PC Gone Too Far

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? This sounds backwards. PC is using claims of being offended as political leverage. 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. 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

That's strange, because I find ignorance of our history extremely common. 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

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

Actually, for Faith PC cut whichever way she needed it to at the time, no matter how inconsistently. 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. Well, yes, you're very sincere and very serious, efforts at getting you to lighten up notwithstanding.--Percy

If people had to take back everything you claimed they never proved there'd be no science left. You were employing PC as an epithet at anything you didn't like. 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."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify by adding some quotation marks.

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? 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

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

As is the opposite claim that no war dead are worthy of respect. 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

To quote it again:

quote:

---

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

---

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

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. 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: 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

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 (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

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. Depends upon the specifics, but much can be lost transferring historical artifacts of any size to a museum. 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. 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. 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

Good to hear, but that's what NoNukes was proposing, sanitizing the past. Southerners honoring war dead are anathema while Northerners doing the same are not? Because some people find Southern war memorials offensive? That's PC. 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

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. I believe that people should be judged in the context of their time and place in history.--Percy

Okay. 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. Yeah, you're definitely thinking of the other thread.--Percy