Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PC Gone Too Far
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 106 of 734 (784946)
05-26-2016 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
05-26-2016 11:55 AM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Individual monuments say, "We're sad that our son/brother/husband/etc. died, no matter how he died." Collective monuments say, "Hurrah! our sons/brothers/husbands/etc. died in the glorious cause of _______!"
Except the monument in the OP simply says:
quote:
Our Confederate Dead, 1861-1865
Tribute to the Rank and File of the Armies of the South by the Kentucky Woman's Confederate Monument Association. 1895.
So offensive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 11:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 734 (784947)
05-26-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
05-26-2016 12:00 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Cat Sci writes:
So offensive
I didn't say anything was offensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 12:04 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 734 (784948)
05-26-2016 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ringo
05-26-2016 12:02 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
I didn't say anything was offensive.
I didn't say that you did.
Way to dodge the real point though.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 12:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 109 of 734 (784949)
05-26-2016 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
05-26-2016 12:04 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Cat Sci writes:
Way to dodge the real point though.
Maybe if you tell us what you think the real point is....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 12:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 2:45 PM ringo has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(1)
Message 110 of 734 (784950)
05-26-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
05-26-2016 9:41 AM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Just to be picky - what cemetery? If there was one at that location, it's gone now. The whole area is paved over and built on.
This monument is 1 mile from St Stephan's Cemetery and 4 miles from the Cave Hill Cemetery.
If the intent is/was to honor the Confederate dead, shouldn't it be with them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 9:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 2:44 PM 14174dm has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 111 of 734 (784952)
05-26-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
05-26-2016 11:55 AM


Re: Tone of the memorial
ringo writes:
Don't confuse monuments with history.
Aren't monuments a part of history? However you see it, in the recent portion of the discussion I've been making a case for the importance of preserving history, even those parts we find offensive.
History would be a list of the war dead.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that history includes, among many other things, lists of war dead?
Percy writes:
There's a reason Auschwitz-Birkenau still exists, and it isn't to celebrate the Nazis.
Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a monument.
I didn't label it a monument, and I don't think the particular label is relevant to the recent discussion. Its relevance is as an example of preservation of a part of history most people find offensive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 11:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 1:03 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 112 of 734 (784953)
05-26-2016 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
05-26-2016 12:52 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Percy writes:
Aren't monuments a part of history?
Not really. A monument is a record of history. We don't "lose history" by (re)moving a monument any more than we lose history or literature by removing a worn-out book from the library.
And we lose more history when an old hotel burns down than we would if we (re)moved a monument.
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a monument.
Its relevance is as an example of preservation of a part of history most people find offensive.
The equivalent in the Civil War would be the preservation of a slave ship. If you want to preserve the history that people find offensive, it's the offensive bits that you need to preserve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 05-26-2016 12:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 05-26-2016 1:45 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 734 (784954)
05-26-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ringo
05-26-2016 1:03 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
Aren't monuments a part of history?
Not really. A monument is a record of history. We don't "lose history" by (re)moving a monument any more than we lose history or literature by removing a worn-out book from the library.
A monument *is* a part of history. As I commented to NoNukes, there are no rules for when something can be said to pass out of the present and into history, but certainly anything 120 years old is a part of history.
And we lose more history when an old hotel burns down than we would if we (re)moved a monument.
Say, a 120-year old hotel? I don't know if quantifying amounts of history is practical or even meaningful, but certainly if an old hotel is part of history then so is an old monument.
By the way, if you're referring to the monument of the OP, it was being removed to storage, not moved to a new location. The University claimed that a new location would be chosen someday, but as they say, "Would you like to buy a bridge?"
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a monument.
Its relevance is as an example of preservation of a part of history most people find offensive.
The equivalent in the Civil War would be the preservation of a slave ship. If you want to preserve the history that people find offensive, it's the offensive bits that you need to preserve.
I'm not sure if you're stating your own opinion or parodying mine, so just to be clear, my argument isn't that only offensive history is worth preserving. My argument is that offensive history is *especially* worth preserving.
Also, I wasn't trying to find an example of equal offensiveness, just an obvious and extreme one. If the importance of preservation is so great that it can overcome even the offensiveness of Auschwitz-Birkenau, then surely it can overcome the questionable offensiveness of a simple monument.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 1:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 05-27-2016 11:42 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 734 (784956)
05-26-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
05-26-2016 9:15 AM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Touching on several things you said, the Confederate flag issue doesn't seem related to this one. Taking down Confederate flags or symbols doesn't destroy history, I don't think.
Given that the flag on the SC capitol building was installed as a racist response to a historical event, I think it is just as much history as the carving on Stone Mountain. None of these monuments is actual history. The monument in Kentucky is not a grave marker. All of these instances are memorials and not the actual history.
If Klansmen venerated George Washington as much as I do, that wouldn't make me think less of George Washington.
You seem intent on missing the point. A racist's monument to Jefferson Davis, a clear white supremacist and slavery supporter, sponsored by the Klan and later taken over by the state is quite a different thing than a monument to George Washington.
