|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It is not science fiction. It is reasoning from observation. If it hadn't been for British imperialism, English speaking North America wouldn't exist. If it hadn't been for the transatlantic slave trade, the Afro-American diaspora wouldn't exist. We are all products of history Yeah, except we haven't got a time machine. And when we are using wishing power, we might change or preserve whatever we wish. What you describe is how things might be happen if one simply removed a single element, and no new motivation, or solutions occurred. It is safe to assume that things would be completely different, but likely unsafe to assume that no Europeans would never have made any headway in the North America absent slavery. There are lots of other possibilities. But likely things would be different, and different folks would be here. But can you really kill off people who actually never existed, and if you had reason to believe that someone had meddled with time to create a new reality, would you then elect to remove the current folk in favor of what should have been. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy responds to me:
quote: No. Neither I nor NoNukes got the Confederate Flags taken down from the South Carolina state capitol, for example.
quote: Indeed. Condemning the South for its glorification of slavery and it's continued inability to get past that is how we show we know better.
quote: Then why did you say:
Message 277 If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we? Your'e not about to play dumb and pretend that because the words "god" or "infallible" didn't escape your keyboard, you weren't actually committing the logical error of Argument from Authority, are you?
quote: And condemning slavery is "hatred"? Refusing to glorify those who directly stated that their entire reason for existence was to perpetuate it is "hatred"? The ability to understand how we managed to get to the point of being dependent on slavery, how the people who sought to perpetuate it rationalized their claims, how the devastation that ran through the South in the aftermath of the war was almost as bad as the war itself, etc. doesn't mean that we don't still conclude that slavery was evil and the condemnation of it is "hatred."
quote: Says the person trying to defend the indefensible. That you think the argument is over whether slavery was profitable is proof positive. We very much understand the value of slavery to those who kept slaves. That doesn't alter the evil of slavery and those who declared their very reason for existence was its perpetuation. You seek not patience but rather refusal to come to a conclusion lest it upset someone for showing them to be wrong. That you think the argument being made is, "They deserved everything they got," shows that you aren't paying attention. At best. Talk about spluttering.
quote: Have you looked in a mirror lately? Your knee is jerking pretty hard, absolutely positive that coming to a conclusion is somehow problematic.
quote: And what is the monument, then? What is its purpose? And why the defense of keeping it as a monument for that purpose? As I routinely politely request: Please, let us not play dumb. It's the same claim that the South uses to try and insist that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about "state's rights." It's the same claim that the Confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism and slavery and white supremacy but is just a paean to gentility and cold lemonade on the verandah. That somehow, a monument that directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War isn't to be believed but is really about something else.
quote: We do understand. That's why we condemn them. The ability to understand why something happened doesn't mean no conclusions can be drawn.
quote: We know why. As pointed out to before, evil is more complex than you wish it were. You have a severe case of "Doesn't kick puppies."
quote: And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Plenty of people were in their situation and weren't like that. If they could do it, why can't others? I can understand Lincoln's position in the context of trying to salvage a country that nearly tore itself apart and was looking for reasons to help people save face. We know better. Some answers are wrong and it does everyone a disservice to pretend otherwise.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: What you describe is how things might be happen if one simply removed a single element, and no new motivation, or solutions occurred. It is safe to assume that things would be completely different, but likely unsafe to assume that no Europeans would never have made any headway in the North America absent slavery. Of course Europeans could have made "headway" in North America without slavery. It would just be a different place with different people.
NoNukes writes: But likely things would be different, and different folks would be here. Not "likely", definitely.
NoNukes writes: But can you really kill off people who actually never existed, !!!!????
NoNukes writes: and if you had reason to believe that someone had meddled with time to create a new reality, would you then elect to remove the current folk in favor of what should have been. Unlike you, I'd always be in favour of the reality that includes me and the other current 7 billion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: But that's just saying that judging Southerners evil because they embraced and defended slavery will help us avoid embracing and defending slavery.
Actually that is not a discussion of the rationale for calling them evil at all. I did not give one. I'm not sure why you're going off in this direction now, but you *did* provide a rationale for calling Southerners evil. You said, "If the truth is that they embraced evil, that... means it is accurate to...so judge them." Since you call slavery evil and since the South embraced it, that's a rationale for calling Southerners evil. There's no ambiguity.
For the purpose of answering the question of what the value of calling folks evil might be, I assumed that they embracing slavery was sufficient. But you provided no answer for the question: What is the value of judging Southerners evil? If it's not "avoid embracing slavery" then what is it? And if that is the answer, then of what value is it? None. An answer of true value is one you hinted at later that involves developing an understanding of the people, the place and the period.
