PC Gone Too Far

I don't think the point is what I realised. My intent was not that people died. In fact, in the scenario in which you applied to me, nobody died. Instead those folks were never even conceived. Instead, other folks were conceived, under the scenario you insisted on.The problem is that people who enslave folks do in fact, intend to do just that, and they should reasonable understand that they are harming folks and destroying their culture. We don't need the specific intent that they deliberately intended to kill folks. Instead they committed deliberate actions which could reasonable result in the harm that they did cause. The destruction of a culture under slavery was not an accident.Criminal intent is can involve specific intent, which in this case would be aiming to eliminate a race of folks. On the other hand, deliberately engaging in actions which would reasonably be expected to accomplish the same things also constitutes intent.

That must be about the most useless argument for not having an opinion I've seen in this thread. We might well point out that your opinion has the same lack of influence on past events. You over simplify to the point of glossing over the truth. Some Southern folks believed that slavery was a blessing for slaves, but there was nothing universal about that opinion. Plenty of different justifications were offered including the idea that Africans were just an inferior folks who deserved their lot in life. Other Southerners simply argued that the slaves had it it better than folks in Northern factories. Other slave holders simply found nothing wrong with slavery as institution based on their interpretation of the Bible. And some just felt that their need to build a society was too important to worry about the feelings of their slaves. Some non slave holders realized that the existence of slaves elevated their own social status at least one rung above laborer. Even after listing all of those things, I think it is a fair to inquire into how many of those "justifications' were sincere and how many of them actually excuse anything if they are sincere. But apparently we won't ask that question if our quest is to avoid making any moral calls. In short, your position leads to cutting off at least as much valid inquiry as it encourages.Perhaps most right thinking South folks did believe that slavery was beneficial to themselves, although even some slavers acknowledged the dehumanizing influence that treating humans badly had on even Southern culture. They also understood that slavery completely discounted Southern labor, and lead to chasms between lower and upper class whites, although of course the slave owners found nothing wrong with that.Based on a sample of one, it appears that even attempts to 'not judge' slavery do not necessarily result in a nuanced look at things. If you are an example, we can say that those attempts might lead to avoiding consideration of the actual negative impact of slavery on slaves in favor of their simplified view that Southerners universally had a benign view on that point. One might think those folks are parroting history from the Lost Cause narrative by picking the most gracious possible excuses they can find.I'll note that nothing that the slaves experienced or expressed has any input into the reasoning you give here. Most slaves would have been happy to denounce their treatment as slaves with great vehemence. But of course that expression would have just been just emotion and of no import in the study of history, right? Those folks would have been just a PC invoking minority trying to avoid their part in building a society. Screw 'em.The fact of the matter is that on balance, being enslaved, and then reduced to a lower societal caste even when freed, and then being deprived of basic human rights and dignity was not beneficial to colored folks regardless of what Southerners managed to convince themselves or what they managed to lie about. And in fact a significant number of folks in the South knew that, but dismissed that truth as unimportant and not sufficient reason to change how white poeple lived their lives. After all, an African had no rights that a white person was bound to respect. That was the law, was it not?What we can also say is that many racist Southerners would not suffer even the smallest inconvenience to themselves in favor of a negro, and that we can see that same behavior on exhibit in society today.Let me add some other reasons why slavery was an intractable problem. Slavery was one means of maintaining a political balance between North and South. Slave cultures, despite their other differences were united over the continuation of slavery among some other things. Yet the Southern population was much smaller than that of the North (excluding slaves). Slavery, and the 3/5 compromise allowed the South to maintain their political balance in the House, while having an equal number of slave/free states provide balance in the Senate. However it was clear that both slavery dying out, and the Northern populations more rapid population growth were going to end both concerns. So there were also political motivations for the South to spread slavery everywhere they could.I think the idea that benefiting Negroes played any major role other than easing the conscience of Southeners is a bogus. I acknowledged I have not proved that here, but neither have you demonstrated that the idea was widespread or genuinely held. But overall, your analysis is way too simple and accepting of excuse to recommend it as valid.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Did I say that you called me PC? Just who is misrepresenting who here?You did apply that term to the folks at the university who requested that the statue be moved, and you made similar labelings of other folks at various points of the discussion. I have to admit to finding such things incongruous with a position that others not be judged.I don't recall, or at this point care whether I managed to say enough to get lumped in with those others. But I'm referring in to comments you addressed to others. I made similar comments in one of my earliest messages to this thread in my 'devils advocate' post.I do seem to recall some insults, but I'll take your post as a reason to put those recollections aside rather than as an opportunity to dig those things up again.Has the fact that the statute has an apparent invitation for a new home changed your mind at all?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you simply dismissed the point without addressing it. Whether or not Lincoln's supposed non-judgmental position actually produced negative effects is of no consequence, according to you, because Lincoln was sincere. Is that about right?

