Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8819 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-21-2018 1:21 PM
336 online now:
Coyote, PaulK, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (4 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 825,982 Year: 805/29,783 Month: 805/1,849 Week: 13/324 Day: 13/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Facts are Overrated
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1832
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(6)
Message 31 of 61 (784683)
05-21-2016 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
05-20-2016 10:07 PM


Percy writes:

I don't think that posing a speculative question implies any conclusions, but it does seem an interesting possibility that the relationship between facts and being right is a lot more tenuous than is commonly thought. We on the evolution side may believe we were convinced by the facts, but if we'd been born into a different religion or part of the country maybe we'd accept creationism and believe we were convinced by the facts. Same person, same confidence that the facts led us to our beliefs, but different and opposing beliefs.

This thread makes me think of an old Bob Dylan song, One Too Many Mornings. The last verse goes:

"It's a restless, hungry feelin' that don't do no one no good
And everything I'm a-sayin' - you can say it just as good
You're right from your side and I am right mine
We're both just one too mornings and thousand miles behind."

But we also have a popular meme in faceback, attributed to Isaac Asimov that goes something like:


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-20-2016 10:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 32 of 61 (784691)
05-21-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 12:51 AM


I'll respond to both Message 29 and Message 30 in this one post.

NoNukes writes:

Perhaps those are sufficient to convince you to rethink your position, and perhaps they were not.

I don't really have a position. I have a speculative question that seems worth exploring, and so I'm willing to argue the position to see where it goes.

It was important to the country that the North find some way to forgive their opponent in the civil war. They managed to do so.

Forgiveness requires assuming a position of moral superiority where it is judged a wrong has been committed, and forgiveness runs both ways. By and large the Civil War is no longer much in the public awareness here in the North, but living where you do you're well aware that there are still hard feelings in the South even all these 151 years later. I've spent time in Richmond and Charleston, and the anti-North sentiment was impossible to miss. If the South has forgiven the North for the Civil War it was not apparent to me.

I don't see how minimizing the abhorrence of their cause helps accomplish that goal. In fact, calling that type of reasoning PC sounds entirely appropriate.
...
But I suspect such criticism would not rise to the level of finger pointing and disgust that we might level at a man for defending the right to own another person or his state's right to allow such a thing or the countries obligation to return his slave to him if the slave managed to escape to a free state.

You're right that there are elements of PC in this position, and now I'll throw out the term "moral relativism." Who are we to judge the South for having slaves? Today we judge slavery wrong, but at one time we judged raw capitalism wrong because in its worst expressions it made slaves of employees, so laws were passed to make capitalism palatable.

With the right laws slavery could be made equally palatable. The slave owner provides room and board and clothing and spending money in return for services, and laws restrict the number of hours the slave can work, regulate sales and living conditions, require keeping families together, require education for children, etc. With these legal reforms now slavery begins to look like just another type of economic opportunity, like the military, apprenticeship, indenturement, etc. Then it becomes just an issue of whether one person owning another person is right or wrong, proper or evil. Of those who judge it evil one must ask which facts say it's evil.

You have claimed that we must have memorials to Southern heroes in order to make sure we do not repeat their mistakes.

Well, yes, but I was thinking more generally, it was just an example of a threat to our record of history, and I quoted Santayana's warning about the dangers of forgetting history. But there's a flip side to war memorials. In the case of the memorial in question a group decided to erect a memorial of that appearance in that location 131 years ago. Does that memorial then remain unchanged and in place in perpetuity? Do the people of today not have a say over what stands on their land? Certainly the law sides mostly with current owners, but consideration of things like history and cemeteries and religious sacred ground and so forth are also written into law.

And so I lament any loss of history but recognize that one generation should not have an unchallengeable right to co-opt for all subsequent generations what exists on a spot of land.

Perhaps the Salem witch trials present a better example? Do you think the principle that 'facts may not have the power to convince' is sufficient reason for us to give those old Massachusetts residents a pass? Is it even necessary for us to do that? None of those folks are even around any more, but maybe in the spirit of forgiveness we should name one of the law school buildings on some Mass. campus the John Hathorne champion for Justice Building.