My complete answer is that they did embrace slavery and that we agree that their rationale is not a justification. How is it that you can so consistently misstate our points of agreement? We do *not* agree "that their rationale is not a justification." That issue is orthogonal to this discussion. What I did say was that the details of their particular justifications are not what's important to this discussion, because inventing rationalizations is just what people do when pressured to come up with reasons. There's no reason we should care (for the purposes of this discussion) about the details of their inventions, on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line. What's important is, as just stated above, to develop a better understanding of the people, the place and the period.
That does not mean that the justification is not worth discussing, but it does mean that we won't, in the end, excuse their behavior. We disagree here, too. First, history is not a process of judging historical peoples so that we can decide whether to "excuse their behavior." Second, while in other threads their justifications might be worth discussing, such particulars do not seem relevant to this one. I'm still seeking your "justification" for making moral judgments on historical peoples. Your reasons so far seem invented, hollow, and transparently driven by your strong belief that judging Southerners of the past "evil" justifies treating badly those who today take pride in that heritage. Your words are fairly dripping with, "They deserve it."
Telling the truth about our feelings and giving our best efforts at objective analysis are two different things. Sigh. You *are* telling the truth about your feelings, but that's all accusations of "evil" are. You are not engaging in objective analysis. This discussion won't really make good progress until you finally address this question. Why do you think you're doing anything meaningful or useful by applying moral judgments to history? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix miswording.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Rrhain writes: quote: No. Neither I nor NoNukes got the Confederate Flags taken down from the South Carolina state capitol, for example. Clipping the quote to hide the original context doesn't change reality. The original question was, "If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we?" (The full Lincoln quote appears in Message 277.) Your answer has nothing to do with the question. So far in this thread it's just you and NoNukes who want to ignore Lincoln's words: "They are just what we would be in their situation."
quote: Indeed. Condemning the South for its glorification of slavery and it's continued inability to get past that is how we show we know better. Again, you're still declaring it, not showing it. This is just an empty rationalization for what you want to do anyway.
quote: And condemning slavery is "hatred"? No. NoNuke's efforts to condemn a people as "evil" is the "hate" referred to. Lincoln's character led him away from such mistakes.
That you think the argument is over whether slavery was profitable is proof positive. We very much understand the value of slavery to those who kept slaves. The assertion that, "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically unviable," was made by Ringo in Message 228. I thought he was wrong, and you seem to think so, too.
That somehow, a monument that directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War isn't to be believed but is really about something else. If you mean the monument in Louisville, then no, it is incorrect to state that it "directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War." I quoted the words on the monument in Message 102.
As pointed out to before, evil is more complex than you wish it were. Claimed but not described, so yes, go on.
And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Lincoln's words survive today because they contain timeless truths.
I can understand Lincoln's position in the context of trying to salvage a country that nearly tore itself apart and was looking for reasons to help people save face. Lincoln's position was deep and personal and not just part of a public face. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification, fix punctuation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: I have said that I have no objection to moving the Washington Monument. But the difference is that the Washington Monument doesn't automatically connote slavery while the Louisville monument does. A few points. If the vanilla Louisville monument "connotes slavery" then can there be any Confederate monuments/memorials that don't? A criteria that includes everything isn't much of a criteria. And doesn't your phrase "automatically connotes slavery" actually describe just a sense of how many people think "slavery" when they see a monument? And what is wrong with "connoting slavery." It's not endorsing slavery. Remembrances of history are important and good - all history. We can't limit ourselves to monuments/memorials that only bring to mind the parts of our history that make us feel good.
An individual monument doesn't connote slavery while a collective monument does. But you said the distinction was that individual monuments don't speak of causes and motivations while collective monuments do. I showed that for both cases, some do and some don't. The distinction you claim doesn't seem to exist. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
I think his reasons for wanting to move the monument are valid and not politically correct. Whether or not the monument is moved is of little interest to me. I advocate neither moving it nor painting it red nor leaving it alone.
ringo writes:
I thought you agreed with the guy mentioned in the O.P. Where have I ever advocated for removing any monuments? bluegenes writes:
Actually, they're very similar.
Even if you can make the case that the confederate soldiers were primarily fighting for an ideology of slavery, slavery and genocide are far from being the same things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I think it would be difficult to mention the Confederacy without connoting slavery, just as it would be difficult to mention Nazi Germany without connoting genocide.
If the vanilla Louisville monument "connotes slavery" then can there be any Confederate monuments/memorials that don't? Percy writes:
Isn't the point of a monument to evoke certain thoughts and emotions in people? Unfortunately for the whitewashers of history, those thoughts and emotions change over time, which is why monuments don't always "say" what they were intended to say. "I am Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." We don't despair any more.
