PC Gone Too Far

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

I said similar. Feel free to make a substantive argument to the contrary. Got it in one, Sherlock. When I said I don't advocate moving monuments, I meant that I don't advocate moving monuments.

How about "rebels"? That's what they were and it doesn't pretend that they were a country equivalent to the Union. I've asked repeatedly: if we don't judge history, what's the point of remembering it? What's your answer?

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.

Ringo asks: I guess the easiest way is to note that how our society judges things CHANGES. The argument here, perhaps, is to recognize and preserve those historical items that cannot be changed, and thereby be able to judge them again and again with an evermore more modern perspective.BTW, this song, sung by the great Levon Helm of old dark Arkansas, is very pertinent:"The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"Virgil Kane is the name
And I served on the Danville train
'Till Stoneman's cavalry came
And tore up the tracks againIn the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so wellThe night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"Now, I don't mind chopping wood
And I don't care if the money's no good
You take what you need
And you leave the rest
But they should never
Have taken the very bestThe night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"Like my father before me
I will work the land
And like my brother above me
Who took a rebel standHe was just 18, proud and brave
But a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can't raise a Kane back up
When he's in defeatThe night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

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

There's no change. My position has always been that the rebels shoud be remembered for what they were - slavers and traitors - not whitewashed into heroes. I think slavery is clearly evil - and that pretending it isn't is just you being politicall correct.

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

Perhaps they should.Of course the song both glorifies the Southern cause and demonizes Lincoln to boot. The song is also considered very controversial for reasons similar to those given by folks who want to move Jefferson Davis monument. I'd be sympathetic to a request to to change the song. And I'm convinced that their requests are no more PC or "feelings based" than are the positions of those who want to keep the state song as it is.On the other hand, the governor of Maryland believes attempts to change the song are pure PC. The state song was picked in 1939. Can you make an argument that the song should continue to be Maryland's song based on a need to preserve history? And by argument, I mean something other than a mantra that any changes to any practice dating further back than say 60-70 years ago "erase history".Quote from Gov. Hogan

quote:

---

You can’t change history, and we’re not going to be able to rewrite history, Hogan told The Washington Post. And I don’t think we ought to be changing any of that.

---

The real result of the Maryland's state song being what it is, is that essentially nobody sings it. The song used to be taught to kids in school, but most likely that practice has not been continued. It was pointed out to me that my alma mater (US Naval Academy) sings the third verse of the song at the Preakness. That third verse contains references to folk from the revolutionary war period, and is reasonably patriotic.Perhaps we might ask what the purpose of a state song anyway?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

I think I look at things a little bit differently.The song itself was written by a Southener protesting the occupation of Maryland by Southern troops at the beginning of the civil war. In that respect, the song itself expresses the way folks felt at the time of the war, and in that regard the song is a recording of sentiment at the time. To that extent the song is history.However, an adoption of the song in 1939 by state officials is something else entirely, at least in 1939. It is an expression of solidarity with folks in a war that had ended almost 75 years prior; a war fought in the defense of slavery, with the expression and sentiment being expressed well after even reconstruction. I think we ought to question the motives behind adopting it as the state song in 1939. One might, and of course, I already have, express similar sentiments about a decision in the 1950s to complete a carving celebrating Jefferson Davis.What Took Maryland so Long? | History News Network

quote:

---

The despot is Abraham Lincoln, but the phrase patriotic gore is potentially even more problematic. In this, the song is praising the pro-Confederate Baltimore rioters who killed American soldiers and tried to take the state out of the nation. This is not patriotism to the United States but to the failed Confederacy.

---

Plenty to pick at in other verses. Right, because the fact that the adoption of the song is an embracing of treason and glorification of a riot are not already sufficient reason to change an official endorsement of a state song, where such endorsement presumably has no real purpose other than PR anyway. After all, as we have acknowledged, changing the status of the song would have no effect on the historical record. In fact, if somebody indicates that those kind of things (meaning the adoption as the state song) are offensive, well the need to avoid caving to political pressure from offended people is all the more reason to keep the song. After all, the song will still exist in the same places that it does. No one will be prevented from singing the song. The only thing we are talking about is a state identification with the song.I don't understand your position on this at all. What would constitute a good reason in your mind? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Oh my, forgive me here, but I am guilty of revising history in song, myself.
Here is an old civil war song called "The Last Fierce Charge": 'Twas just before the last fierce charge
Two soldiers drew their rein
With a touch of hands, and parting words
That they might not meet again

​

One had mild blue eyes and curly hair
Just nineteen years, you know
With rosy cheeks and childish brow
He was only a boy, you know

