|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
1.61803 writes: I have been propagandized and indoctrinated as a former soldier so I wont pretend I am not bias in my views. Has the camaraderie of soldiers everywhere, the one embodied by soccer games on battlefields on Christmas 1914, been lost? Has the sense that soldiers on both sides are trying to kill each other not because they hate each other, but because there are forces at work levels above them, been lost. Do they no longer believe that enemy soldiers deserve as much honor and respect as themselves? Don't most soldiers around the world understand that all soldiers are basically the same, that they share a common bond, and that devotion to different causes or countries is a superficial difference?
You claim that PC has gone to far and yet you are here touting that the victors of a particular war must be sensitive to the losers and allow them to venerate,celebrate, pay tribute to them in the form of a public bust/statue/placard/obelisk irregardless of how many it may offend. That is some seriously PC crap if I ever heard it. This sounds backwards. PC is using claims of being offended as political leverage.
I can remember Pol Pot and the atrocities of the Kymer Rouge by going to a museum But I doubt seriously you will find anyone erecting a tribute to him anywhere and there is a reason for that. Well of course we would agree about not memorializing Pol Pot or Hitler or Mussolini and so on. But that's not who we're talking about. We're talking about the soldiers in their armed forces.
I can remember and even feel remorse for the dead soldiers on both sides of the Civil War or WWII without having a huge bronze of Hitler standing in a public park. Because of an earlier misunderstanding I'm forced to state that I haven't said anything that could be interpreted as being in favor of memorializing Hitler in any way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
AZPaul3 writes: Tearing down monuments *is* a very effective way of fostering a process of forgetting. Again, with or without Confederate glorifying memorabilia on our public lands, there is no chance in hell of us forgetting what happened, who started, and why there was a civil war. I find this argument absurd. That's strange, because I find ignorance of our history extremely common.
We are not going to agree on this. We will just go around the horn again. Your thread. I give you the last word. Okay. Expecting average people to rise above their own cultural mores seems unreasonable to me, and visiting judgment upon them for simply being victims of the human condition may raise moral issues of its own. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
ringo writes: Does that apply to the "soldiers" of ISIS? And someone else brought up the German SS earlier. I think the question about judging people from different times and places always applies, and more broadly about judging anyone. How many people march out with the intent of doing evil? Obviously some do and make it clear, like Jihadi John. But who wouldn't march out to defend country and way of life, which is probably what most civil war soldiers not only sincerely believed they were doing, but that's what they *were* doing. Is the same true of ISIS soldiers? Not exactly, since they didn't actually have a country to begin with, but in large measure I don't see why not. Certainly they felt a way of life was threatened, since Sunnis were disenfranchised by the US sponsored Iraqi government under Shia control. People everywhere are the same mix of types. The differences stem from environment, and you can't blame people for where and when they were born. Our legal system even takes environmental circumstances into account in sentencing. For example, abuse during childhood cannot excuse crime, but it can mitigate punishment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
NoNukes writes: Of course it sounds backwards. PC is only allowed to cut one way. Faith taught us that. Actually, for Faith PC cut whichever way she needed it to at the time, no matter how inconsistently.
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. The greater value placed on something, like feelings of being offended, the more there will be. A short while ago Faith claimed she was offended when people expressed skepticism about her religious beliefs, and she wanted it stopped. Obviously her request could not be granted. The politics of being offended must always be rejected. I'm offended that people want to destroy history, but so what. History must be defended on its own merits. That ancient Temple of Bel in Palmyra that ISIS destroyed? Probably offensive to people of earlier religions. Mosques in the US? Probably offensive to many.
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.
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. Well, yes, you're very sincere and very serious, efforts at getting you to lighten up notwithstanding. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Please prove this or take it back. If people had to take back everything you claimed they never proved there'd be no science left.
And I have never used it inconsistently. You were employing PC as an epithet at anything you didn't like.
