|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
bluegenes writes: xongsmith writes: so....anyway - who here is arguing against the removal of this monument? i don't have the feeling that it is Percy. I think he's just observing history & saying we need to keep all the bad shit as well as all the good shit for reference. Me, because I'm against iconoclasm when applied to anything that could be regarded as "historical". 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: I think it would be difficult to mention the Confederacy without connoting slavery, just as it would be difficult to mention Nazi Germany without connoting genocide. 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.
Unfortunately for the whitewashers of history,.. 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.
...those thoughts and emotions change over time, which is why monuments don't always "say" what they were intended to say. "I am Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." We don't despair any more. 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.
Sure it is. A monument is built to show respect. You can't divorce respect for the soldiers from endorsement of the cause they died for. That's why you're not in favour of monuments to the SS or ISIS. 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.
Monuments are not the only history there is. We can preserve history just fine without preserving respect for the villains of history. 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.
Seriously? You're claiming that because there are some exceptions, no distinction exists? Because there's bluish-green and greenish-blue there's no distinction between blue and green? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rrhain writes: quote: Neither does your attempt to deny reality change it. 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.
My answer had everything to do with the question: How can we if Lincoln would not? Easy: Because we know better. Evidently not.
Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. 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.
But we still blame those who carried it out (and profited from it) because it is evil. 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.
And thus, we do not glorify those who would champion it and declare that their entire reason for existence is to perpetuate it. ... So why would we glorify slavery and those who claimed that the reason for their existence was the perpetuation of it? No one in this thread is championing the glorification of Southern slavery. If we're championing anything it's the preservation of history.
It seems we need to learn this lesson over and over again. We come to a point where we realize that something we used to do was monstrous and needs to stop...and then we pull up short and try to allow those who wish to continue to do so to save face, to allow for "differing opinions," to allow people to feel that they're not responsible rather than standing up for what's right and insisting that know, you're not allowed to do that anymore. 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.
And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Plenty of people were in their situation and weren't like that. If they could do it, why can't others? 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: If we deny this, we definitely do not know better. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
I said similar. Feel free to make a substantive argument to the contrary.
Enslavement and murder are not the same things, and slavery and genocide are far from being the same things. bluegenes writes:
Got it in one, Sherlock. When I said I don't advocate moving monuments, I meant that I don't advocate moving monuments.
... it seems as though you don't perceive the ideology or actions of people being commemorated as a reason for you yourself to advocate the removal of any monuments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How about "rebels"? That's what they were and it doesn't pretend that they were a country equivalent to the Union.
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. Percy writes:
I've asked repeatedly: if we don't judge history, what's the point of remembering it? What's your answer?
In our analysis of history we must not become so self-enamored that we stop analyzing and begin sitting in judgment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rrhain writes: Percy responds to ringo:
quote: No. What was the Confederacy about? What was their reason for existence? "State's rights"? The right to do what? 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?
quote: Indeed. 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.
But is the monument in question one of regret? Are only Confederate monuments expressing regret allowed?
But there is a difference between remembering our mistakes and creating monuments to help us understand what happened so that we might learn... This discussion is not about creating new monuments. The monument from the OP is around 120 years old.
...and acting like the reason why the people died has nothing to do with their deaths. Nobody's doing that. I just don't believe judgments of evil have any value in historical analysis. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Ringo asks:
I've asked repeatedly: if we don't judge history, what's the point of remembering it? What's your answer? 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 nameAnd I served on the Danville train 'Till Stoneman's cavalry came And tore up the tracks again In the winter of '65We were hungry, just barely alive By May the 10th, Richmond had fell It's a time I remember, oh so well The night they drove old Dixie downAnd 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 TennesseeWhen one day she called to me "Virgil, quick, come see, There goes Robert E. Lee!" Now, I don't mind chopping woodAnd 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 best The night they drove old Dixie downAnd 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 meI will work the land And like my brother above me Who took a rebel stand He was just 18, proud and braveBut 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 defeat The night they drove old Dixie downAnd 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 downAnd 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" - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How about "rebels"? That's what they were and it doesn't pretend that they were a country equivalent to the Union. 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. 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.
Percy writes:
I've asked repeatedly: if we don't judge history, what's the point of remembering it? What's your answer? In our analysis of history we must not become so self-enamored that we stop analyzing and begin sitting in judgment. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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:
Unlike the monument of the OP, isn't this song truly glorifying of the Southern cause? Shouldn't Maryland change their state song? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
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." Percy writes:
I think slavery is clearly evil - and that pretending it isn't is just you being politicall correct.
I think subjective judgments like "evil" have no historical value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
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. 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." 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.
Percy writes:
I think slavery is clearly evil - and that pretending it isn't is just you being politically correct. I think subjective judgments like "evil" have no historical value. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Unlike the monument of the OP, isn't this song truly glorifying of the Southern cause? Shouldn't Maryland change their state song? 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: 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. 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: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: Can you make an argument that the song should continue to be Maryland's song based on a need to preserve history? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. 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: Plenty to pick at in other verses.
On the other hand, if the song ever is changed it would be nice if it were for good reasons. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
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 chargeTwo 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 hairJust nineteen years, you know With rosy cheeks and childish brow He was only a boy, you know The other was tall, dark, daring, and proudWhose 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 dayAnd 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 eyesIn 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 fightBut 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 breastI'll wear it into the fight With deep blue eyes and goiden hair A face like morning light" "Like morning light 'twas love to meTo 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 goneSend 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 lineOf 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 boyHis 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 leftWill you do as much for me? For I have a mother to hear the news Write to her tenderly" "One after another she has lostShe 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 saintHer 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 chargeAn instant hands touched hands Eyes answered eyes, and away they dashed That bold devoted band They rode together to the brow of the hillWhere 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 fightThat fight they could not gain And all those whom death had spared Rode quietly back again But among those dying upon the fieldLay 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 girlThose 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 wordsTo 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 hillWas 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...... ...etc so here I am falsifying history via the folk process....- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024