PC Gone Too Far

Well, that's sure confusing.First, again, repeating your position is not rebuttal.Second, our recent posts have been discussing Davis, Lee and Jackson and the Stone Mountain memorial. You seem to have suddenly shifted your focus back to the memorial that opened this thread, the one on the University of Louisville campus that is scheduled for removal to storage, not a museum, and that was the object of a campaign to remove it because it is "somewhat akin to flying the Confederate flag."There are statues of both Lincoln and Douglas in the Kentucky capitol rotunda, and recently there was an effort to remove Davis's: There's a saying that goes, "History is written by the winners." It's not just about paper. Hopefully the world is gradually becoming more enlightened and increasingly realizes that history written by the losers is important, too. Even the revisionist history that developed out of Southern Lost Cause perspectives deserves preservation, because it is still a record of history, and perhaps even more importantly because it is with us still. The South fought an internal psychological battle in the aftermath of their devastating and never contemplated or envisaged defeat. Reconstruction caused a flood of Carpetbagging politicians, "businessmen", missionaries and what-not to descend upon the South bringing disenfranchisement and poverty. The first Ku Klux Klan was one result of the terms imposed by the North, but not the only one. What happened to the South after the Civil War was a lesson in how not to impose terms upon the defeated. So was what happened to Germany after WWI. These lessons of history were part of what drove the more enlightened approach of the victorious allies post-WWII.--Percy

You are correct. My post was not a rebuttal But simply re-tellling me that the folks who carved Stone Mountain considered the folks to be heroes really is not much of a point to begin with. I might add, that calling posters PC is also not much of a rebuttal either, but that does not prevent you from doing that either.Beyond that, I'm not rebutting your point so much as saying so what? I have expressed the opinion that I don't adopt or value the opinions of the folks who fought a war rather than give up slavery. Perhaps it is time to discuss Davis in particular and to discuss just why he is heroic. Your own opinion seems to be the Davis was merely an ineffective leader. Museums are fine places for such preservation. We can even add context explaining what bastards some of these folks actually were. I accept that many things cannot be moved, and I don't advocate moving such stuff. The Jefferson Davis monument in Kentucky is a fine example of something I would consider it to ridiculous to try to move or to house. On the other hand, I don't think very highly of Gerogia's decision in the 1950s to incorporating confederate symbols into the state flag, or to complete the carving on Stone mountain. With respect to Stone Mountain, it is impossible to get balancing displays added to the park (and by balancing displays, I don't mean another huge carving into the mountain).In my opinion, the objective opinions of folks later on is much more likely to be accurate than was the Lost Cause versions the UDC and SCV pushed and continue to push to this day.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's a politically correct statement.

This is, yet again, just something you made up. Now I know that upon reading this your first impulse will be to go off and scan through the thread for anything in my posts that could somehow by squinting cross-eyed be construed as casting accusations of PC at thread participants, but please just stop now. We don't need any more of you making up what I said or meant. You've done enough. That's not what I said, either. Boy, you just can't help yourself, can you. Apparently when unable to rebut what was actually said, you just make stuff up, just throw out distraction after accusation after insinuation.My actual argument is that Davis, Lee and Jackson were war heroes of the Southern army no less than Lincoln and Grant were war heroes of the Northern army, that both sides fought equally heroically. Of course people of the South (including those responsible for both the original Stone Mountain memorial efforts and the later successful one) considered Davis, Lee and Jackson heroes - they were. It would make no sense to claim that only those on winning sides fight heroically. Oh, bravo. Yes, you have repeated this often, but only to ignore the actual argument that good people can't abandon good opinions just because they're shared by bad people. Arguments along the lines of, "Bad people liked them so they must be bad too," is insufficient and inconclusive. If Davis, Lee and Jackson are not heroes but are bad people undeserving of memorials then the arguments for that view must stand on their own. Certainly they didn't suddenly become bad decades after the war when the KKK of the early 20th century decided to like them. If you think there's something special about Davis as regards this discussion, then sure, go ahead, discuss Davis. But if the South had won then Davis, Lee and Jackson would obviously have been heroes of the new Southern nation. How do you reason that because the South lost that they aren't still heroes of the conquered nation?What I understand so far of what you've said about Davis is that you believe Davis was a worse "white supremacist" than Lee or Jackson, but you can't explain why, and that he committed "despicable acts," but you won't explain what. Not very persuasive. I'm not forgetting that you offered up some facts, such as that Davis owned over 100 slaves, but you ignored my attempts to engage with you about it. If that's the best we can do then that's fine, but we must never forget the importance of remembering history. Moving historical artifacts out of in situ should always be a reluctant alternative. Some of any group are bastards, including the North, it's inevitable. There was nothing special about Southerners in this regard. I can see that your lack of objectivity is determined, persistent and unapologetic. I agree about the false veneer of respectability that the Lost Cause perspective constructed around slavery, but not on any general opinion that contemporary views always trump older ones.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not in general, no. I can agree with that. But with respect to looking back in slavery in the south, I think the jury went home long ago.