Uh, you're still not getting the point. What precisely happened (in this case banning of Ulysses) is not at all relevant to this discussion.
I'm not an idiot. I understand what you are suggesting I can glean from the incident. But I am not limited to understanding your point. Given that your state position is that requests to move offensive objects must always be resisted on principle, I think the distinction between what happened to Ulysses and what is actually being requested in these cases is important. It shows that your argument is a 'slippery slope' argument that we may well have reason to reject. Nobody is asking that southern history be banned. They are asking that a memorial be moved somewhere else.
There's a reason Auschwitz-Birkenau still exists, and it isn't to celebrate the Nazis.
There is a reason why the carving on Stone Mountain exists, and it is to celebrate Jefferson Davis et al.
About the park you claim honored the perpetrators of the Wilmington massacre, I'd never heard of this event. Reading the Wikipedia article I see that the park land was donated by one of the conspirators, the park is named for him, and there's "a plaque in his honor that does not mention his role in the 1898 insurrection."
You can attribute the fact that you don't know much about some significant part civil war history to whatever choices your school system made about what to teach and not to the fact that the event was of no significance. From your description we can certainly understand that neither the plaque nor the dedication tell the full story.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : minor grammar stuff. Perhaps I should compose my messages in a word processor...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 05-26-2016 9:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 05-26-2016 8:03 PM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 734 (784961)
05-26-2016 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by 14174dm
05-26-2016 12:25 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
Just to be picky - what cemetery? If there was one at that location, it's gone now. The whole area is paved over and built on.
This monument is 1 mile from St Stephan's Cemetery and 4 miles from the Cave Hill Cemetery.
It was the Cave Hill Cemetery.
If the intent is/was to honor the Confederate dead, shouldn't it be with them?
That would be up to the people who paid for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by 14174dm, posted 05-26-2016 12:25 PM 14174dm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by 14174dm, posted 05-26-2016 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 734 (784962)
05-26-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
05-26-2016 12:09 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
This collective monument doesn't say what you said collective monuments say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 05-26-2016 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 05-27-2016 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 117 of 734 (784967)
05-26-2016 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
05-26-2016 8:16 AM


Re: Tone of the memorial
I'm quite sympathetic towards your position, but can't help but feel your reasoning is taking you a but far here.
The Confederate monument in Louisville doesn't fit this description, but what monuments say or represent is not what's important to this discussion. What's important is maintaining our record of history, lest it be forgotten. Santayana again. To the extent that you're correct that Confederate monuments are expressions of support for slavery, racism and bigotry, you don't want that to ever be forgotten. Removing these monuments will allow us to forget that public expressions of such sentiments existed.
You may recognise this chap:
This is currently under construction here in Prague. It's not a permanent fixture - it's being built for a period film set in the 1950s (there's been a few complaints, but the film-makers explained that building an enormous polystyrene replica in situ is apparently much cheaper than CG). This was a real statue, blown up not long after being completed during the period of de-Stalinisation.
Below you can see it in original. There are many clearer photos, but this is the only one I can find that gives a good impression of context from the point of view of walking around the city centre
Now, the argument that we should leave up monuments to bigotry and racism as a reminder that people raised monuments to bigotry and racism seems, to me, to lead to the implication that this statue should still be there. This is undoubtedly a historical monument, it has great symbolic significance for the history of Cold War Europe (that is, after all, why it was built). And, what better reminder of the dangers of authoritarian dictatorship than if here, in the capital of the country that considers itself the most Western of the former Eastern bloc, the largest statue of Stalin ever erected still loomed over us threateningly every day.
And yet it somehow doesn't seem like it should still be there to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 05-26-2016 8:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 05-27-2016 8:46 AM caffeine has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 118 of 734 (784969)
05-26-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
05-26-2016 2:44 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
If the monument was intended to honor the dead buried in Cave Hill Cemetery, why is the monument 4 miles away? I don't expect anyone to really know 100+ years later. If the more public location was intended as an affront/political statement/whatever, does that mean the particular location is sacred somehow?
In this case, I would think that the current location must be an agreement between the people who paid for (own?) the monument and those who own the land it currently sits on.
Off hand I would say the land belongs to either the city/county or the state as part of the road right of way. Short of an existing agreement, the land owner should be able to say "Lovely monument but I am going to use that land for my own purpose so move it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2016 4:30 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 734 (784973)
05-26-2016 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by 14174dm
05-26-2016 3:55 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
If the monument was intended to honor the dead buried in Cave Hill Cemetery, why is the monument 4 miles away?
I think the place it is at used to be a cemetery too. It isn't clear:
quote:
The area presently occupied by the nearby University of Louisville was purchased in 1850 by the city for use as an underutilized cemetery. source
"Was purchased for use as" doesn't necessarily mean "was used as", so I dunno.
If the more public location was intended as an affront/political statement/whatever, does that mean the particular location is sacred somehow?
