PC Gone Too Far

You argued that we should look at slavery empathically, and I responded that we that approach slavery in the same way we approach all the rest of history, objectively. You're response is about how we might decide which monuments we'd put up today, which is beside the point.People decided to put up a monument 120 years ago, and you object to it because you believe we should look at history that is related to slavery empathically and not objectively. How do you justify looking at the slavery portion of history empathically and all the rest of history objectively? I granted the obvious parallel. I even used that very word, "parallel." If that's what you're going with now then I have no problem with it. Obviously I have not been using "wrong" that sense. I've also said that I have much the same problems with "morally wrong" as I do with "evil". I prefer the term "morally wrong" because it is not as easily confused with religious concepts of "evil".--Percy

This is where we part company. My view is that the adults were the end result of raising children in an environment where slavery is the norm. Their environment as adults was no different from when they were children. The reinforcing messages were all the same, and even stronger as slavery became increasingly essential economically.--Percy

If it were true that you "get it" then it would be apparent in your arguments, but it's not, and you usually preface your rebuttals with obvious misstatements of the position. I don't recall posting anything in 1830 (), but anyway, no, not according to anything Percy posted. Reread the McPherson quote in Message 532. "But the sense of evil had faded by 1830..." It was a gradual change brought on by changing circumstances (increases in both the economic dependence on slavery and the intertwining of slavery into Southern culture) and by the inevitable changing of the guard (the old generation passes away to be replaced by the new with its own ideas and opinions).The North also changed their views. The North looked on in horror as the practice of slavery grew instead of gradually dying out, and in reaction their view changed from a "necessary evil" to an outright evil. "Someone created a society"? Really?No one "created" Southern society. It just happened. You can't blame it on someone or group of someones deliberating setting out to create a society. You really need to go back and read the McPherson quote again, where it says the sense of evil had faded *by* 1830, not after 1830. It was a long and gradual process. The arguments for the benefits to master and slave were largely not new. The South didn't invent them and already believed them before cotton was king, though certainly they elaborated upon them. It was how arguments weighed out in the balance in Southern and Northern minds that changed. You are very strenuously missing the point. Only when you begin rebutting what is actually said can you rightfully claim to have gotten the point.--Percy

I agree that it's not an easy question. I don't think there was much germ warfare, though, and that most of the disease damage probably happened in the 16th and 17th centuries.That doesn't exempt later actions on the remaining population from being genocidal in nature, of course. It certainly isn't very illuminating.

Yes. You can't just ignore the cause they were fighting for. What you're trying to do is like putting police officers who die in the line of duty on an equal footing with Bonnie and Clyde. I have already said that more than once.

And slavery wasn't regarded as a bad thing - until it was. It always takes a while for some people's empathy to engage. It isn't a crime to stop a crime.

We should preserve the bad AS BAD, not on an equal footing with the good. How many times do I have to repeat it? Objectivity is a bad idea when it comes to remembering history. Objectivity will have you getting your calculator out to decide whether or not to buy a slave to wash your driverless car. All we have to remember about slavery is that it's a bad thing because we wouldn't want it to happen to us. The only feelings relevant to what WE commemorate are OUR feelings.

One more time: the only use for objectivity in history is to determine what happened. We have no disagreement about the events of slavery, so we're done with objectivity. Objectivity has no place in deciding what to commemorate or what to repeat.

An odd comment. All slave systems probably had their critics, but they certainly wouldn't have had unless or until they did.Like the rest of your comments, it does nothing to support your view that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend genocide. Surely, in relation to cultural death, the South was fighting for preservation and the North for change. Why, having failed to support the idea that the southern soldiers were genocidal, do you want to see them as supporting culturecide?

The question is rhetorical, which is why I answered it in the remaining portion of my paragraph that didn't quote. If evil is sufficient justification for moving a monument, how do we deny other people their claim that evil is sufficient justification for outlawing abortion or homosexuality? You actually help make this point by characterizing the confusion: So you feel you could argue the evils of abortion on the facts, but not of homosexuality. But isn't what you really need to do is remove evil from the equation and just argue the issues on the facts? Yes, precisely, or people who cut you off in traffic are evil. Evil isn't some precise, objective classification. It is subjective and inconstant. It isn't whether you are self-consistent, but that out in the world there is a plethora of opinion about what is evil and what evil is.Someone stands up at town meeting in Louisville and says, "The monument is to an evil army and should be moved from its prominent location," then someone else stands up and says, "Before you move that monument you better deal with the evils of homosexuality." So now they're going to debate the merits of moving the monument versus outlawing homosexuality? The only connection between them is claims of evil, but in reality there is no connection at because there's no reason to bring evil into it.Basing arguments upon something as (sorry to repeat myself) subjective and inconstant as evil is improper, unjustified, and confuses together issues that have no relationship. Lust or pride or sloth or greed would be just as absurd foundations for arguments.--Percy

Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only victim of your repeated mischaracterizations. This is the second time you've made this incorrect claim. McPherson actually said views of slavery as evil had faded *by* 1830, not after 1830. I've already elaborated on this in another post, no need for a repeat. Get it right, then we can discuss.--Percy

Concerning the latter, you'd be wrong. McPherson said:

quote:

---

Southerners bristled at these attacks on their social system. At one time a good many of them had shared the conviction that slavery was an evil — albeit a "necessary" one for the time being because of the explosive racial consequences of emancipation. But the sense of evil had faded by 1830 as the growing world demand for cotton fastened the tentacles of a booming plantation economy on the South.

---

It sure does. The North also believed this for a long period. The views of both sides changed in response to changing circumstances. McPherson describes a gradual change ("faded") concurrent with the growing influence of the successful cotton economy. Your mind has somehow translated this into a false and impossible picture of a sudden change of views on both sides.--Percy

I see. If I don't adopt your overly moralistic terminology then I'm guilty of yet another sin. It should by now be obvious to even you that there's no objectivity in your approach. This is just baseless rhetoric. There's no whiff of better remembering history in your approach. You're the one in favor of removing history, remember?--Percy

Is it just me seeing slavery as always wrong no matter the circumstances?I base this on empathy.Slaves can't even try to change their circumstances no matter how bad those circumstances are. Non-slaves can.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Soldiers are frequently the largest group of victims. The old idea of ending war by putting politicians on the front lines comes to mind. Maybe it could be part of a new article for the Geneva Convention. Ringo's characterization of my views was both true and false, depending upon your definition of "heroes". He meant "heroes" in the sense of "heroes fighting for their right keep slaves" who in his mind have no right to monuments in honor of their sacrifice, while I of course believe both sides fought heroically and deserve to be honored in equal measure.Ringo chooses to see conflict in terms of good and evil, and those he judges evil deserve no honor. He is aware of the subjectivity and inconstant nature of judgments of evil, even to the extent of turning against him, but seems unconcerned.--Percy