PC Gone Too Far

Which is nothing to do with my point. Your imagining that all the slaves perceived their lives as slaves to be like death or like hell assumes an imaginary group of people who all had the same terrible experiences. It doesn't fit the varied personal accounts that real slaves actually gave of their lives.Why are you making things up about other people's perceptions? As you like. A group with a ten fold increase in population during the period, much faster growth than the world average, and who were certainly not the victims of genocide. A group that you seem to want to think were culture-less zombies. Ah yes. "Give me liberty or give me death", by Patrick Henry, a famous hypocritical owner of slaves. Firstly, neither of those quotes mean what you seem to think. Someone stating a preference for death over non-freedom certainly is distinguishing the one from the other. Secondly, I doubt if Patrick Henry perceived his slaves to be dead or in an afterlife. Thirdly, someone else making something up doesn't give it any more authority than you doing so. You aren't the first person to claim that slavery is genocide, either, just as our pet young earth creationists on this board weren't the first YECs.

Of course not, but I don't judge them as human beings, I judge the evil ideology that is drummed into them. And I didn't suggest that moral failures are in any way lessened by knowing you're a fallen person who could have been guilty of anything you are condemning others for. I said more than once that it wouldn't make slavery less evil -- or Nazism or Japanese torture of prisoners or Communist murder of dissidents or any other criminal or cruel behavior.Judging the moral wrongness of these things is not the same as self-righteously condemning individuals as you do, setting yourself above them. You consider yourself a Christian, right? Did Jesus condemn sinners? No. He condemned those who put themselves above sinners, the Pharisees. He didn't even condemn the ruthless Romans, only the self-righteous judges. As a human being you embrace evil simply by being a child of Adam. You may not own slaves or actively torture anyone, but you were "born in iniquity" as King David said of himself. How many in the deep South managed to escape being pro-slavery? Or racist? Even Harper Lee's father, who was her model for the righteous Atticus Finch, was imbued with racist attitudes in reality. I think this is point Percy has been trying to make: rising above your culture is a very rare occurrence, and even the best can't do it without special experiences or education to give them a different point of view. Otherwise you inherit the views of your family and the people around you. So how many who were born in the deep South managed to escape supporting slavery? Christians should have but even they didn't. The Christians in the North were the source of abolition, but they had the advantage of not belonging to a slave-dependent culture.Although Lincoln was anti-slavery he had the wisdom not to condemn the Southerners for it. He had a sense of history and a higher sense of righteousness and realized the problem needed diplomatic solutions. As I say above, Jesus was a lot harder on the self-righteous judgmental Pharisees than on sinners as such. What are you saying? Are you being sarcastic about the man's repentance? I can't tell. When you know about the atrocities the Japanese committed, apparently under an emperor-worshiping sense of superiority and right to rule the world, plus advocacy of cruel treatment of enemies that was drilled into them, I think that officer's repentance is quite remarkable and touching. He claimed to suffer greatly from his sense of guilt, and I believe him. It would be easy to conclude that there's some kind of cruelty inherent in the Japanese or their culture that couldn't be surmounted, but he demonstrates that empathy and remorse can be roused in anyone. By contrast, in documentaries I watched after the movie, other Japanese participants in WWII continued to justify Japan, denying the cruelties etc. etc.You seem to want to treat all Southerners as evil people as if they aren't merely human and you made of the same stuff, but you exonerate yourself of ever sharing in such a mentality as theirs. If there's one thing a Christian should know about himself, it's that he's a sinner, and very likely worse than others, not better. The problem I have is with your condemning people, not just condemning a specific moral failure.ABE: Here it comes, all the accusations that I'm just the pot calling the kettle black, that I condemn people too. Well, I don't think so. I sometimes warn that God judges sin and condemns sinners but that's a warning, and a warning God Himself wants us to give since He doesn't desire the death of sinners but their repentance. The message is God judges sin but it can be escaped if we judge ourselves as sinners, and repent. If I've lapsed into moral condemnation of the sort you do I'd like to know about it because it's something I've spent my life trying NOT to do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the moral wrongness was not conducted by individuals? Sorry, Faith, not buying it. So you can distinguish your call here on the Jesuits from my remarks on slavery and slaveholders? How? That's right. Lincoln was Jesus Christ. I certainly was not being sarcastic about the non repentance of former slave owners, or white supremacists. Did I say anything about condemning all Southerners? Or just those folks who treated other humans extremely poorly. Well, their crimes are not mine to forgive and my impression was that even Jesus spoke of repentance. Those folks don't need my forgiveness what with them being all dead and never having bothered me personally. My arguments are about specific Southerners who appear on some monuments, and not about all Southerners.And surely the treatment I give them here is far better than that which they dealt out to their fellow man while they were alive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What again is the history behind the adoption of the Maryland State Song? What history is it that you wish to preserve? Do you have any idea of the circumstances behind the adoption of the song in 1939-1940. Nope. You like the fact that it is the Maryland state song because otherwise you would not have heard of the song."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." You are correct. It is my translation of the words that you did say. Namely that if a majority of folks wanted to change the song, that you would hope that a compromise would be reached with the minority whose claims I presume you are saying have legitimacy. However for a minority requesting to change the song, nothing but opposition as a matter of principle is to be the order of the day. You make no mention of any 'tyranny of the majority' in such a case. Instead you call their position PC. Naturally.I think my translation was apt. I'll note that in the actual post, I did include your words in a quote box above my translation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I thought the "folks" referred to in your last paragraph were the same as those in the second. I see now that "folks" meant slave owners in your second paragraph, while "folks" meant me in your third. Sorry, my mistake. This is again a mischaracterization of my views. You do this so often and so consistently that it must be either on purpose or is an incredibly persistent bad habit. Either way, you know better, please stop.What I've actually said, not once but several times, is the opposite. This is from my Message 348: What I'm saying here is that I believe we should include the views held by the people of antebellum America as part of critical analysis, the opposite of what you accused me of. You're again arguing with positions you've made up yourself.In brief (and please refer back to this before you begin every sentence from now on):