I do think the place was somewhat strategically chosen:
quote:
The dedication was on July 30, 1895, in time to coincide with the 29th Grand Army of the Republic annual reunion later in September. The occasion began with a parade which started on Broadway and followed down 3rd street to the monument. The parade included 200 ex-Confederate soldiers...
The particular location does have some historical significance.
In this case, I would think that the current location must be an agreement between the people who paid for (own?) the monument and those who own the land it currently sits on.
According to wiki, the ownership of the monument is disuputed. The land is now owned by the University.
Off hand I would say the land belongs to either the city/county or the state as part of the road right of way.
Yeah, the land around it used to be bigger but they made it smaller for traffic.
Short of an existing agreement, the land owner should be able to say "Lovely monument but I am going to use that land for my own purpose so move it."
Sure, but that's not what is happening. According to the article in the OP, the guy pushing to have it removed says that it is "glorifying the nadir of America's past". It's not, its a tribute to fallen soldiers.
He also said that "this statue being on the campus is somewhat akin to flying the Confederate flag over the (university's) administration building", which is a big stretch.
This is a case of using being offended to push a political agenda, and this is a good case of PC Gone Too Far.
This monument doesn't need to be removed and it's a stupid idea to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by 14174dm, posted 05-26-2016 3:55 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 120 of 734 (784979)
05-26-2016 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
05-26-2016 2:01 PM


Re: Tone of the memorial
NoNukes writes:
Given that the flag on the SC capitol building was installed as a racist response to a historical event, I think it is just as much history as the carving on Stone Mountain.
I agree that it's history, and that it once flew is history. What I said was that I don't think taking down a flag destroys history. Likely it was raised and lowered daily anyway.
But I do agree that inclusions of the Confederate flag in various state symbols are examples of "government sponsoring offense," though they might be more accurately characterized as acts of defiance and intimidation.
None of these monuments is actual history. The monument in Kentucky is not a grave marker. All of these instances are memorials and not the actual history.
I agree that monuments are not a part of the historical event they serve to remember. But they are a part of history, and they also serve as a record of the historical event. I noted all this in an earlier message when I said that the monument in question serves as a record of Southern thought, referring to Southerns 30 years after the war.
You seem intent on missing the point. A racist's monument to Jefferson Davis, a clear white supremacist and slavery supporter, sponsored by the Klan and later taken over by the state is quite a different thing than a monument to George Washington.
A monument to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Didn't most people back then believe whites superior to blacks? And weren't most southerners slavery supporters? You're inventing reasons for disqualifying every southerner as a Southern hero.
And you're using the "guilt by association" fallacy, in effect, "The Klan supported this and was directly involved, so it's bad."
I'm not an idiot.
The thought hadn't occurred to me.
Given that your state position is that requests to move offensive objects must always be resisted on principle, I think the distinction between what happened to Ulysses and what is actually being requested in these cases is important. It shows that your argument is a 'slippery slope' argument that we may well have reason to reject.
How does it show that?
There's a reason Auschwitz-Birkenau still exists, and it isn't to celebrate the Nazis.
There is a reason why the carving on Stone Mountain exists, and it is to celebrate Jefferson Davis et al.
Yes, I know, Jefferson Davis, the infamous white supremacist and slave owner, just like most others in the South. He's a Southern hero, why shouldn't there be a monument honoring him (along with a couple others you don't seem to want to mention but who were also white supremacists and slave owners)? Because it offends Northerners?
About the park you claim honored the perpetrators of the Wilmington massacre, I'd never heard of this event. Reading the Wikipedia article I see that the park land was donated by one of the conspirators, the park is named for him, and there's "a plaque in his honor that does not mention his role in the 1898 insurrection."
You can attribute the fact that you don't know much about some significant part of civil war history...
"Significant part of civil war history"? Not sure why you're calling it that. The year that it happened, 1898, is right there in my Wikipedia quote, and you quoted it yourself. I can sort of see your point that the government that over a century ago accepted the money for the park from a conspirator and gave it his name was "government sponsoring offense." I see the possibility of renaming the park was in the news down your way not so long ago.
... to whatever choices your school system made about what to teach and not to the fact that the event was of no significance.
I didn't say it had no significance, just that I'd never heard of it. High School was a long time ago. I recall studying the Spanish-American War, also in 1898, but I doubt the Wilmington massacre was in our history books, and if it was then it's no longer in my data banks. I did just check a random American History high school textbook over at Google Books, no Wilmington massacre.
From your description we can certainly understand that neither the plaque nor the dedication tell the full story.
Anyway, you were trying to explain what you meant by "government sponsoring offense," and I think I get your meaning now, that it refers to things government might do that offends some people, in some cases large groups of people. But offending people is unavoidable, and we should resist accepting "We're offended" as a reason for doing anything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by xongsmith, posted 05-26-2016 9:14 PM Percy has replied
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2016 1:40 AM Percy has replied
 Message 123 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2016 1:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024