself a legacy. A classic out of the Rockefeller and Carnegie handbook.), Douglas is bringing to light all the ugly things that Mead advocated for, doing far more to “disparage and vilify his family name” than the quiet removal of said name ever did.
Thanks to Douglas’s tireless work, that which might have faded in the past, dust-covered and forgotten, is now part of public discourse.
Those who have been on the internet a while might have heard of the “Streisand effect,” something that boils down to “the best way to make sure information is talked about is to try to silence the spread of said information.” Maybe instead of fighting “cancel culture,” it might behoove Douglas to actually think about his actions and the effect that they will cause to the legacy of the person he is supposed to be defending.
Fran Bellin
Essex