Glad I finally convinced you.¹--Percy¹How do *you* like it?

I suppose I've missed a joke, but this point is something on which we can agree without either of us changing our positions in this thread.I was kinda hoping we could end on a high note. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Did you see my Message 188?

Oh, yes. It was right on the mark and seemed to help.I don't know if we're at a breaking point in the discussion or at the end, but a summary seems appropriate. As I put it in the OP, "We can't let PC gone wild cause us to destroy the tangible memories of our nations past." PC should not drive which history we preserve. Any political strategy that works encourages its use, and the more we give in to the politics of being offended the more claims of being offended we'll see. It simply isn't possible to offend no one. It's a nice goal, but not a very realistic one. The only way to avoid offense is to do nothing.Many people disagreed, the central objection I think being that a public has a right to not be offended, especially if its a majority of the public. The most thought provoking objection came from Caffeine about Communist monuments in Eastern Europe, i.e., the monuments of conquerors over the vanquished.Though much of the discussion was about who was worthy of memorializing, it was tangential to the main topic.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

That slavery was wrong was never in dispute, but your response implied I had taken an opposing position. If you were just seeking to note a point of agreement you sure expressed it funny. Ending on a high note would not disguise what went before. If you're done then you're leaving with a lot of unanswered questions, but what has become the greater question for me is why our discussions never end well, despite what I assume are resolves on both sides to make it come out better "this time."--Percy

Percy, I think after a long debate, full of trading of blows, you've found a bit more in my post that I intended. I understand of course, that your position never was about your own view of slavery, but about how to view the South in light of their culture. I've acknowledged that explicitly at least once that I can recall.I'll except the blame for the phrasing. Defending it would require repeating arguments that are not going to change either of our opinions. I know that. But I still don't see much point in continuing. If I provided a list of reasons why I think Davis or Forrest were justifiably to be considered 'bastards' would that change your mind about them or would it just drawn more comments about my 'lack of objectivity'? It isn't even correct that I've only demonstrated that Davis was a racist, white supremacists, slave owner. For Davis himself, I've also mentioned a few reasons in passing (not just his generic white supremacy) including his proclamations with regard to the handling of black POWs, his published post war memoirs defending slavery in the South and promulgating a false history for the war. I could list more if it was worthwhile to do so, but it really isn't. For Forrest, I've already provided some details even though I left you to link them to Forrest. Those two examples ought to be enough to support my claim that some of these folks were bastards.For Forrest, Jackson, and Lee, at least some folks might point to their legendary war success as reasons to respect them. I've even bought into that narrative to some extent, although some of it is again inflated by lost Cause folks who blame Lee's failures all on any scapegoat they can find. Heck, we might even consider Rommel a war hero despite his cozy relationship with Hitler. But according to you Davis was just an ineffectual nothing. He does not get that cover and you haven't given him any other.Maybe that suggests why I think the record is okay as it stands. I'm sure there are plenty of misunderstandings, and mis-statements of positions throughout the debate, but they are surely not all by just one of us. I assume that the record, as it sits, accurately reflects the discussion, and more discussion is not going to change anyone's mind.If you can find some way to advance the debate, I'll consider rejoining it, but for now there seems little point.

