PC Gone Too Far

Well, okay, but if you're going to treat those labels as definitely implying motivation, what labels do you propose using when not implying any motivation? Non-Northerners and non-Unionists? Not very catchy. Sounds good to me.--Percy

Just found an image of one of the early designs for Stone Mountain: I kind of like it better.--Percy

You didn't list any factors that make him any different than Lee or Jackson, but in this message you do provide some actual details: Yes. But Lee and Jackson owned slaves, too. Is it the number of slaves you find despicable? Shouldn't the accounts of Lee's harsh treatment of slaves make him despicable, too? Yes. How does sharing beliefs held by most Southerners make him especially despicable? That he wrote about them? If you have a case to make then you have to make it yourself, not ask me to make it for you. So far all you've got is unsupported claims. When I said "nothing factual to back up your unspecific claims" I meant nothing factual *from you*. You said Davis had committed despicable acts that you seemed to feel singled him out among Southerners, but from what I can tell his acts in owning slaves and believing in white superiority seem to be SOP for Southerners of the period and seem insufficient justification. In the end I have no idea how you're connecting facts to your opinions. I'm just using the Wikipedia article, which doesn't back you up. Where does your information come from?I did just now find a fairly detailed account (Granite Stopped Time: The Stone Mountain Memorial and the Representation of White Southern Identity) but it doesn't back you up, either.There's another detailed account out there, Carved In Stone: The History of Stone Mountain, but the Google books version is missing a lot, and Kindle and hardcopies cost money.--Percy

If you do not share your knowledge and rationale, how would anyone ever know? Wikipedia contradicts you. Can you tell me where your information is coming from? When you're willing to provide facts and and arguments supporting your claims, I'm here.--Percy

Actually, it does contradict you. For example, you said the KKK initiated the Stone Mountain Memorial effort. This is untrue. You again edited a message while I was in the middle of replying to it, I'll reply to part of it now. From Message 141: I already mentioned that reference to you in my message just before yours. And I already came across that passage and moved on because it didn't support your claim, specifically that "white supremacists and segregationists felt that having the state pick up the Klan's project was a mighty fine idea." If Freeman's book is the account you're endorsing for this claim then it doesn't support you. You made it sound like the state gave in to the pressures of a white supremacist/segregationist group, but your own reference says it was just the South responding to integration pressures.--Percy

Which is not true. You keep calling it a Klan project when it wasn't, and in any case the original project was long dead by 1958 when the state acquired ownership of the land. You're using a very broad brush with your accusations of white supremacy. The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) was a woman's organization consisting of descendants of Confederate veterans. Memorials were a consistent focus. When the UDC formed the SMCMA (Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association), Venable (the owner) and Gutzon Borglum (a sculptor of national prominence who later did Mount Rushmore), who were both Klan members, "arranged to pack the SMCMA with Klan members" (a phrase you later also quote). Klan involvement was never sought by the UDC - they viewed Klan association as a negative, even more so on a national scale since the memorial was being promoted as part of a national reconciliation between North and South, and even received some federal help. Let's be clear here. Legislation has to have a majority to pass, so it wasn't just "members of the legislature" that you're claiming were white supremacist/segregationist, but a majority of them. I have no knowledge of the Georgia legislature in the 1950s and will just say again that you tend to paint with a very broad and negative brush. You don't allow the possibility that some people wanted to honor Southern history, heritage and heroes. The project had by that time failed long ago and no longer existed. True. And don't forget that the state revoked Klan site access.So here's a brief summary of facts. The Stone Mountain Memorial was initiated by the UDC in 1916 on a site where the Klan had been reincarnated just the year before. There were several years of involvement by Klan members in the 1920s bolstered by the Klan membership of the owner and the famous sculptor. Despite that there was great success in promoting the memorial nationally.But in 1925 internal tensions exploded. The SMCMA was accused of financial improprieties and Borglum was fired. Among the recriminations were accusations of Klan membership, more evidence that Klan association was not viewed as a positive. (The accusations of Klan membership flew from both sides, and both accurate as far as I can tell, see Granite Stopped Time: The Stone Mountain Memorial and the Representation of White Southern Identity, pages 32-35)Project efforts continued for several years but gradually lost momentum and ended altogether when the SMCMA went bankrupt in the late 1920s.In the 1950s a segregationist governor and the Georgia legislature were moved to action by desegregation pressures. They initiated a purchase of the land and eventually brought the sculpture to completion.You can rewrite this to include your accusations of white supremacist involvement, but such attitudes were common in the South over that entire period. Anything done in the South in that time would have to include white supremacists. Lamentable Southern attitudes doesn't change the fact that Davis, Lee and Jackson *are* heroes of the South deserving of memorials.But isn't this all beside the point? Wouldn't you still object to the memorial even if it had been done entirely by girl scouts, because of the inclusion of Jefferson Davis?--Percy