But isn't it a form of arrogance for subsequent generations to bestow upon themselves the right of judgment? We can say that by today's standards they were wrong and ignorant, and that it's appalling when people today exhibit such poor judgment and knowledge, but concerning the past isn't the more appropriate approach to examine it in context with its social and cultural backdrop and with the information they had available at the time? It doesn't seem an issue of judgment or forgiveness but just one of understanding the past as well as possible.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 12:51 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 5:39 PM Percy has responded
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 5:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 33 of 61 (784706)
05-21-2016 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-21-2016 2:08 PM


Percy writes:

Who are we to judge the South for having slaves? Today we judge slavery wrong, but at one time we judged raw capitalism wrong because in its worst expressions it made slaves of employees, so laws were passed to make capitalism palatable.

I do make that judgment and I feel justified in doing so based solely on the fact that the slaves were human beings only cosmetically different from their masters and that such condition cannot justify consigning them to the dregs of society. I also point out that enslaving humans is entirely inconsistent with the idea of equality which was supposedly a principle on which their country was based. I have also read the various justifications the South has offered for slavery and I don't find a single one that mitigates my reasons for finding slavery unjust. None of them rises above being a pretext.

In my view, that is sufficient to judge them based on what ought to have been right under the standards of the 1800s as well as by what is just under today's standards.

You can of course make your own judgment or elect not to judge and you are free to feel that no one else can judge. Since you have expressed this as a question, I am not going to assign one position or the other to you. On the other hand, you are free to judge me for the opinion I hold regarding slavery. I don't mind that at all. I am an intolerant person because I won't tolerate the peculiar institution on which Southern wealth and society was largely built. The peculiar institution was vile and evil.

Forgiveness requires assuming a position of moral superiority where it is judged a wrong has been committed

I disagree.

Forgiveness simply requires a judgement that a wrong has been committed based on the forgiving person's standards. It does not require that the person being forgiven acknowledges that he has committed a wrong or that his own moral code which absolves him is inferior. Jesus offered forgiveness to people 'who know not what they do'.

In the case of the North and South, the process of forgiveness included letting the South perpetrate the myth that they were actually right; that the South's cause had not been preserving slavery but a fight against tyranny; that their officer's defections from the union and their attacks on federal property were righteous rather than traitorous. For political reasons it was important to find some way of getting the two halves of the country together and rubbing the South's nose in the dirt was counter productive. The Lost Cause view of the civil war is easily dismissed based on the words and actions of the participants but I can understand the expediency that suggested that we reunify the south even if the Negro suffering was dismissed as a result. But now that need for unifying formerly warring parts of the country no longer exists. The traitors and heroes of the past are gone, and there is little reason to continue to pander to them in the present particularly when we have reached a modern judgment regarding slavery.

Not sure of the point regarding your example. Raw capitalism was judged to be wrong in the past and now we don't have that. Where is the conundrum?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-21-2016 2:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 05-22-2016 8:36 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 34 of 61 (784707)
05-21-2016 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-21-2016 2:08 PM


Well, yes, but I was thinking more generally, it was just an example of a threat to our record of history, and I quoted Santayana's warning about the dangers of forgetting history. But there's a flip side to war memorials. In the case of the memorial in question a group decided to erect a memorial of that appearance in that location 131 years ago. Does that memorial then remain unchanged and in place in perpetuity? Do the people of today not have a say over what stands on their land?

Apparently not. Those kinds of concerns are pure PC.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-21-2016 2:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 61 (784734)
05-22-2016 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 5:39 PM


NoNukes writes:

In my view, that is sufficient to judge them based on what ought to have been right under the standards of the 1800s...

Then this is the primary difference between us. I believe that people should be studied within the context of their time and place in history.

Forgiveness simply requires a judgement that a wrong has been committed based on the forgiving person's standards.

There's that word "judgment" again. When it comes to history, I think qualities like knowledge and insight should have key roles, not judgment.

Not sure of the point regarding your example. Raw capitalism was judged to be wrong in the past and now we don't have that. Where is the conundrum?

I don't see a conundrum, either - it was more an analogy. Many of the abuses of capitalism, primarily exploitation of labor, but also monopolies, use of public resources, etc., have been addressed by passing laws. What if the abuses of slavery were addressed in the same way so that slavery became just another form of economic opportunity, like the military, apprenticeship, indenturement, employment, college, etc. With all qualities but one gone that make slavery repugnant and evil in your eyes, what are the facts that make ownership of human beings morally wrong?

