PC Gone Too Far

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

In Message 41 you said that, "all soldiers are basically the same." You're absolving them of personal responsibility for their actions. Making all the hats white is whitewashing. What has been proposed is looking at history uncritically. That's the opposite of objectivity. Preserving history, or "remembering history", is necessarily selective. On the contrary, the only value in remembering history is to figure out - from our perspective - what is right and wrong, good and evil, etc. If we don't recognize the evils of slavery, we will be condemned to relive them in one form or another. If we don't recognize the evils of homophobia, we will be condemned to relive them in one form or another. In fact, we do keep reliving the evils of inequality over and over again with each new group because people like you want to cleanse history of all evil.

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

The song will always exist. If you like it, you are welcome to sing it, or to play any available recordings of it, or to perform it. The question here does not involve the existence of the song in any way, nor does it involve telling anyone not to sing the song. At most what will be affected is whatever gets played at events when the Maryland state song is appropriate. The question is solely whether Maryland might stop endorsing the song as the state song. The main reason that the song is so seldom played is likely tied up in the recognition of the offensive nature of the song. But apparently the song was extremely popular during the civil war. Probably because it was adopted after a famous Georgia resident bolstered the popularity of the song. A number of folks have recorded the song, but Ray Charles sang the most popular commercial version of the song. Georgia on My Mind's popularity is quite independent of its status as a state song. Few state songs have such popularity.Just so that I don't put words in your mouth, I would like to know if you are saying that what you like is that the song is Maryland's state song? If your current answer does not address that question, I'm asking you directly whether it is of some significance to you that the song is the Maryland state song and if you favor keeping the song as Maryland's state song. I'm going to take the risk involved with running this completely to ground. My intent here is to flesh out my interpretation of what constitutes PC according to you. If I'm out of line, just say so.If some black Maryland residents (or non Maryland residents for that matter) find the song offensive, those folks are announcing, at minimum, that the song does not reflect their sentiments, and surely those folks are a part of the public. Accordingly, such taking of offense would be the start of a discussion about sentiments in general. Other folks, of course, are free to claim that the song does reflect their sentiments or to just tell us they don't want to change history. Would communication of the fact that the song does not reflect the sentiments of a substantially large portion of the state be acceptable here or is it just PC?FWIW, I found the fact that the glee glub of my Alma Mater sings the song fairly embarrassing until it was pointed out to me that they only sing verse three. Yes, the school is based in Maryland's capitol (The students were moved to Rhode Island for the duration of the civil war), but the Naval Academy is a federal institution, and there is little reason for the school sing anti-Union lyrics as if they are still fighting the civil war. Just one persons opinion.I visited Virginia Military Institute with my son on one of his college visits, and I was quite surprised to find that the cadets there are immersed in a civil war motif in which the Yankee soldiers are the enemy.[1] If you want to find folks who (as best as I can tell) manage to completely divorce their their feelings about their military from the actual aims of the war, you can find such folks at VMI.[1] Interesting historical factoid: - In 1859 a contingent of 80 or so VMI cadets actually attended the execution of John Brown after the failed insurrection. A number of poorly prepared cadets were pressed into battles during the civil war mostly to tragic results.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I agree. That certainly is not the lesson. But it does not further follow that we can skip over evil and still understand the real lessons.Part of the lesson of the civil war is that despite the fact that slavery was evil, a bunch of folks seceded from the union and fought a war to preserve the institution. Yes it is important to know why that happened, but statutes of Jefferson Davis don't tell us anything about that, particularly if they are not accompanied by any reminders.There is simply no way to appreciate the story without recognizing slavery and the accompanying dehumanization as exactly what they are, and without recognizing the fervor with which that evil was embraced. We do indeed need to dig into the why and how that happened. But in the end, the real lesson is that those hows and whys must not be viewed as validation, because we don't want to repeat that history.

Percy responds to me:

quote:

---

'm not changing it, just describing it.

---

Inaccurately.

quote:

---

When it comes to claiming Lincoln was wrong, it's just you and NoNukes.

---

Logical error: Argumentum ad populum. Try again. NoNukes and I may be the only ones engaging you in this matter, but that doesn't mean we're the only ones. And, of course, none of that has any bearing on the veracity of the argument.

quote:

---

It's absurd to claim things like cessation of raising a Confederate flag represents agreement with you that Lincoln was wrong.

---

Non sequitur. Try again. The issues of the Confederate flag and Lincoln's words are separate things.

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words, you don't like being contradicted. You don't actually have an argument here other than, "Nuh-uh!" And your appeal to emotion ("hotter heads") is very telling.You're arguing like a creationist, Percy. Despite calm, rational arguments that show you to be wrong, you insist that those who contradict you are being emotional, and thus dismiss their argument.Try again.

quote:

---

Again, evil is a subjective and relative term and not very useful as a historical tool.