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was declining to comment either way because it all seemed internal to the Communist Party. Excellent question, let me rephrase: How do I balance my stance on the importance of preserving history against the right of a people's public expressions to reflect what they truly believe?Gee, that's a tough one. I cheered, too, when those statues came down in 1989 and after. On an emotional level I don't think the public part of a private dictatorship's expressions deserve preserving, and they actually feel abhorrent to me. As a preservationist I would like to see the expressions preserved unchanged as a record of despotism, but that seems woefully unfair to the people who have to live with them. As a pragmatist I think such expressions should come down but be preserved somewhere, whether they be statues or plaques or road signs or whatever, but that can get very expensive, especially for large objects. Obviously I'm conflicted. I guess I don't have a single unequivocal answer.--Percy

It wasn't a Klan project. It was a UDC project, and the UDC was a women's organization. Women weren't even permitted in the Klan. The SMCMA was incoroporated in 1916 to actively manage the project, but it was only in the early 1920s when active work began that it became packed with Klan members. After the 1925 debacle the SMCMA gradually lost power and influence and funds and eventually went bankrupt. I've never denied Klan involvement in the 1920s, but it wasn't a Klan project at that time, and certainly not in the 1950s when the state of Georgia took over. What is probably true is that the Klan never slackened in their support for a Confederate memorial at Stone Mountain, and that they saw such a memorial as supporting the Southern cause, white supremacy and segregation. We've been over this before, except now you're giving extra emphasis to the owner. In my experience people who can support their claims with evidence are eager to do so and don't need to resort to insult, misrepresentation and emotionalism. I was talking about before the Borglum debacle, and Wikipedia wasn't my source. From Granite Stopped Time: The Stone Mountain Memorial and the Representation of White Southern Identity, which I referenced earlier (I'm just going to quote a little, they've disabled cut-n-pasting, the entire account begins on page 25, this excerpt begins on page 28):

quote:

---

The SMCMA walked a difficult line, however, making arguments to appeal to both Americans' expansive nationalism and the racialized regionalism of the most ardent "Lost Cause" supporters in an effort to raise the funding...Shrewd enough to recognize that the money for the project could not be raised internally, however, the SMCMA from its inception carefully solicited a broad support. Politicians from across the country supported the effort, and in keeping with a national movement to reclaim Confederate military leaders, especially Lee, they praised the planned "colossal" carvings of these great "American men." Even President Warren G. Harding complimented the Borglum design and wished "the people of the South" the aid and cooperation of "Americans everywhere" while stressing the message of reconciliation.

---

The difference between us is that you accept guilt by association and I don't, you judge people for being a product of their time and place in history and I don't, and you believe one or two issues define a person's character and I don't. Southerners are our fellow citizens, and attempting to impose the view that theirs is an evil heritage deserving scorn instead of pride is not going to work in any long run.--Percy

I don't think the memorial had a single exact purpose for all the people working toward its realization. The Klan likely saw the memorial as a glorious symbol of white supremacy, slavery and segregation, the UDC as a memorial honoring war heroes of the formerly great nation of the Confederacy. Well, I grant that you have declared everyone associated with the project a racist, white supremacist segregationist. Of course they matter. How can a bas-relief lie? You can't control what people think when they gaze upon a memorial. If some think things you believe untrue, the solution is not to stop building memorials. I'm arguing against responding to political pressures from claims of feeling offended. I'm arguing for inclusivity and reconciliation. My grandparents lived on Walnut Street. It sounds like you believe your region of the country is no longer dominated by white supremacists and segregationists, and that's encouraging to hear. The national news tends to paint an intolerant picture on other issues, what with Confederate symbols bickering, absurd gerrymandering, and efforts to limit voting, gay marriage and LGBT rights. But isn't that the wrong argument, at least if we're still talking about memorials? Davis, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Forrest, Pickett, etc. - all the top brass and politicians were "involved to a degree much greater than the typical Southerner." The criteria by which you exclude Davis but not all the rest still escapes me. Okay. My position is that a cause doesn't become dubious just because people with disreputable motives insist on associating themselves with it. Building memorials to Southern war heroes was the raison d'tre of the UDC.--Percy

