PC Gone Too Far

You've also made remarks explicitly dismissing the opinions of Northerners who did not own slaves, and certainly you have not made any mention of the opinions of slaves, nor responded to points I've made about them. Of course that would be true for at least some folks. Is that question even debatable? I'm not sure that is a point I've made, but I would not dispute it. All I am really saying is that when judging Davis in his historical context, I'm not much moved by the 'everybody else was doing the same thing' arguments. What else would I be discussing in response to an opinion about judging Davis in context. I personally do take Davis in context. I just don't adopt the mindset of a slave owner or a white supremacists when I do that. Hmm, so you would argue that Jefferson's slaves were in some different time or place than Jefferson? Not that I particularly buy the 'place' argument anyway, but surely it can be seen as ridiculous on its face.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The linked to article is about the statute of Jefferson Davis that stood on the South Mall of the University of Texas up until August of last year. The statute had been in its current location since 1933.

quote:

---

The statues of Davis, who led the Confederacy, and Wilson, the nation's 28th president, will be refurbished before they are placed in new settings. The Davis statue will be installed in 18 months or so in UT's Briscoe Center for American History after the center is renovated, while Wilson's will be placed at a yet-to-be-decided outdoor location on campus, according to university officials.

---

I linked to this as an example of a statue moved from the Mall to a place where its full historical context can be made available. Although there were objections to the moving, the previous location did not seem to have any particular historical context other than representing whoever in 1933 decided that Davis was someone we ought to appreciate.

quote:

---

Putting [the statue] in the Briscoe Center, far from whitewashing or erasing history, but puts it in the proper historical context

---

I completely agree.The link below is a discussion about the move including comments from folks who objected. Their objections about possibly damaging the monument and the cost turned out to be non issues.My favorite quote:

quote:

---

I think it is just absolutely offensive to move those statues based on someone being offended by those statues, David Littlefield said.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And yet not everyone did act that way. Not even everyone in the South. Also, plenty of people either left the South or decided not to settle in the South based on the way of life there. And of course a bunch of other folks had no choice in the matter because they were property. You've explains their behavior, but to my thinking explaining, and excusing are two different things. Beyond that, only about 25% of the population owned slaves, so the odds that I would have been a slaver are not all that good. And if we are just assigning folks to the South at random, perhaps I might even have ended up as a slave rather than an owner.Instead it looks like I managed to escape living in what to all accounts is society where the worst evil imaginable was tolerated, accepted and encouraged. Glad that did not happen. I also managed 1) to escape being an African who sold slaves to Britishers on the continent of Africa (watched a bit of "Roots" today); 2) to avoid being a member of one of Al Capone's gangs, and somehow by the skin of my teeth I managed 3} to avoid being either a Nazi or a general who decided to send Japanese to internment camps during WWII. Yea for me. Those other guys who weren't so lucky still suck in my opinion and I don't think I any of them deserve to be celebrated for their actions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

I am familiar with the historical context. I find the justifications given for slavery to be inadequate particularly when compared to the impact on their slaves. I understand that folks in the time period found excuses to dismiss the impact on slaves, and I find those explanations insufficient and in many cases pretextual and motivated towards letting them do what they were of a mind to do anyway. I appreciate that the slave owners felt good about themselves and that they enjoyed financial rewards and in some cases became quite wealthy through the practice. The result for me is disgust and not sympathy. Your mileage may vary.I reject the idea that I need to come any closer to the "context" than that. I understand that a bunch of like minded people would really have liked at least the way Davis owned slaves, that is their judgment and not mine. I don't really give a #$%@! that those folks were unable to persuaded by the facts while they were flaying the flesh off of another man's back or paying him no wages for a days work.If your 'in context' means "possibly" adopting the opinions of slavers and going along with their opinions on what is right and what is wrong and not including any folk who felt differently, then you are correct. I don't do that. If that's what you do, then small wonder we disagree.ABE: I have not missed that point. I reject that your point is relevant. If I had been a slave, or white person with an ounce of humanity, who had not managed to convince himself that Africans were undeserving of humane treatment I would not have. That description applies to lots of folk of the time period. But apparently only the judgment of people with the same flawed thinking of Jefferson matter here; at least that's what you tell me. Democrats are right about everything? About more things than Republicans? To flay or not to flay is a similar matter of opinion to the choice between Democrats and Republicans? Maybe back in 1860 I might see your point. Republicans would seem to have had the superior moral position on slavery at that time. Perhaps this argument does not have the persuasive power you anticipated. Like what? Give me an example of a Southern response that you find persuasive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

