PC Gone Too Far

If the "*" was to indicate a footnote, there was no footnote. When applied to the South Mr. Wiesel seems to agree with my position, no collective guilt. No collective innocence, either. I haven't the time to summarize the politics leading up to the Civil War, but realize that the South was part of the federal government, too, with votes in Congress. Secession had been threatened many times, but it happened when it did because the South felt a tipping point had been passed and that their waning political power at the federal level would not any longer be able to hold off the powers of abolition. Well, thank goodness for that. Here we were all worried that slavery was going to make a US comeback. This is by now a familiar approach in this thread, that the other side in this discussion has taken their position because they just don't understand how horrible slavery is.Our position is based upon an understanding that moral and emotional solutions cause much harm, or to translate this into the other side's preferred terminology, evil.--Percy

Like this excellent example of stonewalling? Except that we don't "all agree that slavery is evil." Evil is a subjective term with different meanings according to person and context. Your own attempt at a definition admitted to the broad ambiguities. I was speaking of your failure to provide a definition up to that point. In a subsequent paragraph you attempted a definition, your first. As I said, it admitted to the broad ambiguities. Here it is again from your Message 624: Yes, you might well "question harm and justification." Has no evil been committed against a slave who was never harmed without sufficient justification? Mustn't there be some more fundamental principle for why slavery is wrong?And no, these are not "settled issues in the minds of everyone here, including you." I believe slavery wrong based upon a moral principle, that one human being shouldn't own another. Harming other human beings is wrong independent of slavery and is another moral principle. It isn't an accusation, but anyway, to the contrary, they're central to the problem with your approach. If in your eyes evil is sufficient justification for action, how can you deny anyone's call to action based upon what they think evil? You cannot continue using a term you won't define (the one you provided is sorely inadequate). Let me try to define it for you: At least it's consistent, concrete and general enough to actually discuss. Yeah, right, we blame you for making slavery seem bad. Recently your writing seems more for effect than to support your position. Yes, judge.--Percy

Yes, you're right, there are no easy answers about when to fight, but the point I was leading to is that fighting is not often a good answer. History tells us that war often lacks objective support, rarely achieves desired outcomes, and has many unintended consequences, not to mention the expected consequences of death and destruction. To the extent that evil implies an imperative to rectify it can only increase conflict, and we already have enough of that. Actually, preserving history is the point of this thread. The memorial in question is a record of Southern feeling about the Civil War 120 years ago. NoNukes might describe it as an expression of Lost Cause sentiments. I understand we would disagree about a proposal to erect a memorial to Southern war dead today, but that's not at issue here. The key question is whether bygone passions or detachment should prevail in deciding the future of a very old monument. Yes, most certainly the North would have wished to abolish slavery peaceably, but the South wanted peace, too. The South expressed strong wishes that she be left alone in pursuing her own course as an independent nation. She attempted to negotiate payment for federal properties (like Fort Sumter) but was rebuffed. Regardless who fired first (while Fort Sumter marked the beginning of the Civil War, federal troops fired on Baltimore secessionists before Lincoln's inauguration and a couple months before Fort Sumter), given the North's position that secession was illegal and that the South must be made to conform with the constitution, conflict was inevitable. I don't myself see how objectivity might change conclusions that slavery is wrong on moral grounds, but I'm open to discussing any ideas you might have. Objectivity and morality are not opposites, and they are not mutually exclusive.About your specific scenario, is it morally wrong to buy slaves if the intent is to free them? This was a topic of active debate among abolitionists. Some argued it was wrong because it put a value on human life. Others argued more pragmatically that the ends justified these particular means. And of course some, like John Brown, argued that the ends justified any means.--Percy

Here's a recent Washington Post article: Jefferson Davis disappears as New Orleans removes another tribute to the ConfederacyWe seem to be trying to wipe out remembrances that the Confederacy was once venerated. It's feels more like a revising or whitewashing of history rather than a way of showing that the monuments don't reflect modern attitudes. A hundred years ago Jefferson Davis and his cause were venerated in New Orleans and they erected a statue, but letting that statue remain standing doesn't mean the cause is still venerated today, and it's a record of history. It, and the other monuments that have disappeared and will disappear, should have been left standing.--Percy