---

Ah, the theist argument about how atheists don't have morality. If there is no "objective" morality, then everything is allowed. And yet, atheists still have morality. The rules of Monopoly are completely subjective. They even change from one game to the next. One of the more common "house rules" is that any money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards as penalties is put under Free Parking. If you land there, you get any money that happens to be there. It's so popular that it's now an "official variant."But make no mistake, the rules are completely arbitrary and enforcement is subjective. And yet, they are still enforced. Break them and you'll incur penalties, perhaps as mild as taking it back to as severe as being kicked out and never invited back to play.Subjectivity is not the problem. And to deny the usefulness of recognizing evil is to do a disservice to history. Evil is more complex than you're comfortable with. History without any concept of how it affects people's lives is a simple recitation of facts.

quote:

---

No one in this thread is championing the glorification of Southern slavery.

---

What is the point of veneration of the Confederate dead? What was the point of the Confederacy?You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from an analysis of the Confederacy.

quote:

---

If we're championing anything it's the preservation of history.

---

And has anybody suggested the destruction of history? Don't tell me you're confusing dislike for the presentation of monuments that seek to attach a symbolism of pride and "heritage." It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.This is the exact same argument as the stupid "PC" complaint comedians make. That somehow, "we can't joke about that." No, you can, but you need to figure out how so that it doesn't come across as simply picking on someone or some group. That means you have to provide context. Everything can be funny given the right context.How many times do you have to be directly told that the problem is not the examination of the Confederacy? We have understanding how people managed to get into that position and even recognize "good" aspects of the period and yet still conclude that the whole is evil and not to be granted prominence.

quote:

---

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,

---

You're missing the most important point: Why? Why do we know better? What is it that we can see given the passage of time that they couldn't?

quote:

---

because the reasons we've invented are better than the one's they've invented

---

Incorrect. Try again.

quote:

---

And now it is time for us to sit in judgment and wreak vengeance

---

Logical error: Non sequitur. Judgement does not require "wreaking vengeance."Try again.

quote:

---

removing the cherished remembrances of their lost past

---

Slavery and white supremacy is something to cherish?You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from the analysis of it. It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.Notice how I have to repeat the same argument to you? You need to come up with a new argument, Percy. You keep repeating the same errors over and over again.

quote:

---

which if they weren't evil they would know better than to cherish.

---

I feel compelled to ask if you understand that a monument is not "evil." It's just a piece of stone or metal or whatever. It's the symbolism behind it that is. What is the symbolism of a monument to the Confederacy? What on earth was the Confederacy about?Slavery and white supremacy is something to cherish?You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from the analysis of it. It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.Notice how I have to repeat the same argument to you? You need to come up with a new argument, Percy. You keep repeating the same errors over and over again.

quote:

---

Answering such questions to bring us closer to understanding is one of the true purposes of history.

---

And you're refusing to consider the very obvious and justifiable answer: Evil. Evil is more complex than you want it to be.

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet, we can because they were. And it still exists to this day. We still haven't managed to get past the idea that people who aren't white are "less than." For crying out loud, cops in this country think they can just shoot black people and not have any consequences for doing it. The reason we have a Second Amendment is because of the threat of slave uprisings. We have a major party presidential candidate who made his candidacy based on a torrent of racism.How dare we make a value judgement as to why that's happening.

quote:

---

They are just what we would be in their situation.

---

And yet, that is trivially shown to be false. As mentioned, other people in the exact same situation weren't. To say that we would have been as them simply isn't true. Other countries abolished slavery. For crying out loud, we fought a war over it. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because Virginia seceded.We can understand why Lincoln was playing politics in trying to keep the nation together after a brutal war, allowing the losers a way to save face.And look what that refusal to confront the core issue has done. We still haven't managed to get past it. An entire region of the country quite literally lies about the Civil War and why it was fought.Lincoln was wrong.

I did. Slavery and genocide are far from being the same things, and certainly not similar. Domesticating wildfoul and exploiting them is in no way similar to wiping out the Dodo.Feel free to make a substantive argument to the contrary.At the time of the civil war, slaves in the United States far outnumbered the sum of those transported into the region from Africa between 1620 and 1825. The ratio may have been about 10:1. Good. The fact that you've been bending over backwards to portray the subjects of the Louisville monument in the worst possible light could be misleading to some, though, so I'm glad we've clarified that point.

