|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
Ownership of slaves is not relevant. Dying for the right to own slaves is.
And most of them wouldn't actually have owned slaves, which brings us back to the sub-thread title. Washington did. bluegenes writes:
You're making my point. By Percy's logic, changing the name would be "losing history". If THEY choose to change the name or if THEY choose to move a monument, that's THEIR decision. I support their right to do it and loss of history be damned.
It's easy to change a name, so why don't they? bluegenes writes:
I have never advocated dynamiting anything. Take your strawman elsewhere.
One thing that could easily be dynamited.... bluegenes writes:
MY point is that THEIR reason is none of YOUR business.
My point is that disagreeing with the ideology of people who are commemorated in some way isn't a reason to take down monuments or change names. bluegenes writes:
Read the thread. I have made a distinction between individual monuments and collective monuments. If George wants to move great great granda's gravestone, I'm okay with that. And if the citizens of Louisville want to move a monument to all of the Confederate war dead, I'm okay with that too. It's all about who owns the monument.
We also have monuments to Charles 1st and Cromwell....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
The question is not whether or not slavery was profitable. It's whether or not the slavery supporters thought it was worthwhile. It wasn't just about cash. It was about Cavaliers, Gallantry, Knights and their Ladies Fair.
One would expect economically unviable approaches to be quickly outcompeted and to disappear on their own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: By Percy's logic, changing the name would be "losing history". I'm already on record here arguing the opposite.
Read the thread. Good idea. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I was just making the point that Kentucky had a very southern culture even though it didn't leave the Union. Thanks for bearing with me.
You're in North Carolina. It's named after Charles I. He was a monarch and an imperialist. Amongst many other things, he ruled over a growing empire with a growing slave trade. It was legal. He sold the African slave trading rights to a group of London merchants around 1632. Obviously, I don't hold the most extreme position on monuments etc. Primarily what I am insisting on is that people who do make requests to move a monument may have a legitimate beef; one that is at least as legitimate as are complaints of those who oppose moving a particular monument. As far as what they call North Carolina, I personally could not care less what they call this state or any other. That may be partially based on the fact that I am a transplant to the south and then to NC. But I think the more important issue is that I have far more of a commitment and my country that I do to any state, and much more of a commitment to my city than to North Carolina. I suppose I'd need a new Driver's Licence?
Raleigh N.C. is named after an English imperialist, and Charlotte is named after George IIIs wife. Name changes? No feelings whatsoever about that. On the other hand, one might ask how did I feel when the Atlanta Braves (I identify more with Atlanta than my current residence) decided to dispense with Chief Knock-a-homa. I was pretty happy about that.
Why, when you look at an old statue, do you feel the need to agree with the ideology of those it represents or of those who erected it? I don't feel any such need. The actual feeling I get from looking at a statue of Davis is more along the lines of disgust. It would make me wonder about the feelings and opinions of the folks around me if a statute of Davis were prominently displayed in the city square. But I've never asked anyone to move any statue or to deface any carving. But I do understand the feelings of people who react differently. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm already on record here arguing the opposite. Yes, you have made that argument. However you are also on record as having complained about the renaming of buildings in message 11 of this thread. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
The question is not whether or not slavery was profitable. One would expect economically unviable approaches to be quickly outcompeted and to disappear on their own. I agree that wasn't your question to me. It was my question to you. How could the statement that "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically viable" possibly be true?
It's whether or not the slavery supporters thought it was worthwhile. It wasn't just about cash. It was about Cavaliers, Gallantry, Knights and their Ladies Fair. Just how does one do this for decade after decade while losing money? That "The industrialization of the North was largely what won the war" I doubt many would have a problem with, but that "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically viable" seems doubtful. My original point, the one you responded to in Message 228, was that slavery was "a lynchpin of the Southern economy whose removal would cause its collapse." It does seem reasonable to hold that at a minimum slavery was "economically viable," but could it be effectively argued that it wasn't a lynchpin? I suppose. The consensus seems to be that slaves were more profitable than indentured servants, but less and less so over time. Was this a trend the South was aware of at the time, was it significant, and could the South rely upon it continuing? Accepting affirmative answers would form part of an argument for how the North was not significantly responsible for placing the South in an untenable position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: Message 226 What distinction? The important fact is that they supported slavery. The monument happens to be to the ones who died. ringo writes: Ownership of slaves is not relevant. Dying for the right to own slaves is. Slave owners support slavery.