The thread is kind of long and had gotten into a digression when last active, so I don't think there's any need to read the whole thing. Yes, that has been mentioned before. I think preserving ancient monuments while putting them in context would be fine, but you're thinking of these as monuments of remembrance and veneration to the South, which of course they are, but I'm also considering the context of when the monuments were actually erected. The Jefferson statue was erected only a hundred years ago, more than a half century after the Civil War. It stands as a record of the fact that the Southern cause was still venerated then. Any plaque erected next to the statue should include this. Removing the statue just makes it more difficult to preserve this part of our history.--Percy

And yours, too. Yes, I already said that would be fine. If they end up in a museum then that would also be fine, but will they actually end up there? If they do end up in a museum will that really be the end of the objections, or will the objections then become to the museum displays? I agree with the sentiments but not with the solution. We're whitewashing history. Don't remove them, add context. It deserves to be publicly remembered how slowly attitudes change, how recently was the South still venerated, how (as someone recently reminded us in this thread) such attitudes persist still.--Percy

Whatever term is used, the point is that the further these monuments are removed from the public eye the more they're out of our consciousness. The more history is forgotten the better its mistakes can be repeated.--Percy

Nothing I said contradicts what I said earlier. It's a general principal. And perhaps the public is better off when constantly faced with uncomfortable truths. But out of sight, out of mind. The balance comes at a cost, and at risk of eventual consignment to storage. Museums must show what the public wants to see if they want the public to show up. If the Jefferson Davis statue is something people don't want to see then it won't survive long on public display. It would be interesting to see what the museum display eventually looks like, what kind of context they create.--Percy

Museum good, public display better, is not a contradiction. And I've expressed reservations about the museum alternative from the beginning. I think I'm more arguing that balance as you're advocating it may not really be balancing. It's a way of hiding history. Not less important, also important. Another danger is that even within sight can mean out of mind. Something you see everyday just sinks into the backdrop and goes unnoticed. You keep using yourself as an example. I would argue you're not typical.--Percy

In the editorial The Meaning of Our Confederate ‘Monuments’ in today's New York Times author Gary Shapiro argues for what he calls the "contextualist position." Focusing on Richmond's Monument Avenue he concludes:

quote:

---

Mere erasure would be a form of historical denial.

​

Destroying or removing the structures eliminates opportunities for productively using our past. Critical contextualization is the better alternative. This would be a complex process, drawing on the skills and judgment of historians, artists, urban planners and a good cross-section of local residents. Much could be added: plaques concerning the war itself, disputes over slavery, Richmond’s and Virginia’s roles in the Confederacy, Reconstruction (and its abrupt termination following the 1876 election deal), African-American disenfranchisement, the blatant racism surrounding the statues’ planning and dedication.

​

The wide green medians on the avenue provide open space for new sculptures of those who resisted slavery, the Confederacy, the institution of Jim Crow. Representative or anonymous victims of white supremacy could be remembered. Perhaps America can begin to become great by acknowledging and confronting its past with thoughtful monuments, memorials and critical interventions.

---

--Percy

In today's New York Times, New Orleans Removes Beauregard Statue, and Subdued Crowds Look On:

quote:

---

...the six-ton, 102-year-old statue of Beauregard astride a horse was lifted off the pedestal to be crated and stored at an undisclosed warehouse.

---

A warehouse. This is a lost opportunity to put context around the statue. Now the statue will be forgotten. Or perhaps it will be purchased by white supremacists to use in promoting their agenda.The remaining monument is that of Robert E. Lee.--Percy

Another piece of our history lost: This article (New Orleans removes monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee) mentions what will replace the statue and where the collection of removed statues will go:

quote:

---

City officials announced late Thursday that an unspecified water feature will replace the Lee statue, and an American flag will fly where the Davis fixture once stood. Nonprofits and government agencies will eventually be allowed to submit plans that would put the statues on private property. City Park officials will decide what will replace the Beauregard statue.

---

--Percy

Here's a little bit more detail about the fate of the statues from the New York Times editorial From Lofty Perch, New Orleans Monument to Confederacy Comes Down:

quote:

---

As for the statues themselves, the city is taking proposals from nonprofits and governmental entities, with the aim that they be put in their proper historical context from a dark period of American history.

---

--Percy

It's a good story, obviously I don't believe there will be follow through.No matter what happens to the original statues, for the sake of historical preservation I think there should be plaques at the original locations explaining that there used to be a statues there and how and in what way they became controversial. Their erection deserved preservation as a record of history, and so does their removal.--Percy

I thought they were just removing statues, not pedestals. We know that in the case of the Robert E. Lee statue they removed only the statue because there's film, and articles described that they would replace the statue with an American flag. I wonder if they removed that pedestal in your image.--Percy