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

Though slavery figures prominently in the story it is primarily a distraction when divining the fundamental causes of the Civil War. Slavery was a political, social and economic issue on which two halves of the country could not agree. Why? The answers transcend slavery, and only in seeking these answers can we begin to approach the true lessons of the Civil War.--Percy

In other words, it seems that you like history, but you cannot be bothered to actually find out the story behind these songs/monuments/artifacts. The park in Wilmington does not remind you of the Wilmington Massacre, the adoption of Stone Mountain monument by the state and the details behind that are not revealed by the carving, and you prefer that Maryland is saddled with an almost un-singable anthem to remind you of something that you cannot seem to articulate.ABE: flame removed... That clears things up nicely. Thanks. Naturally. "Unless the minority folk happen to be in favor of the Maryland state song being what it is. Then let's make sure their preferences are given appropriate weight."Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Apparently, the only way to learn history is to read the narrative put out by folks like the UDC, SCV, and Jefferson Davis after the war, and to ignore the things folks actually said and did. At least it seems that way if we have Percy to tell it.Slavery is only a distraction to those determined to overlook slavery as of any real importance in American History. But skipping over that bump in the road divorces the reality of slavery from the reality of today. There is simply no way to understand the current state of this nation after treating slavery as a mere distraction during your study of history. Among all of the rationale you've given so far for weighing history as you do, this particular one inspires pity. Has your argument really been reduced to this? We've gone from a disagreement about the relative importance of slavery, and how to view folks despite slavery, to an calling slavery a distraction from the real issues?Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a cooling down period...Yes there were other points of disagreement, but none of them actually provoked session and war as did those things which were a consequence of slavery. Good luck trying to defend that 'distraction' proposition rather than merely asserting it as you do here.Rather than accept your summarizing of the causes of the civil war in white washing fashion, let's see what actual historians say about the causes of the civil war.The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History - Google BooksFrom the Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History.

quote:

---

The assertion by the Lost Cause spokesmen of the insignificance of salvery in the section conflict seems outrageous and disingenuouse int he light of nineteeth-century American political history, of which Southern spokesman well and are aware. Although muted int he early years of thre United States, sectional slavery disagreement emerged full-blown prior to 1820 in connection with the issue of admitting Missouri to the Union. In the midst of a fierce national debate, Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820... At an increasingly accelerated pace during the years between 1820 and Lincoln's election in 1860, the issue of slavery divided the sections in a long series of political crises ranging from the location of a transcontinental railroad to the Wilmot Proviso, which wold have prohibited slavery int he territory acquired in the Mexican War. These crises also concerned such issues as the Mexican War itself, the congressional gag rule, the admission of other states to the Union. slavery in the District of Columbia, popular sovereignty, and the Kansas-Nebraska territory, the compromise of the 1850, the rise of a sectional political party...

---

I'd also recommend reading the works of David Blight and Gary Gallagher for their takes on the history of the war. But most modern authors, despite enumerating other factors agree on the central position of slavery as a cause of the civil war. The predominate view is that slavery is central and not peripheral.In fact, a more apt description of the politics between North and South is that slavery intruded on many other issues on which compromise was possible, to create intractable Gordian knots that were impossible to unravel because of their impact on slavery. The dispute over the what admission of free territories to the Union was unmanageable because slavery hung in the balance, the democratic party split in half before Lincoln's election because of disagreements over the party's platform on the expansion of slavery The southern states seceded from the union because of Lincoln's election and the knowledge that he wanted slavery to die out. The Baptist Church split in half in 1845 because of differences in opinions regarding slavery between the South and the Northern sections. The Missouri Compromise was actually working up until it was totally dissolved by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case; a case which was principally about the issue of slavery and the consequences of taking a slave into a state that prohibited slavery. The dissolving of the Missouri Compromise traces directly to "Bleeding Kansas' and the start of bloodletting that eventually led up to the civil war.The idea that you can remove slavery from the analysis is a complete farce. But go ahead and make that lost cause defense of the idea if you can. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Minor tweaks.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes continues to miss the issue with: If I may be so bold as to conjecture here, I think Percy would want EVERY SINGLE THING FOLKS SAID AND DID to be a matter of record, nothing swept under any rug on either side, we need to be able to see everything we can.Student: "Hey...it says here that the NAZIs used something called Zyklon gas...what's that? How do you make it?"History Professor: "I dunno - they burned up the books with all that knowledge long ago. But we can feel safe knowing that whatever it was, it was very HORRIBLE. In fact, it was EVIL!" What this thread is about, perhaps, is more at "How did they make the Confederacy?"

Evil is as evil does. Do evil and you're evil.And as I keep saying, history itself has no value unless we judge it by our own subjective standards. We can only improve our own behaviour by avoiding what we perceive as bad behaviour in the past. As I keep saying, there's no point in looking at history at all unless you pick a side.The southerners were wrong. Slavery made them dependent on exporting agricultural products and importing manufactured goods. From our modern viewpoint, we can see that it was unworkable on a long-term basis. Clinging to slavery not only caused the war, it also lost them the war. Exactly. We don't need to look at history to tell us that slavery is evil. A little empathy will do that. We need to look at history to see what further evils the evil of slavery can cause.

Ask the wildfowl. They may disagree. Ask a slave if being a "domesticated" farm animal is so much different from death. Portraying anybody in any light has nothing to do with advocating either moving monuments or dynamiting them. Try to get your story straight.

Nobody in this thread is advocating the destruction of chemistry books.