PC Gone Too Far

Yes. I wouldn't have stopped him. I have said that I would fight to stop slavery. I would also fight to stop other instances of genocide, such as the Holocaust. There are no easy answers for when to fight and when not to.But the point of this thread is not about whether to fight or not; it's about whether to memorialize both sides equally. I've been consistent on that: no memorials to the SS, no memorials to Confederates, no memorials to Saddam, no memorials to serial killers, etc. Your vaunted "objectivity" seems to have missed an important point: The North would have abolished slavery by non-violent means if it could. The South started the violence. Violence to support violence. You support looking at history objectively. That suggests that there are possible circumstances under which slavery would be justifiable.That's like looking objectively at whether or not to feed your children. I think that's preferable to getting out your slide rule to decide whether or not to buy a slave.

Neither you nor Percy has explained how objectivity is applicable. How do you objectively evaluate slavery? How do you objectively decide whether or not to exterminate the Jews? How can you eliminate empathy from those discussions?

It isn't a discussion of whether it "should" be described as genocide. The fact is that it has been described as genocide. We don't have people vociferously denying that it was genocide. We're mostly past denial. Quite possibly they were. What does that have to do with anything? Does that justify us committing genocide?

But they're not "bygone passions". Memorializing the slavers is an ongoing insult to the descendants of the slaves. Moving the insult to a less visible location doesn't "lose history". The memory is all too well preserved without the monument. That question is pretty good evidence that no objective answers are possible.

Of course we are. Percy values the historical value of the monument above the symbolism. I value it lower. No. It's because the individual soldiers are nameless that the monument is seen as symbolizing the Confederacy - and its salient feature, slavery.

It's not an evil thing in and of itself. It's a monument to an evil thing. It's like a "tribute" to John Wayne Gacy.I, for one, have not suggested destroying anything.

Sez you. Reference, please. The North didn't set out to destroy the Southern culture, only one aspect of it. I have not suggested destroying anything. YECs are not a culture.

So the definition of genocide isn't as cut and dried as you've been claiming it is. There is a controversy. There are people besides me who are saying that our treatment of the aboriginal people was (is) genocide.Yes, we have people denying it. We also have people denying that they are racist. Denial isn't a very strong argument.

They're a subculture, if you like. I have no problem with eliminating subcultures like the Mafia or the Manson family. If you put up a monument to Charles Manson, I wouldn't support destroying it but I'd support moving it.

"Whitewashing" would imply that we're trying to make something ugly look better. The opposite seems to be true.

I'm buying it. There's a lot of denial and self-delusion involved but white Southerners are definitely trying to sweep real history under the rug in favor of something less painful and more "glorious".

What would constitute evidence of self-delusion?

quote:

---

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...

---