PC Gone Too Far

My first reply was growing long, so I'm posting another reply to address the last part of your message. It wasn't a different question, but neither was it a cut-n-paste. Not a problem, good discussion follows. The term "evil" is the one at the center of contention. Also, the grammar left me stranded a couple times, but I think I get the gist. But that's just saying that judging Southerners evil because they embraced and defended slavery will help us avoid embracing and defending slavery. A more useful and general lesson would be that we should reject things that are evil. But as I've said, I have a problem with the term "evil" because it is subjective.And it isn't just "evil" that's subjective - so is "wrong" and "morally wrong." These are not timeless concepts. Not so long ago homosexuality was "evil" and "morally wrong" - everyone "knew" this. In many parts of the world they still "know" this. Even though you used the term "evil," I can see what you're saying and agree. I think that understanding the mind set, not just of individuals but of cultures, is important. Knowing when someone has embraced evil has as little meaning or significance as knowing when someone has been taken over by the Devil. I assume few do evil while feeling they're doing evil. And for sure Southern attitudes about slavery are a cautionary tale, but it isn't, "I better not embrace slavery." It's questions like, "Is anything objectively right or wrong?" and "How do I know I'm doing right, or if it only feels right because I'm surrounded by people who also think it right?" Are you sure that efforts at national reconciliation in the 1920s were driven by pragmatism, and not by an understanding since lost that both sides were helpless actors in a play set in motion before the Constitution was even written? Honest, sure, but what about objective? Isn't that important, too? Telling the truth about our feelings and giving our best efforts at objective analysis are two different things. While I don't think the interpretation of history is ever complete, I largely agree with the rest. The particulars of the rationalizations of either side are unimportant for this discussion. What's important, for one example, is a better understanding of how pressures of undesired change force rationalization and resistance, not capitulation.--Percy

I'm not sure why you're going off in this direction now, but you *did* provide a rationale for calling Southerners evil. You said, "If the truth is that they embraced evil, that... means it is accurate to...so judge them." Since you call slavery evil and since the South embraced it, that's a rationale for calling Southerners evil. There's no ambiguity. But you provided no answer for the question: What is the value of judging Southerners evil? If it's not "avoid embracing slavery" then what is it? And if that is the answer, then of what value is it? None.An answer of true value is one you hinted at later that involves developing an understanding of the people, the place and the period. How is it that you can so consistently misstate our points of agreement? We do *not* agree "that their rationale is not a justification." That issue is orthogonal to this discussion. What I did say was that the details of their particular justifications are not what's important to this discussion, because inventing rationalizations is just what people do when pressured to come up with reasons. There's no reason we should care (for the purposes of this discussion) about the details of their inventions, on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line. What's important is, as just stated above, to develop a better understanding of the people, the place and the period. We disagree here, too. First, history is not a process of judging historical peoples so that we can decide whether to "excuse their behavior." Second, while in other threads their justifications might be worth discussing, such particulars do not seem relevant to this one. I'm still seeking your "justification" for making moral judgments on historical peoples. Your reasons so far seem invented, hollow, and transparently driven by your strong belief that judging Southerners of the past "evil" justifies treating badly those who today take pride in that heritage. Your words are fairly dripping with, "They deserve it." You *are* telling the truth about your feelings, but that's all accusations of "evil" are. You are not engaging in objective analysis. This discussion won't really make good progress until you finally address this question. Why do you think you're doing anything meaningful or useful by applying moral judgments to history?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix miswording.

Clipping the quote to hide the original context doesn't change reality. The original question was, "If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we?" (The full Lincoln quote appears in Message 277.) Your answer has nothing to do with the question. So far in this thread it's just you and NoNukes who want to ignore Lincoln's words: "They are just what we would be in their situation." Again, you're still declaring it, not showing it. This is just an empty rationalization for what you want to do anyway. No. NoNuke's efforts to condemn a people as "evil" is the "hate" referred to. Lincoln's character led him away from such mistakes. The assertion that, "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically unviable," was made by Ringo in Message 228. I thought he was wrong, and you seem to think so, too. If you mean the monument in Louisville, then no, it is incorrect to state that it "directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War." I quoted the words on the monument in Message 102. Claimed but not described, so yes, go on. Lincoln's words survive today because they contain timeless truths. Lincoln's position was deep and personal and not just part of a public face.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor clarification, fix punctuation.

A few points.If the vanilla Louisville monument "connotes slavery" then can there be any Confederate monuments/memorials that don't? A criteria that includes everything isn't much of a criteria.And doesn't your phrase "automatically connotes slavery" actually describe just a sense of how many people think "slavery" when they see a monument?And what is wrong with "connoting slavery." It's not endorsing slavery. Remembrances of history are important and good - all history. We can't limit ourselves to monuments/memorials that only bring to mind the parts of our history that make us feel good. But you said the distinction was that individual monuments don't speak of causes and motivations while collective monuments do. I showed that for both cases, some do and some don't. The distinction you claim doesn't seem to exist.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typos.