​

The other was tall, dark, daring, and proud
Whose faith in this world was dim
He only trusted most in them
Who were all the world to him

​

They'd rode together for many a day
And marched for many a mile
But ne'er until now had they met a foe
With a peaceful common smile

​

They looked in each other's eyes
In the face of an awful doom
And the tall dark man was the first to speak
Saying, "Charlie, my time has come"

​

"We'll ride together into the fight
But you'll ride back alone
Then promise a little more trouble to take
When I am dead and gone"

​

"I have a face upon my breast
I'll wear it into the fight
With deep blue eyes and goiden hair
A face like morning light"

​

"Like morning light 'twas love to me
To brighten my lonely life
And little I've cared for the flowers of this world
Since she promised to be my wife"

​

"Write to her, Charlie, when I'm gone
Send back this fair young face
Write and tell her how I died
And where is my resting place"

​

"Tell her I will meet her on the border line
Of earth and heaven between
I know she'll meet me over there
And it won't be long, I ween"

​

There were tears in the eyes of the blue-eyed boy
His voice was filled with pain
"I'll do my comrade's parting wish
If I ride home again"

​

"But if you ride back and I am left
Will you do as much for me?
For I have a mother to hear the news
Write to her tenderly"

​

"One after another she has lost
She has buried all her husband's sons
And I was the last to my country's call
But she cheeredly sent me on"

​

"She is waiting at home like a praying saint
Her fair face filled with woe
'Twill break her heart when she hears I'm dead
I'll meet her soon, I know"

​

Just then there came an order to charge
An instant hands touched hands
Eyes answered eyes, and away they dashed
That bold devoted band

​

They rode together to the brow of the hill
Where the soldiers were stationed well
Past clouds and drifts of burning shots
That cheered them as they fell

​

But they had to turn from the awful fight
That fight they could not gain
And all those whom death had spared
Rode quietly back again

​

But among those dying upon the field
Lay the boy with the curly hair
And the tall, dark man that rode by his side
Lay dying by him there

​

There is no one to write to that blue-eyed girl
Those words her lover said
And the mother that's waiting at home for her son
Will learn that he is dead

​

She ne'er will know his last fond words
To cheer her in her pain
Until she crosses the river of death
And stands by his side again=================================================The late Mike Seeger unearthed this and somewhere along the line by the time he showed it to Jerry Garcia, many of the 20 verses had been chucked. Bob Dylan recorded it on his World Gone Wrong album and by then the words were: He was just a blue-eyed Boston boy,
His voice was low with pain.
"I'll do your bidding, comrade mine,
If I ride back again.
But if you ride back and I am left,
You'll do as much for me.
Mother, you know, must hear the news,
So write to her tenderly.

​

She's waiting at home like a patient saint,
Her fond face pale with woe.
Her heart will be broken when I am gone,
I'll see her soon, I know."
Just then the order came to charge,
For an instant hand touched hand.
They said, "Aye," and away they rode,
That brave and devoted band.

​

Straight was the track to the top of the hill,
The rebels they shot and shelled,
Plowed furrows of death through the toiling ranks,
And guarded them as they fell.
There soon came a horrible dying yell
From heights that they could not gain,
And those whom doom and death had spared
Rode slowly back again.

​

But among the dead that were left on the hill
Was the boy with the curly hair.
The tall dark man who rode by his side
Lay dead beside him there.
There's no one to write to the blue-eyed girl
The words that her lover had said.
Momma, you know, awaits the news,
And she'll only know he's dead. ===========================================Now, I'm listening to this and I'm thinking that, hey?, A LOT is missing. After the usual googling around I found the longer version above - published in a Southern newspaper! This meant the the North had stolen the song and changed the perspective (Boston Boy, the rebels they shot & shelled) - talk about dusty museum warehouses, indeed.Well, all of that was too long, but to do what Jerry/Mike/Dylan had done was a disservice methinks, so I condensed all of that beginning stuff to this version, supplying a missing 1st verse: He rode to the boy with curly hair,
In urgency, stern and tall,
Saying "I have a kindness to ask of you,
If it's today I should fall.
You'll surely know of my own true love
From the letters kept next to my breast.
Tell her our love will forever live on
And tell her where I'm laid to rest."...which then glues onto the WGW version: He was just a blue-eyed Boston boy,
His voice was low with pain.
"I'll do your bidding, comrade mine,
If I ride back again.
But if you ride back and I am left,
You'll do as much for me.
Mother, you know, must hear the news,
So write to her tenderly.........etcso here I am falsifying history via the folk process....