My point was strictly regarding your definition of intent. You and ringo can argue about the rest of the question. Time travel is a pretty funky idea. Those folks you are claiming would be destroyed would actually have never existed. They would not have died or have been destroyed. You could not even say that they were changed into any other people. Their ancestors up to the time of whatever change occurred would still exist and would have different destiny's children etc.Not a single person would have been destroyed. You are going to have to hunt for a better verb to explain exactly what happened to a person who was never born.Of course that's assuming that my wishing worked anything like time travel. There is no reason why it should.

Again, only some folks in the South thought that slavery benefited the Negro. If you want to claim that even most held that opinion, I'm asking for a source.

You are simply talking around the point. Regardless of how much Lincoln believed in being non-judgmental, his resulting policy produced significant damage because it resulted in not only not holding the South accountable, but also not holding them in check from attempts to enslave the Africans. Only the radical republicans manage to pass legislation to validate that Africans were indeed African Americans. In short, as applied to the South, his refusal to hold the South accountable was a failure as an actual governing policy.Just telling us that Lincoln agreed with you and was sincere is not much of an argument. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have not simply mentioned it. You have variously attributed the opinion unqualified to the South or you have qualified the the opinion as being held by most Southerners. If there is no evidence supporting the idea that most Southerners believed that slavery blessed Africans, then you are not justified in making that claim regardless of how economical it is, and particular not of using that claim as a argument as you did here. The truth is that some slavers thought slavery was beneficial, while others didn't give a crap about the misery of Africans as long as they were fit to work. I think we can also make the argument that those folks who believed slavery was beneficial were expressing an irrational sentiment.No, I cannot ask you to list all of the reasons every time (as if you have listed something more comprehensive even once), but I can reasonably insist that you not to make stuff up. And as I've suggested we can reasonably ask if that reason was genuine or a pretext. If we are not using actual facts, we could argue either way. Is that a reasonable way to proceed?Seriously, if I had made an argument based on a statement that the South would not end slavery because they believed that God had placed the negro here on earth as a sub human fit for their exploitation, would you let that slide? Surely that was one opinion. Do I need a poll before making that statement?Even a cursory review of the reasons that are actually listed by historians and, I've listed some of the most commonly cited the ones. would suggest that the one you picked to use is in no way representative of all of the various justifications. In fact what you've picked is the most prominent Southern Lost Cause explanation rather than the using one that is most historically prominent or most frequently mentioned.I'm not sure by what process you come up with "seems to [Percy] the most common". I'll accept that you have made an honest attempt, but it comes across instead as a gross oversimplification. There is no objective support for claiming it to be the most commonly held justification or for attributing that reasoning to most of the South even for more the marginal help it provides to your argument even if we accept the claim. Any fool without a vested interest in slavery's continuing could see that the slaves were not benefiting from slavery.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've given my rationale for considering what the South did as evil, namely that what they did inflicted pain and misery on other human beings without any decent justification. I think that serves sufficiently as a definition for my posts. I agree. Now who among us is prescribing violence for evil doers.

So it was the "attacks" by abolitionists that generated this new thinking in 1840 at least, according to this particular author's opinion. That certainly smacks of a response born from need rather than one based in truth.Again, I don't find anything particularly new here. I've mentioned or alluded to reasons similar to those given here in a post or two. Beyond that this author clearly describes an institution adopted and continued despite a recognition that slavery was evil, with prodding from elsewhere, prodding which was legitimate and justified, driving them away from rational thinking.I appreciate the post. Nicely done.Link to another summary of justifications. Some overlap with the ones you listed, with some others. I don't see any thing to emphasize other than confirming that there were many and varied reasons given. Helping Africans was likely not the foremost reason.http://www.allenisd.org/...rn%20Argument%20for%20Slavery.pdfEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay. I'm at a loss for either the importance of the distinction or exactly why Lincolns words are some non arguable conclusion to our differences.Here are some words from George Washington:

quote:

---

"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."

---

And he also said this:

quote:

---

No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union.