Your only mention to me of black POWs during the Civil War was in your Message 72 in reference to Nathan B. Forrest (whose name you didn't provide and which I had to look up), not Jefferson Davis. Now that you mention a proclamation I was able to find what you're talking about (Proclamation by the Confederate President). It seems to support two conclusions:

1. In treating black POWs and their white officers as perpetrators of a slave revolt (meaning the death penalty) instead of as combatants Jefferson Davis was guilty of what we would today call war crimes - I don't know the attitude about such things back then.
   ​
2. Such harsh treatment to keep slaves obedient would seem to give the lie to Lost South views of slavery, since if being a slave were such a balm threats of beatings and death wouldn't be necessary, but this again goes back to the times. Beatings and capital punishment were common penalties for more than just disobedient or runaway slaves.

These are issues we could have discussed had you mentioned that proclamation, but if you don't to tell me your evidence and rationale I can't guess them and am not supposed to have to. Were this and his proclamation his "despicable acts?" Even if we were talking about Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot I couldn't agree with "bastards" as an objective or precise classification, just like "evil." Use of emotionally laden terms indicates a lack of objectivity. Many call the guy who cut them off in traffic a bastard - of what possible use is the term? Cozy? More like extremely well regarded by Hitler for his military skill - "cozy" is not a term I'd use. Rommel was a contradictory figure, his actual feelings vis-a-vis the Nazis and Hitler still argued among historians. Had Germany won his military deeds would have made him a war hero. By what logic could you argue that since Germany lost he was not a war hero? I wasn't giving Davis "cover." I was noting the lack of anything specific from you differentiating him from most other Southerners. Through too much of this thread your approach has been, "If Percy doesn't already know why I feel this way, I'm not telling him." When I said, in effect, "You've provided no evidence," I was not providing cover for Davis - I was telling you you'd given me nothing specific to consider. Probably no one cares about the record but us. Certainly no one's free of error, but there also has to be a determination to avoid error and correct error. On this it doesn't feel like we see things the same way. And it seems very odd for you to decide the discussion has gone as far as it can while on the one hand leaving unaddressed so many questions, and on the other finally providing some missing arguments so often requested.--Percy

I mentioned the proclamation during the discussion. It may not have been in a post to you. I did mention directly to you Davis role in defending slavery in justifying the war and session and I am pretty sure I mentioned his writings on the causes of the civil war.It appears that continuing this discussion continues to generates a poor result and at least some of that is on you. It is not just me. If you can find a way around that, I'll rejoin.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It wasn't in a post to me. It was in a post to Bluegenes that didn't even mention Davis's name, just asked the cryptic questions, "How did Washington feel about black POWs taken in war? Did he make any proclamations regarding them?" That's the way you've run through most of this thread, dropping hints of evidence and argument while rarely actually providing them. Yep, that's what it was, a mention. Don't recall it, but if it was just another drive-by mention then it's not worth tracking down. Let's just say that if henceforth we both provide evidence and rationale for our positions without playing coy, and if we refrain from making false characterizations of the other's statements, and if we don't make false accusations, and if we don't confuse this thread with other threads, and if we avoid emotionally laden terms as if they proved anything, then I just have to keep on keeping on while you have a lot of changes to make.--Percy

Your statement is accurate. However the context is that I was comparing Davis to Washington. It is correct that I did not provide a pointer to the data, but on the other hand, I am referring to well documented history that folks somewhat familiar with Civil war history mostly already know. That's fine, but to what end would be such a discussion?I don't believe a documentation that Davis did a bunch of things I judge to be bad gets to the point of our disagreement. No matter how I document what I consider Davis bad behavior, those details seem close to orthogonal to your position that 1) post war Southerners consider him to be a hero, that the Lost Cause version of history should to be celebrated/displayed regardless of just about anything even if it does amount to state supported offense to some folk. Well, yeah, I agree that they were Southern heroes and nothing bad that they did to slaves, or POWs or anyone else will change that. In fact, some people love him for those things. In fact, it seems to me that any negative judgment I make on any basis will just result in your saying 'that isn't the time and place' in which Davis lived.Seriously. I enjoy discussing civil war, and reconstruction era history. But this does not seem to be discussion in which those kinds of facts are of value. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.