Actually that's not true. It was about disrespect and I never said I was offended. Yes, you're right, what you actually said in Message 45 was, "...to affirm the belief of the unbelievers over the believers is disrespecting the views of the believers." The distinction seems small, an antonym of "offensive" is "respectful," but if you wish to be technical then yes, you said "disrespect," not "offended." --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify by adding some quotation marks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Well, yes, you're very sincere and very serious, efforts at getting you to lighten up notwithstanding.
Do you recall your reaction the last time I suggested that you lighten up? Sometimes you seem just bound and determined to pick a fight. Well, I'll not oblige you, just correct the record. There was a smiley on what I said - I was hoping you might discontinue your harsh pattern if I attempted some lighthearted comments on irrelevant things like syntax and quote characters. There was no smiley on your accusation that I was elitist. And even if I hadn't included a smiley, are you seriously equating accusations of elitism with comments about syntax and quotation marks?
Moving a monument does not destroy history. That's just inflammatory rhetoric. I thought you were speaking generally about people claiming to be offended, so I was speaking generally, too. But in any case I did have some concerns about that particular monument. The original announcement said that no new location had been chosen for the monument - the original plan was to place it in storage. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: What I don't understand is the need to impugn the character of people you disagree with. I haven't done that, but you're not a moderator. Problems and issues with discussion should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. Phat's active. Here in this thread let's keep the discussion focused on the topic. In the opening post I stated my belief that the original decision to move the monument was driven by the politics of claiming offense, a key strategy of PC. Most of the subsequent discussion from my side has been about the importance of preserving history and of not judging people of other times and cultures, neither of which are related to PC. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Which is why we should be careful about generalizing. The claim that all war dead are worthy of respect is clearly out the window. As is the opposite claim that no war dead are worthy of respect.
So why preserve monuments to general war dead? A monument to those who died defending the Third Reich does implicitly include the SS. Defense of the Confederacy does imply defense of slavery. If I understand you properly, then to continue your line of argument, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial implies defense of My Lai. This seems more an argument against all army war memorials, which is a more consistent position than arguing that some armies are deserving of memorials and some aren't. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
14174dm writes: For me, memorials should also speak to later generations of what a war does to the people involved and how long they really last. To quote it again:
quote: We could wish that war memorials were clear statements of the horrors and futility of war, and I think the Vietnam Veterans Memorial shows we're making progress in that direction, but we can't demand that the past reflect the progress of today. In addition to being a reminder of history, when a memorial has stood for 120 years like the one that began this topic then it has itself become a part of history. I don't know if many know that another Vietnam memorial lies just a short distance away from The Wall. Once the design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was selected traditionalists began lobbying for another memorial that was a bit more traditional:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: We can insist that the present reflect our current values. That's exactly what we do when we ask that such memorials be moved to a museum,... By sanitizing our present of the evidence of our past don't we risk forgetting its lessons? This has very much a PC feel to it.
...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. Looking this up, renaming Nathan B. Forrest High School, a name it only acquired in 1959, doesn't seem like a threat to history. Even revered personages have had their names removed from places, such as when Cape Kennedy reverted to Cape Canaveral. I think Forrest will do just fine with one less school named after him:
And we can do a better job of making sure that memorials are reminders and not celebrations. Speaking just for myself, I don't see war memorials as celebrations. In my tours of Revolutionary and Civil War battlefields I've seen many memorials, and I can't remember coming away with anything other than a somber feeling. But more generally, don't people have the right to experience whatever feelings well within them? If some people feel celebrative in the presence of some war memorial, is not that their right? Differences of opinion about war memorials should be expected (about anything, really), especially from the perspective of different sides of a conflict. If each generation cleanses itself of the memories it finds offensive then we'll gradually whitewash our past. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: 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. And we don't do that anymore? Are our judgments today are so clean and so pure and so accurate that we can safely erase the record of history knowing that expressions from the past have no value to us or future generations?
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. Telling the truth (as we see it) and erasing the past are two different things. And if the motivation for erasing the past is offended feelings then that is the epitome of PC. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
NoNukes writes: And we don't do that anymore?