---

The fact is that George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, freeing none of them up before the death of himself and his wife. During his time as president, and while the White House was in Philadelphia, Washington not only kept slaves and periodically sent them home periodically to Virginia lest they become free.Is it reasonable that we might look at both Washington's words as well as his actions when judging his views? Might we also not look at what Lincoln's policy of leniency led to when judging whether his words are words to live by?ABE: Sure. Anyone can spout either a truth or a platitude.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix mismatched quote tags and add a final

Perhaps not. Can you make your point with different words? You've been a voice of reason here often enough, that I'd like to get your point here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Apparently I do get it. I just don't find the argument compelling.The problem is that even according to what Percy posted in 1830, folks accepted that slavery was evil and excused it anyway. Yes it is likely (although not completely mandatory) that someone in that society would embrace the same practices. But that simply means that someone created a society that perpetuates whatever we are calling this because we are forgetting to use the term evil.Percy argues that folks after 1830 began understanding slavery as beneficial to slaves. Really? After 400 years of practicing slavery despite the evil, attacks on the institution finally made them realize that it was actually beneficial? Does that make any sense? Or was the new understanding merely attempts to rationalize behavior and to answer the charges leveled against the institution. Yeah, I think so. I don't think the fact that I disagree means I missed the point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Am I required to do reconcile my definition with that of other people? What if I believe that some people have idiotic, hateful, or just incorrect definitions? Would that be something with which you disagree? I imagine there are some folks who consider illegal immigration and interracial dating to be evil. I think those immigrant hating/racial purity insisting folks are wrong.I don't see any problem reconciling the definition in some cases even if I disagree with the conclusion other folks reach. if you believe that a fetus is a human being and you don't find a woman's control over her own body to be a significant justification, then you are going to find that abortion is evil. I don't believe that a fetus is a human being at certain stages of development or that an abortion to protect the mothers life at even later stages is without adequate justification, and I strongly value the right for all humans to bodily integrity. So my disagreement with anti-abortion folks is over the facts and not due to my definition.On the other hand, there is no rationale I can come up with to apply to homosexuality in a similar way. Homosexuality then is not evil, and I am feel no responsibility to either defend the definitions that others apply or to accept that their definitions are valid. I am responsible for the viability of my own definition. Some folks define evil based on what their religious text says when read in the most literal way possible. But some of those same folks also believe that the earth is a few thousand years old.If you want to put the argument on my home turf, and allow me to use my definition, then perhaps you can tell me how my application is inconsistent as applied to slavery, abortion, and homosexuality. Or alternatively you can tell me how slavery hurts no one or is adequately justified. Or you can tell me what is incorrect or impractical about my own definition.Beyond that, I don't claim that my definition is complete and there may be some evils that I don't include. Maybe blowing up Stone Mountain because it is blocking your view of the sun is evil. Not sure that act is easily fit into my definition. Okay. Sounds good to me. I have no problem with the editorial. I have a problem with your expansion of the editorial to things that are not readily analogous to "violence". In the case of the statue in question, a minority of folks are directly involved to the point of expressing an opinion about the statue remaining on campus or not remaining on campus. It is likely that most of the rest of the world does not care one way or the other. Somebody will get their way and somebody else won't. Not sure why either answer is more likely to perpetuate evil than the other.Edited by NoNukes, : address last comment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Quite possibly. Almost certainly what was reported in the article you cited was what some folks wrote in response to attacks by the abolitionists and not polls of southerners. So yeah, those reasons were invented of necessity born from the truth based insults of abolitionists.Percy, according to the article you posted, prior to 1830, the South appreciated that slavery was evil. Quite unsurprising, given that such a conclusion was correct. Somehow after 400 years of enslaving folks despite that being evil prior to 1830, the South figured out in 1830 that they had been wrong all along, and that slavery was actually beneficial to Africans? The article you quoted indicated that the new thinking was a response to attacks by abolitionists and Northerners? What else changed other than the South having their nosed rubbed into what they were doing by their rivals? Was their actually some quantum level betterment in the way slaves were being treated? Was there some new evidence or facts that suggested that slaves were just peachy?Under that set of facts, you don't think a suspicion that the the new thinking is more rationalizing that truth is at least plausible? Because among the possible explanations, rationalizing makes more sense to me.No I don't take everything folks say at face value nor do I believe it is impossible that folks can come to believe something despite the facts. Isn't that actually somewhat close to the point of that other thread of yours? As at least one poster put it, sometimes it is the presentation of facts that drives folks away from the truth.After the civil war, the South actually denied that the war had been about slavery at all, despite the writing of their leaders who explained explicitly why they formed the Confederacy. Those same 'historians' continued to spread stories about how satisfied slaves were under slavery in the face of extremely available evidence to the contrary. So, yeah, the truth does turn out to be something other than what Lost Cause historians say it is. The reference you provided says something completely different; namely that prior to 1830, Southerners acknowledged the evil in slavery but practiced it anyway. So apparently, belief that slavery was right was not something they 'naturally believed' apparently that belief was acquired over time. And after a substantial time of exploiting slavery.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.