And doesn't your phrase "automatically connotes slavery" actually describe just a sense of how many people think "slavery" when they see a monument? Percy writes:
Sure it is. A monument is built to show respect. You can't divorce respect for the soldiers from endorsement of the cause they died for. That's why you're not in favour of monuments to the SS or ISIS.
And what is wrong with "connoting slavery." It's not endorsing slavery. Percy writes:
Monuments are not the only history there is. We can preserve history just fine without preserving respect for the villains of history.
We can't limit ourselves to monuments/memorials that only bring to mind the parts of our history that make us feel good. Percy writes:
Seriously? You're claiming that because there are some exceptions, no distinction exists? Because there's bluish-green and greenish-blue there's no distinction between blue and green?
But you said the distinction was that individual monuments don't speak of causes and motivations while collective monuments do. I showed that for both cases, some do and some don't. The distinction you claim doesn't seem to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: .....slavery and genocide are far from being the same things. Actually, they're very similar. Perhaps you ought to find out what they both actually are before discussing them in public.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
bluegenes writes:
Perhaps you should give it some thought. bluegenes writes:
.....slavery and genocide are far from being the same things.ringo writes:
Perhaps you ought to find out what they both actually are before discussing them in public. Actually, they're very similar. Slavery is much like death. Having no control over one's life is much like death. Watching one's children being sold down the river is possibly worse than death. So I stand by my statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: Slavery is much like death. All forms of existence are the opposite of non-existence. Enslavement and murder are not the same things, and slavery and genocide are far from being the same things. Still, it's interesting that you would perceive people who owned lots of slaves as being the equivalent of mass killers. As you're not advocating the removal of any monuments to people like Washington, Jefferson and Jefferson Davis, and you're not advocating the removal of the Louisville monument, it seems as though you don't perceive the ideology or actions of people being commemorated as a reason for you yourself to advocate the removal of any monuments.
ringo writes: It's like putting up a monument to the SS on the grounds of Auschwitz. Something, then, that you wouldn't advocate the removal of, as you see it as akin to the Louisville monument and you are not advocating the removal of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Percy responds to me:
quote: Neither does your attempt to deny reality change it. My answer had everything to do with the question: How can we if Lincoln would not? Easy: Because we know better. Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. Indeed, the South didn't invent slavery and its abolition was not going to be easy. But we still blame those who carried it out (and profited from it) because it is evil. And thus, we do not glorify those who would champion it and declare that their entire reason for existence is to perpetuate it. Because we know better. It seems we need to learn this lesson over and over again. We come to a point where we realize that something we used to do was monstrous and needs to stop...and then we pull up short and try to allow those who wish to continue to do so to save face, to allow for "differing opinions," to allow people to feel that they're not responsible rather than standing up for what's right and insisting that know, you're not allowed to do that anymore. Because we're supposed to know better. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law: WWII can be laid, in a significant part, at the feet of WWI. The way Germany was treated after the Great War was atrocious. It is hardly surprising to see someone trying to find some way to rally the people and generate pride. There's more to it, of course, but desperate people latch on to whatever they think will save them. That doesn't mean we glorify the Nazis despite our ability to understand how they got in that position. So why would we glorify slavery and those who claimed that the reason for their existence was the perpetuation of it? Of course we understand how they got to where they were but, say it with me: We know better.
quote: Except I answered that. It seems I have to repeat my posts again before you read them, so here we go again. I’ve highlighted the part you seem to have missed: And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Plenty of people were in their situation and weren't like that. If they could do it, why can't others? I can understand Lincoln's position in the context of trying to salvage a country that nearly tore itself apart and was looking for reasons to help people save face. We know better. Some answers are wrong and it does everyone a disservice to pretend otherwise.
quote: And you’re just saying, Nuh-uh! That isn’t exactly a response. The way we show we know better is by coming to the conclusion that the South was engaged in evil in their glorification of slavery and all the rest of it. By recognizing that the people who were doing it were evil. By recognizing that evil is more complicated than you are making it out to be. Help us out here: Exactly what is it that would satisfy you? To my mind, Knowing better is proven by taking different positions. What is it you’re expecting?
quote: How? To quote you: You’re merely declaring it, not showing it. This is just empty rationalization for what you want to do anyway. You want to dismiss as hatred the rational conclusion from the evidence presented. Other people who lived right alongside those who glorified slavery managed to condemn it. If they could figure out why slavery was bad, why could those who glorified it? For crying out loud, West Virginia seceded from Virginia when Virginia seceded.
quote: So economic analyses of the case are irrelevant? This claim is one of the many lies told by those who seek to save face regarding slavery.