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: Louisville is in Jefferson county, named after Thomas who was perhaps the best known slave owning hypocrite of all time! It's easy to change a name, so why don't they? You're making my point. By Percy's logic, changing the name would be "losing history". If THEY choose to change the name or if THEY choose to move a monument, that's THEIR decision. I support their right to do it and loss of history be damned. I'm not making your point. Mine was that it would be inconsistent to move the monument on ideological grounds without also changing the name of the county.
ringo writes: I have never advocated dynamiting anything. Take your strawman elsewhere. I didn't say you had, did I? But surely consistency demands that you would be just as supportive of the idea of dynamiting the Jefferson Davis obelisk as you are being of the idea of moving the Louisville monument?
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: My point is that disagreeing with the ideology of people who are commemorated in some way isn't a reason to take down monuments or change names. MY point is that THEIR reason is none of YOUR business. You seem to have made it your business to try to defend their reasoning, not just their right to action.
ringo writes: Read the thread. I have made a distinction between individual monuments and collective monuments. If George wants to move great great granda's gravestone, I'm okay with that. And if the citizens of Louisville want to move a monument to all of the Confederate war dead, I'm okay with that too. It's all about who owns the monument. The thread isn't about who owns the monument, it's about the reasons given for moving it. Had they been moving it because it was unstable and a danger to passing traffic, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: The actual feeling I get from looking at a statue of Davis is more along the lines of disgust. An interesting line of thought for you might be that if J. Davis and the confederate armies hadn't been what they were and done what they did, you wouldn't exist.
NoNukes writes: It would make me wonder about the feelings and opinions of the folks around me if a statute of Davis were prominently displayed in the city square. If it was new, and they'd put it up, I can certainly understand that. That's why the flying of confederate flags by living people is a very different issue from the actions of the long dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ringo writes:
I'm just going by Message 11 where you said that renaming buildings is tantamount to pretending history didn't happen as it did.
Percy writes:
I'm already on record here arguing the opposite. By Percy's logic, changing the name would be "losing history".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
As I said, profitability is not an issue. People cling to a lot of things that are not economically viable. It's ridiculous to pretend that it's impossible. You may disagree that it's true but at least try to understand that it's possible.
How could the statement that "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically viable" possibly be true? Percy writes:
We have a local joke: How do you run a successful small business in Saskatchewan? Start with a big one. Just how does one do this for decade after decade while losing money? It is possible to lose money. It may not be possible to keep losing money forever.
Percy writes:
When slavery was removed, the economy didn't collapse. There was certainly a downturn caused by the horrendous cost of the war and the predation of the carpetbaggers but not by the loss of slavery. That economy recovered and thrives today without slavery.
My original point, the one you responded to in Message 228, was that slavery was "a lynchpin of the Southern economy whose removal would cause its collapse."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
blugenes writes:
Your bare link conveys no information.
Message 226 bluegenes writes:
The monument is to people who died for slavery. Ownership of slaves is not relevant.
Slave owners support slavery. bluegenes writes:
First, who cares about consistency? Mine was that it would be inconsistent to move the monument on ideological grounds without also changing the name of the county. Second, the grounds for moving the monument don't matter. People have a right to move their own monuments. They can move it because it blocks their view of the moon if they want to. Third, you can move a monument to storage. You can't move a county.
bluegenes writes:
Of course not. What a silly thing to say. If I support moving something, how does that suggest, in the wildest ravings of your imagination, that I support dynamiting anything?
But surely consistency demands that you would be just as supportive of the idea of dynamiting the Jefferson Davis obelisk as you are being of the idea of moving the Louisville monument? bluegenes writes:
The reasons for moving it are dependent on the owners. If it was owned by the Daughters of the Confederacy or the Ku Klux Klan we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it appears to be owned by the people of Louisville and they have decided to move it. The principles of democracy allow them to do that for whatever damn reason they please.
