PC Gone Too Far

Let me play devil advocate here. Here are some questions that might be raised in considering whether the statute is just a non-racist celebration of history.First of all the monument does not really celebrate all of the southern dead, does it? It celebrates a few dead white folks who fought for the south. The south's cause is not one we should be celebrating, Further, Kentucky was a part of the union for the bulk of the civil war.As for statues that simply celebrate southern dead, is that really a neutral proposition? Where are the statutes celebrating, for example, the British soldiers who fought bravely during the revolutionary war?And just what particular people are being honored by that statue? Is it generally for the civil war dead or for a few particular people whose names are on the statute? Who were those folk.Further questions I would ask before concluding that there is no cause for offense.The statute was apparently erected right at the end of the Reconstruction era. Many monuments were put up at that time for political reasons that included resistance to freedom for black folks. Is this statute one such statute?The statute is not being destroyed. It is being moved. Maybe such statutes belong somewhere other than on a college campus.I don't know the answers to my questions, but what I can say is that a racist monument does not have to have the n word on it before it can be legitimately considered racist. I don't have an opinion about whether this particular removal request is purely PC, and I won't have an opinion until I know a lot more about the statute than I see here.ABE:Changed 'New Construction' to 'Reconstruction era'.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

One could also say that celebrating criminals and traitors is to pretend that their crimess never happened. The revering and celebration of people like Nathan Bedford Forrest and Woodrow Wilson is a complete whitewashing of their histories, and their memorials never include the full truth about these folks.After the civil war there were attempts to cover over the actual history of the civil war with Lost Cause fake history 1) denied the real causes of the civil war, 2) that promoted the idea that negroes actually loved slavery 3) and that put forth the proposition that the South could have won the war had not a generally or two here and there betrayed Lee. Many monuments and building dedications are the result of such lying of our history. As a result we ended up with schools named after a grand dragon of the Klan who also oversaw the massacring of colored prisoners of war near the end of the civil war.There are memorials and displays that place our history in proper perspective without presenting a distorted view that these folks were right about something. That proper place is more likely to be in a museum where other symbols are shown.I understand that people have different opinions about these things and that nobody is likely to convince the other to see their side of things. But some people don't even seem able to even see that there is a legitimate another side. To them offense at these symbols is completely unwarranted and PC. And to celebrate them is to deny them any responsibility for any atrocity they committed despite the fact that many people of their time knew and acted better. And the reality is that these commemorations were and still are feelgood pieces for people who wanted to hang on to that history and extend it into the future. So put that stuff in a museum and let those folks go see it. Or build some context around the museum and remind us of why we should never again allow that stuff to happen. Oh, wait, the daughters of the confederacy don't want you to add that stuff...It appears that you have gone from complaining about the loss a supposedly neutral monument in your first message to justifying the celebration of folks who have committed the worst crimes imaginable. While I though you had a point in that original message, I cannot join you in any way here. While I am still open to hear why we should keep or remove that Kentucky memorial, I think you've jumped the shark in your defense keeping it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not so hard I think. Your remarks have changed from talking about a particular monument that you take offense at people moving to now covering just about every civil war monument as well as every building naming. And as for the more pointed of my comments, how about these statements? I don't believe we need to have a monument erected for a soldier that had no control over participating in a massacre. At least not one that projects a one sided account of how brave the soldier was in defending his fellow soldiers from someone fighting back for their lives.Or this comment about how to view defending slavery: People who defended slavery or who owned slaves are rightly judged as having done evil. I need not apologize for not being born 200 years ago to recognize that. Statues celebrating those activities are just cause for taking offense by at least some people if not all people. Wasn't the purpose of at least some of those memorials to celebrate a southern genteel lifestyle where the darkies knew their place? Or to perpetuate a lie that slavery was not a reason for the war at all?What about the PC environment that got those monuments erected the first place? Where are your complaints about that?ABE: It seems to me that I could well say that to you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'll honor this as a request and not because I think you are right. I won't pick out any more of your words.What I will say is that we have indeed named buildings and erected monuments to people who did commit some of the worst acts imaginable. I don't see any room in your position for excluding monuments to those people. So yes, I do continue to hold to my position that you include some the worst and war criminals among those whose building namings and monuments we ought to leave alone simply because somebody 100 years ago thought it was a good idea.

Possibly. Has anybody here detailed exactly who this monument is for and what it commemorates?Secondly, if it is not a grave stone or a battlefield marker, is there any particular reason why it cannot serve its purpose just about anywhere?