• Modern moral judgments made by us upon the peoples of history: not relevant or useful
• Moral judgments held by the peoples of history: very relevant and useful

This, too, mischaracterizes my views. No one here said the South are their heroes. What I've actually said is that it makes no sense to judge history on some scale ranging from good to evil. When I say that it makes no sense to judge the South evil that definitely does *not* make them my heroes. It means I am not judging the North or the South good or evil. Doing so has no value and is not useful.How many times do I have to repeat this before you get it? Accusing people of holding views that they not only do not hold but that are designed to make them look bad is intensely personal. What is wrong with you?--Percy

If you can't deal with the answer, don't ask the question.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix NoNukes typo in my quote. Is he typing them in from scratch instead of copy/paste?

I wasn't commenting on any of those things. I was just providing factual information in response to your claim that, "Having your child SOLD, with no chance of ever seeing it again, was fairly common practice." Don't you think that slave children having little value as a commodity would have influenced any decision to sell? What is your evidence that it was a "fairly common practice"? No, you won't. You'll just continue throwing out nonsensical claims from which you refuse to back down. For another example.--Percy

If any slave perceived slavery as akin to death, my point is valid. Thus murder, which is bad even if it isn't universal, is relevant. Your insistence that something must apply to all slaves to be bad is not relevant. Stop being so literal and try to understand that genocide is about destroying A people, not just destroying people. Any alleged hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the point. The fact is that the sentiment exists. You can't distinguish them without comparing them and you can't compare them unless they're similar - otherwise there would be no basis for comparison. So you're conceding that slavery and death are comparable. Again, stop assuming that all perceptions have to be universal. If some slaves perceived slavery as a living death - even if they didn't think about it explicitly in those terms - my point is valid. I'm just establishing that it's a fairly widespread concept. Since you're conceding that, maybe you can move on and explain why you made the objection in the first place.