People with disreputable motives can associate themselves with any cause. If all it took to kill any project was for people with disreputable motives to join then we'd be ceding them a great deal of power. This is the guilt by association fallacy. When trying to accomplish things it isn't uncommon to discover that people you don't like have similar goals - that doesn't invalidate the goals. One cannot reason, "I have honest motives for wanting to do this, but people with dishonest motives also want to do this, therefore I won't do this." That was a serious question? No, of course in the context of a discussion about Southern white supremacist slavers the term "Southerners" does not include blacks. We only agree about the Klan and the SMCMA after its ranks were filled with Klan members, not the UDC. This is the same false reasoning: "Bad people want to do this, therefore this must be bad." The thing must be judged good or bad on its own merits, or lack thereof. How does the Stone Mountain Memorial not accurately reflect history?--Percy

What I've actually said has been a little different, that people should be judged in the context of their time and place in history. When you introduced this part of the discussion you included a footnote that said you were "referring to Jefferson Davis' contemporaries," and my reply took that into account. So is your reply to me still in the context of Jefferson Davis' contemporaries, and you're saying that people in and out of the South held Davis in lower esteem while he was alive than you do today? Or are you saying something else? If you mean opinion contemporaneous with Jefferson Davis, I don't recall ever commenting on opinion of Jefferson Davis while he was alive. And if you mean something else then I don't know what that is. You're applying standards that existed in their time, but not their place.I understand your argument that the people of the antebellum South were evil because they should have known better, but that's not how people work, it's not human nature. People adopt the mores and attitudes of everyone around them. It's self reinforcing. What surrounds them is natural, the way of the world. Had you been born in the antebellum South the odds strongly favor that you would have been, in your own words, a white supremacist slaver.--Percy

I've only said maybe half the things you think I have, and I've certainly never made any such remarks as these. I often don't respond to points I don't dispute. You're oversimplifying the argument, but that's pretty much the way people behave, and it shouldn't be ignored. I never expressed "an opinion about judging Davis in context" of his own time. I found your responses about Davis's time confusing because we had been talking about judging the people who wanted to erect a monument to Davis, Lee and Jackson in the context of their time, the early 20th century and then later the 1950s and 1960s. I still don't understand your interest in the opinions of Davis while he was alive. It doesn't seem related to the motivation of people in the 20th century who wanted to build the memorial. And as mentioned earlier, the efforts in the 1920s received support from across the country. Then you're not judging Davis in context, or even understanding what studying people in context means. It doesn't mean adopting their mindset, though that can be part of it. It means informing your opinions with the historical context of the time and place. Davis's context was not non-slave owners and non-white supremacists. Even when in Washington he had the support of the entire Southern delegation. No one in the North was able to shame the Southern statesmen into silence. For every argument the Northerners made, perhaps some like the hyperbolic ones you've been making about the South, there were effective Southern responses. No, not my point. I've been arguing for judging people by their time and place in history since the beginning of this thread, and you had just argued for applying standards that did exist in the antebellum South's time, but not their place.You replied twice to a message again, so here's my reply to your Message 168. You haven't introduced any evidence for this, but I certainly acknowledge that there's a great deal of diversity in any large group of people. I've said as much several times in this thread. For example, it was Southerns who ran the departure "stations" for the Underground Railroad.You know, there *are* Democrats living in the South today. Their information and opinions are available to Southerners. What is wrong with Southerners today that they don't just wake up, acknowledge what's right, and become Democrats. There *are* Democrats in the South, so obviously some are getting the message, and those who reject the message just have no excuse.Seems a stupid argument, right? Well, it's pretty much the same one you're making for the people of the antebellum South. Yes, they are, and I understand you're bound and determined to set yourself up in judgment. You're working hard at missing the point. Had you been born a slave owner in the South you would have had their opinions and attitudes. Had you been born a non-slave owning white you would still likely have had the opinions of a typical non-slave owning white, as you like to describe them, a white supremacist. If you're like most people then you believe you would be the same fine person you are today no matter what other time and place you were born to, but that's the same mistake as when most people think they're above average.Stating the point more explicitly, people are generally (not exclusively) a product of their time and place in history. Judging people who were heir to all the human needs for acceptance and shelter and livelihood, just like us today, by standards that never had any significant role in their lives makes no sense.--Percy

