|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
It's up to the people who have charge of those jurisdictions to make the decision. You're welcome to whine about it.
I think that supporters of the removal of the Louisville statue should also be supporting the removal of Columbus Day, and the changing of all names in the Americas that commemorate Columbus (Columbia, D. of Columbia, British Columbia etc.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
"We" - the people who are in charge of the monument - are apparently deciding to preserve it somewhere else. You are complaining that any change is an affront to history. I suppose you don't want the pigeon droppings removed from it either because they're also a part of its history.
We're deciding how to preserve a part of history. Percy writes:
I am prepared to fight the Civil War all over again, though not necessarily by killing people. If you're not prepared to fight again and again for what's right, then you're doing exactly what Santayana feared.
It should be done objectively and not according to the emotionalism of people who seem prepared to fight the Civil War all over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
This might be something we can agree upon. If when you say that "southerners managed to deceive themselves" you think it okay that I equate that to my own belief that they believed their own rationalizations You might say that. I am suggesting that we don't even know if that belief was sincerely held. My proposition is that the position that slavery was beneficial was formed in response to being bombarded with Northern attacks on the institution. So we probably do disagree. No problem with that. We won't be the first couple of folks who have disagreed about civil war history. For extreme example of folks disagreeing about this issue, I point to the story of the caning of Senator Sumner by Brooks. Caning of Charles Sumner - Wikipedia
Would you say the Trump people know they're wrong but are saying it anyway No, I would not say that. Unlike the situation in the article, I have no rationale to ascribe some motive to the folks for not expressing their sincere opinion. At best I can question the rationality of their opinion. But can you show me that these folks once expressed a different opinion prior to being hounded by the media? Perhaps you are simply ignoring my argument and making the assumption that my position is completely without basis.
No one here is accusing anyone of a lack of objectivity for concluding that slavery was not beneficial to slaves. I think we all agree that slavery wasn't beneficial to slaves. I have no idea why you said this. Perhaps that is because you so often make the accusation regarding non objectivity. In this particular case, I've provided an opinion, plus rationale, and made at least an attempt to tie my opinion to the reference you provided. That is not the same as me just assuming without reason that what folks are saying does not reflect a sincere opinion.
NN writes: Percy, both of these statements indicate that slavery was considered evil prior to 1830 and not after 1830. What error are you referring to here? I've gone back over my posts, and I don't see that I made the error you are accusing me of in any of them. I've always acknowledged that slavery being considered evil was the older view. However, the period of time during which slavery was described as beneficial was relatively short. There were several centuries of slavery prior to 1830 and only a few decades of slavery afterwards. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No one is going to withhold judgement forever that slavery was not beneficial to slaves - in fact many of us even got sidetracked into comparing it to the horrors of genocide. But first, gather the data. Hasn't the data gathering already been done? Nobody here is objecting to any study of history whatsoever. We've discussed and can continue to discuss what Southerners said, did, what they thought, and why they might have thought that. The literature is full of discussions of that type. Is there some discussion you feel is missing? I'm really not sure what your complaint is about. That we haven't examined all of those things thoroughly within this thread? That folks who want a monument moved, destroyed, never built, haven't thought through the history completely? None of those things are likely to be what you mean, but given that I've never objected to any data gathering, I don't understand your point. Gather away, brother. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Is there any broad agreement on what evil is, especially when applied to nearly all the people of an entire nation? In this particular instance, every poster here agrees that slavery is evil and was evil as practiced by the South. Nobody here believes that slavery is some kind of historical accident or that the South was an unwilling or unwitting participant in the enslaving of Africans. But some of us stop at that point and won't reach what I find to be a rather obvious conclusion. Surely the reason is not because of the number of folks involved? So, no the problem is not one of definitions or disagreement over what is and is not evil. The question is the application of the term evil to folks who managed to think of themselves as non-evil for one reason or another. I had thought that the question was about the utility of making a judgment or even about whether or not making a judgment interferes or does not interfere with evaluating history. At least those things are debatable. But as best as I can tell, no one here even questions whether slavery as practiced in the South was immoral. Even hinting that there is a question about that is something that you and others find insulting. So why are definitions even a subject of debate? ABE: By the way, the South was an entire nation? Well, yeah, after they formed the Confederacy which existed for the purpose of preserving slavery, thereby divorcing themselves from a bunch of folks who were not similarly minded. And of course, let's not count those colored folks who existed for the sake of counting as 3/5 of a person for determining Congressional representation, and as cheap labor. So yeah, an entire nation. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
This particular post is not a rebuttal to any particular post or an addressing of any particular position expressed herein. Please do not indict yourself. I do present one insight into slavery and its evil for consideration. This essay was written by a Northern Abolitionist who lived during the 18th and 19th century.