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? Nothing I said was intended to take sides, in fact, the opposite. We shouldn't assume that the passage of time brings increasingly accurate assessments (what you called corrections), just different ones. Indelibly altering the historical record handicaps future generation's ability to make their own assessments. What any generation or people records in its constructions and writings can only be interpreted to the extent it survives. As to whether your future self's negative view of your past self could be considered PC, I don't think the PC concept translates to the level of a single individual. To me the concept only makes sense in a political context when advantage is sought through claims of feeling offended.
Are our judgments today are so clean and so pure and so accurate that we can safely erase the record of history Putting the record in a museum,... Depends upon the specifics, but much can be lost transferring historical artifacts of any size to a museum.
...or leaving it in place with context does not erase the record. Yes, of course, though it must be kept in mind that protecting history is situation specific. When possible and practical in situ is the best way to preserve history, but the elements or construction or other things can force a search for other solutions.
On the other hand, preserving a record of lies does not promote learning either. The last thing we should contemplate is actively altering the record of history to suit our own sensibilities, no matter what form it takes. The preservation of a Greek temple is no more an endorsement of Hellenistic gods than preservation of a Southern Civil War memorial is an endorsement of slavery or Southern apologies. It's a part of history, a time capsule from the past, not an expression of contemporary thought.
But I'm completely comfortable with history's judgment of slavery and the South's reliance on the institution. I'm arguing in defense of history, not slavery. It can't be denied that when exactly something passes out of the present and into history is ambiguous, but the Civil War was a century and a half ago, and the memorial that opened this thread almost as far back. If we allow the politics of being offended to censor our record of history in forms like war memorials, where does it stop? Yesterday the Southern flag became offensive, today war memorials, tomorrow the homes of famous Southerners, eventually what else? Where does it stop? Principle demands that we reject the politics of being offended for everything, not just for things we like. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
AZPaul3 writes: We are not erasing the past or sanitizing the past. Good to hear, but that's what NoNukes was proposing, sanitizing the past.
We are not erasing the past or sanitizing the past. We are (finally) recognizing that the celebrations and honors of these things are anathema in our society. Southerners honoring war dead are anathema while Northerners doing the same are not? Because some people find Southern war memorials offensive? That's PC.
Trying to stigmatize these moves as Politically Correct is actually no stain against them. Taking away the undeserved honors and acknowledging the deserved horrors is not only Politically Correct but is socially and humanely correct. Yes, it's PC, and principle demands that we always reject the politics of feeling offended, whether or not its directed at something we don't like. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Good to hear, but that's what NoNukes was proposing, sanitizing the past.
That is not what I've proposed. At most I've talked about addressing things that are themselves a sanitizing pf the past. I understood the argument to be for altering the historical record, from any time period, to better conform to contemporary views. If that's not your position, great. I believe our goal should be to preserve the historical record in as pristine a condition as we can manage given the many constraints.
If anyone here is guilty of insisting on sanitizing I'd suggest it is the person who does not feel we should judge folks harshly for supporting an evil institution and who suggest that such judgments cannot be fact based. I believe that people should be judged in the context of their time and place in history. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Nor should we assume the opposite; that an objective view by a non participant is less accurate than a motivated view by participants who lived with and accepted slavery for financial and social reasons benefitting themselves. Okay.
In the case of slavery as practiced in the South it seems we can make an objective judgment that the institution was evil. Nothing you've said even hints at a fact based reason not to reach that conclusion. You can pretend that 'maybe it wasn't' if you wish to do so, but nothing you've posted so far, including your hypothetical about slavery evolving into something humane justifies the initial inhumane treatment. Beyond that, the evolution never happened anyway. I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the other thread, Facts are Overrated, so I'll just comment that I still think you've misunderstood my arguments there.
With regards to the premise of this thread, namely that facts may not have the power to convince,... Yeah, you're definitely thinking of the other thread. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024