|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
Does that apply to the "soldiers" of ISIS?
Don't most soldiers around the world understand that all soldiers are basically the same, that they share a common bond, and that devotion to different causes or countries is a superficial difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
Which is why we should be careful about generalizing. The claim that all war dead are worthy of respect is clearly out the window. So why preserve monuments to general war dead? A monument to those who died defending the Third Reich does implicitly include the SS. Defense of the Confederacy does imply defense of slavery.
People everywhere are the same mix of types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
jar writes:
No. Should we have an expectation that things we disapprove of are not memorialized or honored? Nor should people who put up memorials expect them to be sacrosanct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I have mixed feelings about the Vietnam War. I'm the same age as Vietnam veterans so I can identify with them but at a visceral level I have more respect for the war resisters than the warriors. I definitely DO NOT think a memorial to those warriors is appropriate.
If I understand you properly, then to continue your line of argument, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial implies defense of My Lai.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
Don't confuse monuments with history. History would be a list of the war dead. Individual monuments say, "We're sad that our son/brother/husband/etc. died, no matter how he died." Collective monuments say, "Hurrah! our sons/brothers/husbands/etc. died in the glorious cause of _______!"
My argument is for the preservation of history, especially history we find offensive. Percy writes:
Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a monument.
There's a reason Auschwitz-Birkenau still exists, and it isn't to celebrate the Nazis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
I didn't say anything was offensive.
So offensive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
Maybe if you tell us what you think the real point is....
Way to dodge the real point though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Not really. A monument is a record of history. We don't "lose history" by (re)moving a monument any more than we lose history or literature by removing a worn-out book from the library. Aren't monuments a part of history? And we lose more history when an old hotel burns down than we would if we (re)moved a monument.
Percy writes:
The equivalent in the Civil War would be the preservation of a slave ship. If you want to preserve the history that people find offensive, it's the offensive bits that you need to preserve.
ringo writes:
Its relevance is as an example of preservation of a part of history most people find offensive. Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a monument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
But it isn't the offensive history that you're advocating for, it's the cover-up of the offensive bits. We don't lose history by moving a monument. We lose history by keeping a monument that doesn't tell the history accurately. If they added a plaque that read, "These men died to preserve the institution of slavery," that would be preserving history. But the people who put up the monument wouldn't want that, would they?
My argument is that offensive history is *especially* worth preserving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
Sure it does. Putting up a monument to a group implies that they're worth remembering as a group. It isn't just that one monument is cheaper than a thousand. It isn't just a random group of people who pooled their money to put up a really nice monument. It's a "tribute" to the "Confederate" dead. It implies rather strongly that their deaths were worthwhile.
This collective monument doesn't say what you said collective monuments say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
But they are grouped together under the label "South" or "Confederate", which definitely does imply motivation. You can disavow any knowledge of individual motivation in individual monuments but when a monument is erected to a group, you can't honestly ignore the group motivation.
Grouping them all under a single motivational label could not possibly be accurate. Percy writes:
By all means, let's do that. But you're not doing that by just preserving monuments. We need to preserve our judgement of history too.
... even cover-ups are part of history and should be preserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
We don't judge criminals by how much they give to charity. We judge them by their crimes.
Too, just because a cause was Confederate doesn't mean that it wasn't worthwhile. There was more going on than just slavery. Cat Sci writes:
The delusion that they thought they were fighting for is irrelevant. The actual result of their actions, if they had been successful, was to perpetuate slavery. If you fire your shotgun out the window knowing full well that some innocent person may suffer, it doesn't matter how lofty your intentions are. It's the crime that counts.
The rank and file of the armies of the South were not dying to preserve the institution of slavery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I propose not putting up memorials to groups with questionable motivation. If you don't have something good to say about them, don't say anything at all.
Well, okay, but if you're going to treat those labels as definitely implying motivation, what labels do you propose using when not implying any motivation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
petrophysics1 writes:
Creationists use social, moral, etc. justifications for creationism. Let's put up a memorial to Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Ken Ham.
The South used, in my opinion, social, economic, and moral justifications for slavery. This should not be forgotten and NOTHING coveys it better than memorials to their position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
That's a pretty weak rebuttal.
That's terrible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024