I think one thing we can gather from this post is how similar this opinion and its reasoning as expressed by the 18th-19th century pastor might be to a modern opinion. SlaveryChapter IV. The Evils of Slavery. | transcendentalism.tamu.edu The author undergoes an extensive description of the evils of slavery and of the merits of the Southern defense thereof. Of course there is no reason to expect that a Southerner would be convinced by this presentation. Instead the point is that almost anyone else, from either this modern era or the 19th century likely would be convinced. Example passage below. The complete writing is a fairly thorough, and to my mind engaging discussion of most of the differences in opinion over slavery between abolitionists and Southerners of the time.
quote: quote: 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: "We" - the people who are in charge of the monument - are apparently deciding to preserve it somewhere else. Yes. In storage.
You are complaining that any change is an affront to history. A bit overstated but close enough, and I've also listed some valid reasons for altering the historical record in prior posts.
Percy writes:
I am prepared to fight the Civil War all over again, though not necessarily by killing people. If you're not prepared to fight again and again for what's right, then you're doing exactly what Santayana feared. It should be done objectively and not according to the emotionalism of people who seem prepared to fight the Civil War all over again. Fighting again and again over the same things is precisely what Santayana warned against. History has taught you nothing. What you've learned is force and vengeance as a solution. Contrast the results of Reconstruction and WWI German reparations with the Marshall Plan and the Japanese treaty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: My proposition is that the position that slavery was beneficial was formed in response to being bombarded with Northern attacks on the institution. And my response is unchanged: views that slavery was beneficial pre-existed the antebellum South and did not originate there. Slavery proponents in Britain expressed the same views when Britain was going through the process of eliminating slavery. What changed was how the arguments came out in the balance. Northerners, horrified at the expansion of slavery, a monster thought destined to die, invented new arguments against slavery, such as that it denigrated manual labor. The South, witnessing the same expansion of slavery and seeing it accrue to their benefit, emphasized the benefits of slavery that they already believed, but with slave populations and the Southern economy growing, balancing all the factors delivered a different answer. The only truly new argument was that slavery was the foundation for a cultural elite dedicated to the betterment of mankind.
But can you show me that these folks once expressed a different opinion prior to being hounded by the media? Can you show me an example of Southern slavery proponents holding a different opinion prior to your year of demarcation of 1830 that slavery didn't bring Christianity to the Negro, protect them from dangers of rampant Northern-style capitalism (e.g., sweat shops, unemployment), and remove them from the dangers of tribalism in Africa? A Southerner of 1810 might likely say, "It's unfortunate we have to hold these souls in servitude, but they gain the blessings of Christianity, they're never destitute, and it's a big improvement from their situation in Africa."
Perhaps that is because you so often make the accusation regarding non objectivity. In this particular case, I've provided an opinion, plus rationale, and made at least an attempt to tie my opinion to the reference you provided. That is not the same as me just assuming without reason that what folks are saying does not reflect a sincere opinion. I so often make the accusation of biased thinking because you do it so often. There's nothing objective about "evil".
NN writes: Percy, both of these statements indicate that slavery was considered evil prior to 1830 and not after 1830. What error are you referring to here? I've gone back over my posts, and I don't see that I made the error you are accusing me of in any of them. 1830 wasn't some line of demarcation before which the South considered slavery evil and after which they didn't. It was a process of gradual change involving the economics of slavery and a changing of the guard. How both the North and South felt about slavery changed in reaction to changing circumstances. Prior to slavery becoming a foundation of the Southern economy both North and South viewed the practice as regrettable. With its expansion and its growing political power came an increase in the intensity of feelings on both sides, the North more intensely against and the South more intensely for. What's important to understand is that the nature of the argument over slavery didn't change suddenly. It was gradual. Just as the importance of slavery to the South increased gradually, so did the changes in how it was viewed changed gradually. The changes in opinion were a reaction to changing circumstances, just like what people do today and everyday throughout all the world and all time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
What on earth are you talking about? Where have I EVER advocated force or vengeance? YOU are the one who advocates forcing monuments on people who don't want them because you're afraid of "losing history".
What you've learned is force and vengeance as a solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
1830 wasn't some line of demarcation before which the South considered slavery evil and after which they didn't. I agree it is not a line of demarcation, but the fact still remains, that 1830 was by at least a couple centuries closer to the end of slavery than the beginning. So the idea that slavery was considered non evil is not part of the rationale for why slavery existed, unless you consider after the fact justifications that were not largely held at the time of developing a slave economy to be meaningful. Further, you are ignoring a fact brought out by the article. Namely that the change occurred during constant badgering from abolitionists over the issue of slavery.