How old are your children? If they're six or sixteen or sixty, would you want to see them sold? Yes I will.

When I suggested that your view left out folks like Northerners and the slaves, your response was that those folks were in the same time but not in the same place. It is difficult to reconcile that response with your current insistence that you say you want to include everyone.Perhaps the difference is just that after looking at all views, we arrive at a different conclusion. If so that is for good reason. That reason being that the South's excuses don't amount to a justification, but simply an explanation of why the embraced slavery. Those justifications amount to a pretext. What I stated was my impression of your view it was not a quote of anything you've said. It is a summary of what your statements convey. I reach that summary based on your failure to include any opinion in your analysis that is not sourced from southern pro-slavery sentiment.ABE: That of course is an opinion we don't share. Those judgments are our conclusions after our analysis of history. But apparently, those judgments reached in opposition to slavery count for naught or something close to that. You've been expressly dismissive of Northern and even Southern abolitionist opinions while silently dismissive of the effects of slavery on the slaves. So I'd like to see your work here. I want to see where you weigh anything other than what slaveholders and their sympathizers expressed. Because I have not seen you mention anything else other than in passing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your answer is whatever your answer is. But it was you who said that the lessons from history were something other than a list of "Don'ts". Your answer was just fine, except that it was of exactly the type you dismissed when responding to ringo a bit earlier.Quite frankly, your answer was exactly what I expected. I personally have no problem with your response as one of the answers. "Don'ts" are perfectly fine as lessons and of course what each person gleans from history might be different.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Bingo. After the analysis.When we're analyzing it, set your judgements aside for a minute.

This is not my first rodeo, Cat Sci. I've reviewed the history of the civil war in detail, long before it became a topic here, and I have formed my conclusions and can defend them factually and logically. I've yet to see any new and surprising information posted here. In fact, I have encountered far more sympathetic opinions regarding slavery than are expressed here. So perhaps it is reasonable that this discussion has not changed my mind.If the current discussion is supposed to be a judgment free analysis, the discussion from some folks seems particularly concentrated on only a particular view of slavery. But perhaps you can point to some meaningful discussion provided by yourself or Percy that would provide a balanced view? I don't seem to see much of that. I do see some dismissals where I've raised the issue, but essentially no balanced discussion from you or Percy.Of course, having already formed my impression, I might reasonably be considered biased. So please provide a pointer or two to some balanced discussion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When I denied it, I was referring to a general question about the effects of Lincoln's leniency not being relevant because Johnson was involved in continuing the policy. I missed that you were in particular talking about my attribution of the quote from Johnson. I'll note that even after the correction, you don't have any response to my point.And seriously, Percy, you make errors of your own. If you make a correction, at least when I can tell that you've actually dropped some point, I consider that to end the matter. Is that an unreasonable policy on my part? Still no addressing of the argument. I believe that there is definite value to calling Southerners evil, and that the question is not whether that value is objective, but rather on whether there is an objective basis for making that judgment. Of course we could judge slavery solely on whether it was profitable or non-profitable, or on whether it accomplish or did not accomplish goals that Southerners considered essential. But the reality is that slavery should be rejected regardless of the answers to those questions. Is that really the case?It appears to me that no terms having a negative connotation are appropriate in describing the Confederacy. So the difference is not just terminology, but is instead more fundamental. Our differences are in the rendering a current judgment at all and not over the specific terms of that judgment. Or at least that's how it seems to me. That's an excuse for dismissing their opinion? I don't imagine that the southern slaves were offering any compensation in return for their freedom either, so I guess our analysis is over. What is it the slaveholders say again? That slavery is legal and the Old Testament says its okay? Damn. Argument over.

The list was of accusations was intended to be a list of things that people on this web site have accused each other of, and for the most part to include things for which you have admonished and even suspended other posters. They, like you, felt that their insults were justified. The principle involved here is addressing the person rather than the argument.So, no I did not accuse you of making those particular characterizations. It was not necessary to do so to make my point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.