That's what the defenders of keeping the monument will say of course. They invariably insist that there is only one legitimate side to the discussion. But you can only get to that point by ignoring what I think are legitimate complaints by those who ask to have them removed.Detractors can claim that such statutes are in fact offensive because they are celebrations of those who fought to preserve bigotry. They might note that it is particularly strange that in Kentucky, the number of confederate monuments dwarfs those of monuments union soldiers when far more Kentuckians fought for the union. They might note there is even less attention drawn to the plight of colored folks during that era. Such things might indicate that there is something else going on other than a remembrance of how someone's grandpa fought bravely.Make even the slightest effort to balance one of these displays by adding displays with historical context, and the UDC or other organization will be all over that effort with law suits and complaints. If that is not PC, it is because the term only applies to people whose positions you want to denigrate. It is obvious that the detractors are claiming that placement matters to them. It matters because in the current location the monument is in their face and they consider it to be offensive. Okay, you find that answer to be PC. My question is why does it matter to those defending the statue. Why does the placement matter to you?

Nope. Apparently the only reasons for moving such a monument are that you are a PC, butt hurt, looking for reasons to be offended.

I don't think OPs that the describe opposing positions as 'PC Gone Too Far" leave much room for entertaining any disagreement.

Of course it sounds backwards. PC is only allowed to cut one way. Faith taught us that.The people making the claims really are not offended and have no reason to be? The complaints that motivate them to action are shams? Because that is what "claims of being offended" implies. For some reason it seems impossible for some people to defend their position without resulting to wing nut tactics.If there is no offense then there is no reason to ask for a statute to be moved. I would expect that if someone wanted a statute moved they would cite a reason. So yeah, these requests for the city or state to act are always going to be linked to an offense, and the detractors can always yell PC regardless of the actual circumstance.In short, this thread is about exactly what I have said it was about and continue to say it is about -- a simple assertion that complaints about confederate celebrations, monuments, and building names have no legitimacy whatsoever. That a request to move a monument is by definition PC regardless of its basis.So far it seems that you will acknowledge that a monument to Hitler was inappropriate. But pretty much everything else someone might complain about is apparently just PC whining of no import. I imagine that as usual my message contains some bad syntax. Here is the obligatory mismatched 'quote" But trolling? Not. My message is every bit as sincere as the original post. The soldiers in Kentucky had their choice of sides and the differences between the sides were certainly not superficial. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's right. And of course no matter how those people complain about not having their statutes, only one of the two sides will be called PC, right? The side opposed to putting offensive statutes back up.

Do you recall your reaction the last time I suggested that you lighten up? Moving a monument does not destroy history. That's just inflamatory rhetoric.I took a peak at the wikipedia article on the Kentucky Memorial today. It appears to me that this particular monument is one of the least offense pieces I've seen discussed in this way. There is in fact a surrounding park that tells a more complete story than does the monument itself. On the other hand, tt also appears that in the past there have been attempts to move the monument for reasons having nothing to do with offense and that all of those attempts were stopped for one reason.Why the wishes of those who want to keep the monument in place no matter who it inconveniences or insults are to be considered pure and those of the folks who want the monument moved are to be subjected to ridicule is not clear. But "destroying history" does not match the motives of those who want the statute moved. Nothing of the sort is going on.How about if they put the thing in your yard and let you take care of it?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I certainly understood that Percy.What I don't understand is the need to impugn the character of people you disagree with. Surely you understand that labeling your opponents position PC does not promote polite discourse. Under those circumstances I'm not sure that a smile particular with an accusation of trolling thrown is some kind of gesture of civility.And I didn't call you an elitist. I indicated that your post conveyed elitism. I had hoped that it was not your intention to convey such a sentiment when I brought it to your attention.And no, I'm not equating accusations of elitism with comments about syntax. I am comparing them instead to accusations of trolling and being PC. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We can insist that the present reflect our current values. That's exactly what we do when we ask that such statyes memorials be moved to a museum, or when we rename a school attended predominately by black children away from a celebration of a man who oversaw the massacre of black POWs during the civil war and who was the grand wizard of the KKK.And we can do a better job of making sure that memorials are reminders and not celebrations. We should insist on doing that if the point of a memorial is that the past be avoided.

I'd suggest that the sanitizing occurred when the monuments were built and the names were chosen. The complete truth was never included. The ignoring of the heinous acts that those folks were involved would seem to be past political correctness. Telling the truth that some of these folks do not deserve to be celebrated, if that is our current judgment, is either not PC or is an example of why the term PC is no real indictment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Tell me why sanitizing is bad only when the label is applied to the side you oppose? If we currently sanitizing the record regarding our own actions, perhaps that too will be corrected at some point. Are you asking me if I object to that? Why wouldn't my future hurt feelings about my present be considered PC? Why are only one sides feelings invalid? Putting the record in a museum, or leaving it in place with context does not erase the record. On the other hand, preserving a record of lies does not promote learning either. Regarding judgments in general, I'm sure there are some gray areas. But I'm completely comfortable with history's judgment of slavery and the South's reliance on the institution. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.