Can you show me an example of Southern slavery proponents holding a different opinion prior to your year of demarcation of 1830 that slavery didn't bring Christianity to the Negro, protect them from dangers of rampant Northern-style capitalism (e.g., sweat shops, unemployment), and remove them from the dangers of tribalism in Africa? Again those things existed even at the time when Southerners agreed that slavery was evil. Accordingly, such factors were neither reasons for slavery nor did they formed the basis of Southern opinion on slavery prior to that point. Folks enslaved Africans for reasons that included a belief that blacks were inferior, and that the Bible endorsed folks (like the descendant's of Ham) as being so treated. Those ideas are not to be dismissed when considering the reasons why black folks were being enslaved. Beyond that, is the question of to what degree even a belief that you are not doing harm, offered by folks who are obviously benefiting from slavery, ought to color our opinion of those folks. Particularly when any objective view of the harm they were actually causing was quite clear. As Rrhain pointed out, folks do manage to be the hero in their own stories. The question is whether there is any reason whatsoever to give any weight to 'justifications' which can be pretexts just as readily as they can be honest feelings. What we do know about slavery is that a substantial number of folks carried out the practice despite knowing that they were harming black folks even if that understanding was largely gone after 1830. So we'll just have to disagree about this point. Again, that should be okay.
NN writes: I've gone back over my posts, and I don't see that I made the error you are accusing me of in any of them. Percy writes: What's important to understand is that the nature of the argument over slavery didn't change suddenly. It was gradual. Calling it gradual cuts both ways. But I think you miss a point brought out by the article. Namely the proposed cause for the change. There is no reason to believe that the impetus for change suddenly started in 1830. That too existed well before 1830. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: Like the rest of your comments, it does nothing to support your view that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend genocide. As I have said more than once, it doesn't matter what they thought they were fighting for. The slave system that they were fighting to preserve was a genocidal system, whether they understood it or not, whether you understand it or not. Like the rest of your comments, that does nothing to support your view that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend genocide (what ever they thought they were fighting for). Saying things over and over again doesn't make them true. The slave system was not genocidal.
quote: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/...nition/english/genocide ringo writes: Evildoers typically don't think they're doing evil. The "deliberate" in that definition doesn't imply that they do. You seem to be claiming that a rapidly expanding population group of slaves were the victims of a genocide. Instead of saying that over and over again, try to support it with data from history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
ringo writes: bluegenes writes: I think that supporters of the removal of the Louisville statue should also be supporting the removal of Columbus Day, and the changing of all names in the Americas that commemorate Columbus (Columbia, D. of Columbia, British Columbia etc.). It's up to the people who have charge of those jurisdictions to make the decision. Has anyone suggested otherwise?
ringo writes: You're welcome to whine about it. How generous of you. You're presumably "welcome" to whine about evil without applying your whining consistently as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
NoNukes writes: Is there any broad agreement on what evil is, especially when applied to nearly all the people of an entire nation?
In this particular instance, every poster here agrees that slavery is evil and was evil as practiced by the South. That's not a definition. That sounds like the Supreme Court in the 1960's telling us that they can't define pornography but they know it is when they see it.
The question is the application of the term evil to folks who managed to think of themselves as non-evil for one reason or another. Well, good luck with that. Your emphasis on evil as a criteria is surprising given your legal background. How often do you see the term "evil" in a legal ruling?
So why are definitions even a subject of debate? That you won't even define "evil" tells us that your interest is to denounce, not describe, to stigmatize, not characterize. Generalized, your position is that the memories of peoples you despise are less worth preserving than those you admire. But it's all part of history, all deserving of preservation. Modern emotional reactions have no place. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on The Concept of Evil. In one section it describes some of the same problems with the term that I have:
quote: I've quoted a philosopher and an encyclopedia about problems using the term evil, and the best you can do ask why we should debate definitions? It isn't like your agenda isn't clear. You want to stigmatize portions of history and then use that as a criteria for deciding which portions of history deserve preservation, or more specifically, you don't like the South and prefer its history not be remembered. I forget which historian said it, and even how he put it precisely, but it was something like, "If you destroy a people's history then you destroy them." Oh, poking about I guess I must be thinking of this George Orwell quote: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
What on earth are you talking about? Where have I EVER advocated force or vengeance? What you've learned is force and vengeance as a solution. I'm talking about how your tactic of demonization brings more conflict, not less. Do you think hate brings peace? Just as the Treaty of Versailles held within it the seeds of Nazism, your approach holds within it the seeds of future conflict. You say, "I am prepared to fight the Civil War all over again, though not necessarily by killing people," but that's the eventual result if we don't learn from history. They say the passage of time brings perspective, but for some of you here it's as if the Civil War and all the passions it inflamed happened yesterday. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
Percy has admitted that the definition of genocide is "controversial" - i.e. not as simplistic as you insist. We'll wait for you to catch up.
You seem to be claiming that a rapidly expanding population group of slaves were the victims of a genocide.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024