This exchange between you and Xongsmith hints that my views may be misunderstood, so I'll clarify that my views are similar to one you just expressed, though I'm not sure I would characterize the other side as iconoclastic. If anyone's attacking the cherished institution of Northern judgments of Southern wickedness it's me, particularly when used to justify diminution of the historical record.--Percy

There's an inconsistency in the analogy between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany. The Nazis were a political party and Germany the country, so I wouldn't think monuments to the German army of WWII mention the Nazis (though they do mention the SS). The Confederacy, like Germany, was a country, so that's the name that appears on monuments and memorials. Is your argument that monuments/memorials shouldn't mention the word "Confederacy" because it connotes slavery? If so, how should the Confederacy be referred to? Whatever word you choose it will refer to the same people, place and period and will still connote slavery. If that's how history chooses to interpret memorials to the Confederacy, that they're whitewashing history, then that's fine. Whether whitewashing or not, we don't want to wipe out its record. But the lesson of those words is to not be seduced by our own conceits. In our analysis of history we must not become so self-enamored that we stop analyzing and begin sitting in judgment. To clarify, I'm not in favor of *building* monuments to the SS or ISIS, but for those that already exist neither am I in favor of removing them. One of the unfortunate results of the Civil War and the World Wars was that they provided clear villains, leading too many laypeople to take a view of history in terms of good versus evil. That's not a useful way to look at history. I think you've skipped a step. Your claim was that monuments to individuals say little about their cause, but your justification was about tombstones, and I agreed that tombstones says little, but pointed out that we're talking about monuments, not tombstones. You didn't answer. I don't think the distinction you claim between monuments to individuals versus monuments to groups exists.--Percy

I'm not changing it, just describing it. When it comes to claiming Lincoln was wrong, it's just you and NoNukes. It's absurd to claim things like cessation of raising a Confederate flag represents agreement with you that Lincoln was wrong. Evidently not. No one would agree with you more than Lincoln, but no one is infallible or God, and I understand this is actually just a plea to consider the possibility that Lincoln could be wrong. Of course I'm considering the possibility, but your arguments must stand on their own merits, and so far they seem like a lot of, "We should let hotter heads prevail." Hotter heads almost never know better. Again, evil is a subjective and relative term and not very useful as a historical tool. As I said to NoNukes, in many places and times homosexuality was considered "evil," and in many places still is. No one in this thread is championing the glorification of Southern slavery. If we're championing anything it's the preservation of history. Yes, I understand, you believe we should stand up for what we believe and hold others accountable who don't believe the same things, because we know better than they do, because we're us and they're them, because the reasons we've invented are better than the one's they've invented, and this makes them evil. And now it is time for us to sit in judgment and wreak vengeance upon them by removing the cherished remembrances of their lost past, which if they weren't evil they would know better than to cherish. Good question. Answering such questions to bring us closer to understanding is one of the true purposes of history.Maybe you think Lincoln was saying something different than he was. I think we already agree that Lincoln was not saying that slavery wasn't wrong. On this he was unceasingly unequivocal throughout his life. And he wasn't saying that the South wasn't wrong in embracing and perpetuating slavery, because he was clear on that also. He was saying that he couldn't sit in judgment of the South, or to use the term you and NoNukes prefer, he couldn't judge them evil. As Lincoln said:

quote:

---

"They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up."

---

If we deny this, we definitely do not know better.--Percy

The argument isn't that the Confederacy doesn't connote slavery. We can even assume for the sake of argument that the Confederacy absolutely *does* connote slavery, it doesn't affect the argument, which is this: If the Confederacy *does* connote slavery, and if there should be no memorials or monuments connoting slavery, then isn't this an argument against having any Confederate monuments or memorials at all? What kind of criteria is it that rules out everything? Yes, indeed. I think it's possible we agree more than you think. I don't think we agree on everything, but I'm not saying some of the things you think I'm saying. Are only Confederate monuments expressing regret allowed? This discussion is not about creating new monuments. The monument from the OP is around 120 years old. Nobody's doing that. I just don't believe judgments of evil have any value in historical analysis.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Your issue was originally that the term shouldn't "connote slavery," but now you're changing it to, "Well, okay, it can connote slavery as long as it adheres to these other unreasonable conditions." It's hard to take you seriously. I don't think I've ever put it that way, that we shouldn't judge history, so you might have mistaken my meaning. I think subjective judgments like "evil" have no historical value. When analyzing motivations, on either side, useful answers aren't packaged in words like "good" and "evil".--Percy

Xongsmith just posted a song, here's another, this one a bit older than "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down." The words were written at the beginning of the Civil War in reaction to Union Army efforts to travel through Baltimore on their way to Washington, D.C. It's sung to the tune of "O Tannenbaum". The song is "Maryland, My Maryland", Maryland's state song:

1. The despot's heel is on thy shore,
   Maryland!*
   His torch is at thy temple door,
   Maryland!
   Avenge the patriotic gore
   That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
   And be the battle queen of yore,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
2. Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
   Maryland!
   My mother State! to thee I kneel,
   Maryland!
   For life and death, for woe and weal,
   Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
   And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
3. Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
   Maryland!
   Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
   Maryland!
   Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
   Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
   And all thy slumberers with the just,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
4. Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,
   Maryland!
   Come with thy panoplied array,
   Maryland!
   With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
   With Watson's blood at Monterey,
   With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
5. Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,
   Maryland!
   Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
   Maryland!
   Come to thine own anointed throng,
   Stalking with Liberty along,
   And chaunt thy dauntless slogan song,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
6. Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
   Maryland!
   Virginia should not call in vain,
   Maryland!
   She meets her sisters on the plain-
   "Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
   That baffles minions back amain,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
7. I see the blush upon thy cheek,
   Maryland!
   For thou wast ever bravely meek,
   Maryland!
   But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
   From hill to hill, from creek to creek-
   Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
8. Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
   Maryland!
   Thou wilt not crook to his control,
   Maryland!
   Better the fire upon thee roll,
   Better the blade, the shot, the bowl,
   Than crucifixion of the soul,
   Maryland! My Maryland!
   ​
9. I hear the distant thunder-hum,
   Maryland!
   The Old Line's bugle, fife, and drum,
   Maryland!
   She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
   Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
   She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
   Maryland! My Maryland!

Unlike the monument of the OP, isn't this song truly glorifying of the Southern cause? Shouldn't Maryland change their state song?--Percy

That's not what we were talking about, but never mind. Yes, I remember your position. No one in this thread is proposing whitewashing anyone into heroes. What has been proposed is preserving history, which requires understanding the principles of history and the importance of at least attempting objective analysis. Historical preservation includes the history of expressions of public sentiment recorded in monuments. I've objected to the term evil because it is subjective. It is not a timeless concept, and it can vary across time and space. My preferred term for slavery, "morally wrong," has the same problem. In case you're not reading my other posts I'll repeat what I said earlier about homosexuality, that in many places and times homosexuality was considered "evil," and in many places still is. The term "evil" as an historical assessment of anything, be it practices or peoples, slavery or the antebellum South, has no value.--Percy

I couldn't, no, but that's not why I posted about it. I was just calling attention to words that actually do glorify the South, as opposed to the words on the monument of the OP. I wonder if there are any Confederate monuments anywhere that even approach the depth and intensity of Southern passion in that song.On the other hand, if the song ever is changed it would be nice if it were for good reasons. Changing Maryland's state song would have no impact on the historical record, but if not a record it is at least a reminder of history. One has to wonder what the heck they were thinking when they made it the state song. Was it sung regularly back then, so familiar people no longer heard the words? Was there a rebirth of Southern feeling?--Percy

As changing it wouldn't affect the historical record, a good reason would be that the song no longer generally reflects public sentiment. Or that there's little point in having a state song that is so little heard. Georgia's state song is heard everyday all across America.I still like the song as a reminder of history. Just a couple months before the troops Lincoln passed through Baltimore by train in the dead of night on the way to his inauguration, the planned daytime stops canceled due to fear of assassination attempts.--Percy

It was Message 48, and that was part of a much longer argument: What is it you think was different between the soldiers of the North and South? If it's that Southern soldiers were evil then you are making subjective judgments that have no historical value. Southern soldiers didn't fight because they were evil any more than Northern soldiers fought because they were good. No, what has been proposed is to look at history unjudgmentally, not uncritically. Saying that Southerners were evil because they embraced and defended slavery is to look at history judgmentally, and that has no utility or value. Saying that Northerners believed slavery evil and that it was crucial that it not spread is to look at history critically. Saying that Southerners regarded slavery a blessing for both races and the foundation for a uniquely rewarding way of live as well as a key economic factor is to look at history critically. The lesson of the Civil War is not, "Slavery is evil." We don't need the Civil War to tell us that, just as we didn't need a war to teach us that homophobia is wrong. The Civil War's lessons are both more subtle and more powerful. It has to do with the nature of men and almost nothing to do with good or evil.--Percy

But if it were not the Maryland State Song I would never have heard of it. And apparently in 1939 when the song was adopted as the Maryland State Song. What the heck was going on in Maryland in 1939? When I said, "I like the song as a reminder of history," that's what I meant. I *like* history. My question about what was going on in Maryland in 1939 wasn't rhetorical - I'd really like to know. The song itself is now embedded in history beyond its role in the Civil War and the aftermath. Obscure history, true, but history nonetheless. Since the question concerns PC, I have to assume that a "substantially large portion of the state" does not mean a majority of the state, because PC has no value in majority situations. PC is used in minority political situations to influence the majority to act in their favor.Naturally I would urge resistance to any PC component of public sentiment, but even if all of the "substantially large portion of the state" were offended and did not want the song to be the state song then since I'm not in favor of any tyranny of the majority I would hope a dialogue could begin and a reasonable compromise worked out.--Percy