quote: And you ignore about half of it. Our Confederate Dead. And what did the Confederacy stand for? You’re making the argument that somehow the Civil War was about state’s rights. That conveniently ignores the very obvious question: The right to do what? Nobody is suggested we piss on their graves. But why are we commemorating those that fought for slavery? The fact that we understand the issues regarding the population being manipulated by those in power, but let’s not kid ourselves as to what Tribute is supposed to mean. But then again, you were seemingly complaining that because you didn’t say the words god or infallible, then you weren’t making an argument from authority. I am again asking politely: Please let us stop playing dumb.
quote: I’ve described the Doesn’t Kick Puppies phenomenon numerous times, Percy. The fact that people are evil doesn’t mean they are evil in every aspect of their existence. The fact that you can show that someone doesn’t kick puppies doesn’t mean that they aren’t evil. Evil people still engage in good behaviour, they love their families, are kind to their pets, even contribute to the community. The Mob was notorious for their donations to various charities. As I said previous: The villain thinks they’re the hero of their story. It is rare for someone to rub their hands while chuckling in anticipation. We’re not talking about sociopaths. But there are still people who claim, for example, that black people are some lesser species. I am currently suffering through one trying to claim that biology literally works differently for black people...that sickle cell trait would somehow spontaneously correct itself in white people. That black people can’t recognize themselves in mirrors until they’re four years old (but whites and Asians can do it as infants and how blacks can’t do what animals can.) And he thinks he’s being honest. He thinks he’s the hero of his story. That those of us who find racism abhorrent are suckers because black people really are a threat to society as a whole and need to be curtailed lest we have society literally collapse around us. I’m sure he’s got friends who think he’s a hoot. He physically threatened me. Evil is more complex than you wish it were.
quote: You would think you would have learned this lesson by now: Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. He had a lot of wise things that he said and did, but not everything he said or did was right. For example, he was against slavery, but he didn’t think black people were truly the equal of whites. His suspension of habeas corpus was reprehensible. Nobody’s perfect. But the fact that nobody’s perfect doesn’t mean we can’t actually make value judgements about people.
quote: Yep. And part of that is because he had a bit of white supremacy running through him. Why are you surprised by this?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Percy responds to ringo:
quote: No. What was the Confederacy about? What was their reason for existence? "State's rights"? The right to do what?
quote: No. What was the Confederacy about?
quote: Indeed. But is the monument in question one of regret? It's not like this is some sort of scene out of The Lorax where it's saying, "Unless." "Unless we change our ways, unless we learn from the mistakes made by these people, unless we can become better people." History is important and nobody is suggesting that we attempt to erase the Antebellum South. But there is a difference between remembering our mistakes and creating monuments to help us understand what happened so that we might learn... ...and acting like the reason why the people died has nothing to do with their deaths.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
bluegenes writes:
Enslavement and murder are not the same things of course not. nor even genocide.... but slavery can be worse than death. and often was and still is today. Bob Dylan used the old blues rubric of "Killing me alive" and contrasted that with "Killing me dead". I can cite the lyrics of these. Which is worse? Being kept alive to watch them rape & kill your daughter in front of your eyes or be mercifully stabbed to death before you have to endure such things? so....anyway - who here is arguing against the removal of this monument? i don't have the feeling that it is Percy. I think he's just observing history & saying we need to keep all the bad shit as well as all the good shit for reference. Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
xongsmith writes: bluegenes writes: Enslavement and murder are not the same things of course not. nor even genocide.... xongsmith writes: but slavery can be worse than death. and often was and still is today. I'd love to have been at the seance when you verified that! But "can be worse" doesn't mean that it's similar or the same.
xongsmith writes: Which is worse? Being kept alive to watch them rape & kill your daughter in front of your eyes or be mercifully stabbed to death before you have to endure such things? The first option isn't the definition of slavery, and sounds far more like the kind of act that can happen in warfare and is committed by conquerors. It would probably be better used in an argument against memorials to the winning soldiers in the civil war, not the losers. Surely you're not suggesting that Washington and Jefferson did such things to their slaves?
xongsmith writes: so....anyway - who here is arguing against the removal of this monument? i don't have the feeling that it is Percy. I think he's just observing history & saying we need to keep all the bad shit as well as all the good shit for reference. Me, because I'm against iconoclasm when applied to anything that could be regarded as "historical". There's no way that I would approve of the beliefs of the Pharaohs, but I've enjoyed the remains of their culture and many others that I certainly wouldn't want to see revived. Someone further up the thread mentioned a monument to Attila the Hun in Hungary. Great, why not? We have statues to Henry VIII, and his murderous habits went way beyond merely decapitating a couple of wives. So, y'all should keep the Washington monument. We have one to the old slave owning traitor in Trafalgar Square, so if you find a George III statue, preserve it! And I don't think Bibles should be burned because the Bible supports slavery, and was the basis of the South's moral argument. Edited by bluegenes, : speling
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024