Sigh. I'm not missing your point. I am rebutting the 'standard' you are applying.You are right that I don't find those any of those responses persuasive. I'm pleased to hear that you don't either. Beyond that, the contemporary abolitionists did not find them persuasive, nor did the slaves of the period. In fact, many folks who had no wish that Africans live among them at all, would have simply removed the slaves from the US. Beyond that, at least some folks acknowledged the evil that they were doing, and accepted slavery as necessary despite the evil.Presumably Davis and his fellow slavers either excused the evil they did or managed to find one or more of the given 'justifications' acceptable on some basis. But their motivations for doing so are completely suspect. My question is why in the heck I ought to weigh the opinions of those particular guys so heavily. Certainly those opinions are about the least objective ones available. Apparently not everyone in Davis time, even those in the South did that. There were abolitionists even in the South although in the deep South, African-lovers were immensely unpopular. After a couple of slave uprisings, southern abolitionists were generally viewed as traitors and vocal abolitionists were not welcome to stay around. Certainly some southern abolitionists did help slaves to escape to the North and to Canada on the underground railroad. But of course using the criteria you push, we should rule out their opinions as counting because they were not in Davis 'place and time'. Curiously, it is only the people who did accept bogus, pretexts who ended up owning slaves who you say we should measure Davis against.I reject your methodology as too biased towards accepting bogus excuses for adopting an evil institution from which they benefited in numerous ways at the expense of the humanity of other human beings. At some point perhaps you will quit suggesting that I don't understand your methodology. But if your methodology does not involve even examining those motivation, I don't trust it.ABE: Correct. And when you ignore complete and accurate information and end up doing something reprehensible, people in the future might well recognize that and feel that you should be accountable. They might decide that you were not a hero. We are not talking about sending folks to Hell or to jail, here, just about whether the statutes might be put in a museum, or whether the state should carve their likenesses into a mountain.ABE: Let's explore that. If I rob you because I want your money, there is nothing really evil about wanting money, right? Is that the kind of 'nothing to do with evil' that you mean? I don't see the separation you see.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In short if I knew what I was talking about I would come to your conclusion. That's entirely bogus and more than a little patronizing and insulting. I'm done here.ABE:Okay. I've calmed own... My bad...I've spent some time studying civil war history. I'm fairly familiar with the Southern justifications for slavery. My familiarity does not result in my wanting to judge them on their own standards and it is ridiculous to think that only your method of examining history is valid.Perhaps I have said all that I need to say on this issue.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Percy writes:

quote:

---

It isn't because they themselves were evil. The answer is far more complex and nuanced than that.

---

But they were. The answer is because evil is more complex and nuanced than you are making it out to be. Seems like you've got a case of "Doesn't kick puppies." Evil doesn't mean someone is completely and total without merit, that they don't rationalize what they're doing, that they can't come up with justifications. They're still evil. The villain thinks they're the hero of their own story.

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.

I'm going to deal with one issue only, here. Right. You've also stated that only white supremacists slavers are folks in Davis time and place. You've indicated that even the abolitionists and slaves of their time period were not in the same time and place. You've left nothing but judging them the way their slaving and/or sympathizing peers would judge them. You've suggested that the Southerners had a rationale, but you reject any current evaluation of that rationale and any contemporary evaluation other than that of slave owners.ABE:So what your position adds up to is exactly what I said despite you not using those words and perhaps not even using that same reasoning. But the results are indistinguishable from my description. You've simply cloaked what you are doing in language like 'judging in their time and place' and ruling out everyone who felt differently on one pretext or another.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Perhaps we should start a thread on whether or not the Washington Monument should be taken down and stored in a museum with a huge 500' long shed. Washington did own a lot of slaves for a long time.

And the Jefferson Memorial. He even sexually exploited one of his slaves.How about the painting in the dome of Congress of Washington apotheosized. Getting rid of that would also have the virtue of eliminating a symbol of Roman gods and goddesses.ABE: Of course we'd keep that statue in honor of Satan a bunch of Satanists keep trying to set up on public property I think in Oklahoma. Or already succeeded in setting up, I haven't been keeping track.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Does anyone honor Washington because of his support for slavery? Certainly people can, and have discussed the fact that Washington, and at least six other early presidents owned slaves during their tenure in the White House, but can Washington be said, or has he been used to represent slavery, or a way of life revolving around slavery. How did Washington feel about black POWs taken in war? Did he make any proclamations regarding them? Did Washington go to war against the United States?Now if you wanted to talk about presidents and their treatment of Native Americans or Mexicans, we might have something to talk about. I served on a submarine named after James K. Polk. What is this bloke famous for?ABE:

quote:

---

On his 2003 visit to Goree Island, a former slave fort off the coast of the Senegalese capital, Dakar, George W. Bush denounced the slave trade as one of "the greatest crimes of history.

​

"Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters," he said. "Some have said we should not judge their failures by the standards of a later time. Yet, in every time, there were men and women who clearly saw this sin and called it by name."

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Even if the monument builders had been, I'd still argue for leaving it where it is.You don't have to agree with the ideology of the people represented in monuments or the ideology of those who erected them in order to protect the monuments themselves.In this country, we have plenty of protected monuments to people who'd probably be locked up in secure institutions if they were around today and tried to behave in accordance with their own times rather than ours!