The thread isn't about who owns the monument, it's about the reasons given for moving it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
An interesting line of thought for you might be that if J. Davis and the confederate armies hadn't been what they were and done what they did, you wouldn't exist. It is an amusing line of thought, I suppose. I might also consider that if the Nazi's were not what they were, Israel might not exist today. Where does such an argument lead?
If it was new, and they'd put it up, I can certainly understand that. That's why the flying of confederate flags by living people is a very different issue from the actions of the long dead. Not an unreasonable opinion, I think, but I think complaints about these statutes are quite common and in many cases there have been modern requests to move these things for reasons similar to the ones discussed here. As an example the Mississippi state flag includes a confederate flag despite a referendum to remove it, because the folks in the state voted overwhelmingly to keep it. A similar referendum also failed in Georgia, but eventually the flag was redesigned. I would expect that if a statute of Jefferson Davis was sitting in the middle of town, that folk want it there. My reasoning may not apply to huge objects like that 350 foot monument to Davis you brought up or to the carving on Stone Mountain. But I think it does apply to 'eye sore' type statutes in the middle of town. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
ringo writes: I'm just going by Message 11 where you said that renaming buildings is tantamount to pretending history didn't happen as it did. You're right, that sounds like it contradicts my later statements (about not having any problem with renaming Cape Kennedy or a school named for Nathan Bedford Forrest). That post was over a month ago and I'm not sure why I said that, though I do have a vague recollection of some absurd building renaming effort, maybe it was an indirect reference to that. In any case, I don't have much problem with renaming individual buildings - happens all the time. Oh, wait, I remember now, it *was* a reference to something in the news. Last year Georgetown University announced that they would rename a couple buildings named for school presidents who had gone against the school charter when they sold University owned slaves in the 1830's, and the NYT had an analysis article around the time I wrote. The buildings had held the names of McSherry and Mulledy for well over a century, and after all this time the building names themselves have passed into history. I would prefer an approach where they put plaques on the lawn or in the foyer describing the historical context. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: Your bare link conveys no information. As it was a link to one of your posts, I'm tempted to agree. The post contained this:
ringo writes: The important fact is that they supported slavery. "They" being those commemerated by the Louisville monument. Which led to this:
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: Slave owners support slavery. The monument is to people who died for slavery. Ownership of slaves is not relevant. Supporting slavery is the important fact for you, and I was merely pointing out the obvious. That's something that slave owners do.
ringo writes: First, who cares about consistency? You've been defending the reasoning given for removing the monument, and you cannot defend reasoning without caring about consistency. So, the answer should include you.
ringo writes: Second, the grounds for moving the monument don't matter. You've been defending the ideological grounds given for moving it.
ringo writes: People have a right to move their own monuments. They can move it because it blocks their view of the moon if they want to. And anyone would be free to discuss that reason. That, however, isn't their reason, and this thread has been discussing the actual reason given.
ringo writes: Of course not. What a silly thing to say. If I support moving something, how does that suggest, in the wildest ravings of your imagination, that I support dynamiting anything? Controlled explosion is a way of moving a 350' concrete obelisk. I'm assuming you'd support the removal of all monuments to Jefferson Davis because of the views you've expressed on the importance of support for slavery. I could be wrong, of course, because you didn't seem to think much of the idea of taking down the Pyramids and the Taj Mahal. I was kindly assuming that there might be some consistency in your reasoning.
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: The thread isn't about who owns the monument, it's about the reasons given for moving it. The reasons for moving it are dependent on the owners. If it was owned by the Daughters of the Confederacy or the Ku Klux Klan we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it appears to be owned by the people of Louisville and they have decided to move it. The principles of democracy allow them to do that for whatever damn reason they please. The thread isn't about who owns the monument or about the principles of democracy, it's about the validity of the reasons given for moving the statue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
NoNukes writes: bluegenes writes: An interesting line of thought for you might be that if J. Davis and the confederate armies hadn't been what they were and done what they did, you wouldn't exist. It is an amusing line of thought, I suppose. I might also consider that if the Nazi's were not what they were, Israel might not exist today. Where does such an argument lead? We might end up as individuals considering all history that has occurred before our birth dates to be sacred.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024