That's not that readily apparent to me. It seems as if someone "familiar with the historical context" would understand what judging people within their context involves. And those excuses were? Well, yes, precisely, just what people everywhere and every time do. You're not only ignoring historical context but human nature. You're judging people evil just for being a product of their time and place in history and behaving like people. If you had objective support for your position then I suspect you wouldn't keep making emotionally charged statements. No one's disputing that slavery is wrong. It's the assertion that antebellum Southerners were evil that is being disputed. You're rejecting an important historical principle, that understanding a people depends upon historical and geographical context, among many other things. You can't get by with just calling people evil. There's no understanding or insight in that approach. Why did the people in the antebellum South not give up slavery? Because they were evil. Why did the Aztecs sacrifice people and even children? Because they were evil. Yours is a useless approach.The people of the South did not embrace slavery because they were evil but because of a confluence of economic forces and social circumstances. As normal human beings they responded as people of any time or place would who were exposed to similar forces and circumstances. I'm not sure what you feel giving way to your emotionalism is gaining you. Maybe it's something you can't help.Again, no one's disputing that slavery is wrong. The question is why did the people of the antebellum South embrace slavery. It isn't because they themselves were evil. The answer is far more complex and nuanced than that. This continues to misstate my views. Obviously I am not ignoring "any folk who felt differently." You may be misconstruing the nature of our disagreement. It is very relevant, you just have no answer. Your syntax is a bit tough to follow, but in essence you're claiming that even had you been born a slave owner in the South you would not have shared their attitudes and opinions. Unless you're not human, you're wrong. Except that I've never told you that, and I keep telling you I'm not saying that, and I keep explaining what I am saying. This reminds me of someone vigorously nodding their head while having no idea what is being said. Not the point, but I'll take the blame, it was a weak analogy. The point is that even the presence of complete and accurate information often isn't persuasive, not today and not then. You're missing the point again. Of course those of us living in the here and now don't find Southern responses persuasive. But those living in the then and there did, for reasons having nothing to do with evil or malevolence.--Percy

Whichever of us is "wrong," you might stop to consider that the reasons each side doesn't find the other side's arguments persuasive are pretty much the same ones behind Southerners not finding arguments against slavery persuasive. From my side your approach appears to lack objectivity, insight and nuance. I never gave any indication that I did. You tend to take a "jump to the most indefensible misinterpretation" approach. As in other discussions, my most common response to you is, "I never said that," or words to that effect.We should seek objective answers to the question, "Why did Southerners embrace and defend slavery when it was so obviously wrong?" The answer is not, "Because they were evil." You're jumping to an obviously wrong misinterpretation again. I'm obviously not saying that defending slavery is "just what people everywhere and every time do." You said that the arguments of Southerners were "in many cases pretextual and motivated towards letting them do what they were of a mind to do anyway." I quoted it, and then responded that that's what people do, i.e., invent reasons for doing what they want to do anyway. I of course would express it differently, but your words pretty much capture the principle involved.Why did Southerners need to find reasons to defend slavery? Because they feared that its loss would destroy their economy and their way of life. And they were right. Except that I never said that. Given the number of times I've had to say, "I never said that," you can make no reasonable claim to understanding my viewpoint. But I am examining Southern motivation for supporting slavery, and you've ignored all my attempts to shift discussion to them. So far all you've managed is, "Southerners supported slavery because they were evil." No, that's not why they supported slavery.How do you reconcile this reasoning: With this claim: If you've really "spent some time studying civil war history" it isn't really apparent, except maybe that it made you angry.Oh, by the way, I never said that Southerners should be judged by "their own standards." I've said time and again that they should be judged in the context of their time and place in history. And they should be judged as human beings, not as some kind of logic engine with pure knowledge of what is true and what is false.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Wrong again. I've never said anything like that. Wrong yet again. No one would ever say something as illogical as that. No, this is wrong, too. I've said that analysis cannot ignore the historical context of time and place, not that we should "judge them on their own standards," as you once put it. Wrong.I don't know what to tell you. You've quoted my words and right beneath them written woefully wrong interpretations, one of them even violating simple logic. You're arguing with a chimera of your own making while ignoring what the passages you're quoting really say, and ignoring other important arguments, such as the worthlessness of assessments of "evil" and the importance of examining why Southerners felt it so important to defend slavery.The South wasn't homogenous, but there was a by far dominant view, and it formed the context of everyday life for people who grew up there and earned livings to provide food and shelter. They weren't evil, they were just people like everyone else.After as many times as I've stated what I really mean I can't think what to say now that would cause thoughts to spring into your head that actually capture what I'm really saying. Perhaps the feelings of repugnance that seem to overcome you when considering the topic of slavery are clouding your judgment. Perhaps you're so attracted by the ease with which the arguments you've made up for me can be rebutted that understanding my actual meaning is no longer possible for you. This has happened in other threads where we've had discussions - you decide upon my meaning and cannot be turned aside from it, and that's what we end up arguing about instead of the actual topic.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.