But the key question is whether people deserve a lot less credit for being right or blame for being wrong than is commonly thought. Were people evil who believed in witches and killed those they believed were witches? Were people good who believed the accused were not witches? Or did confirmation bias and motivated reasoning combined in substantial measure with background, education, social millieu, etc., (in other words, not facts) lead each side to their conclusions, making selection of a position, whether right or wrong, largely one of accident?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 5:39 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 2:01 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 61 (784799)
05-23-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
05-22-2016 8:36 AM


Ten this is the primary difference between us. I believe that people should be studied within the context of their time and place in history.

I think you are exaggerating a bit. You can study them within that context if you want. I can do that too. But what those folks believed about themselves does not end what we can or should say about them.

There's that word "judgment" again. When it comes to history, I think qualities like knowledge and insight should have key roles, not judgment.

I don't see any reason not to use all three. You haven't given me any reason other than saying that you do things differently.

What if the abuses of slavery were addressed in the same way so that slavery became just another form of economic opportunity, like the military, apprenticeship, indenturement, employment, college, etc.

I cannot take your proposition seriously. I wonder if you do? I'll address the question once you commit to one side of the question or another. Beyond that I am not sure that the question sheds much light on the current subject. The fact that capitalism has changed does not require or suggest that we ought to view some of the things that happened at the beginning of the industrial revolution kindly or that we cannot condemn them.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 05-22-2016 8:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 05-23-2016 10:44 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10435
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 37 of 61 (784805)
05-23-2016 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
05-16-2016 2:34 PM


How To Test For God
I can readily understand confirmation bias, and I added a comment at this article as well.

What i dont as easily see is the ability to apply any facts to the existence (or nah) of God.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 2:34 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 05-24-2016 2:42 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 38 of 61 (784820)
05-23-2016 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
05-23-2016 2:01 PM


NoNukes writes:

I think you are exaggerating a bit. You can study them within that context if you want. I can do that too. But what those folks believed about themselves does not end what we can or should say about them.

Sure, as long as we're talking about factual analysis and not moral judgments based on modern western sensibilities.

There's that word "judgment" again. When it comes to history, I think qualities like knowledge and insight should have key roles, not judgment.

I don't see any reason not to use all three. You haven't given me any reason other than saying that you do things differently.

Sure, but again, only if we're talking about critical judgment and not moral judgment. I don't see a connection between facts and moral judgments.

I cannot take your proposition seriously. I wonder if you do? I'll address the question once you commit to one side of the question or another. Beyond that I am not sure that the question sheds much light on the current subject.

It does far more than shed light on the topic. It is at the topic's core. What facts make slavery evil? Most people would include things like overwork, beatings, family break ups, and so forth, but none of these things are inherent to slavery. Only human beings as property is inherent. What facts make that evil?

The fact that capitalism has changed does not require or suggest that we ought to view some of the things that happened at the beginning of the industrial revolution kindly or that we cannot condemn them.

That wasn't my point. That capitalism became much more civilized over time urges consideration of how we might feel about slavery had it become similarly much more civilized over time, particularly if we're requiring that conclusions be supported by facts.

Just so we don't forget the actual topic, I think the current discussion developed out of my use of the North and South before and during the Civll War as an example of my belief that people form their opinions based upon their time and place in history, not facts, and with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning playing a role. The opinions accepted by the average person are largely a product of forces far outside themselves and are not a measure of any inherent qualities of good or evil.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 11:56 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 39 of 61 (784821)
05-23-2016 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
05-23-2016 10:44 PM


That wasn't my point. That capitalism became much more civilized over time urges consideration of how we might feel about slavery had it become similarly much more civilized over time, particularly if we're requiring that conclusions be supported by facts.

I don't think a more civilized version of slavery prevents a judgment of the chattel slavery as it existed in the South even if we are requiring conclusions to be supported by facts. If worker-employer relation ships are civilized now, that does not mean that they were correct in the past. Just what 'facts' are you using to justify your conclusion.

The opinions accepted by the average person are largely a product of forces far outside themselves and are not a measure of any inherent qualities of good or evil.

Seriously. Why should I care what the average person thought about slavery in 1861? I don't care how many people thought slavery was a great idea.

What facts make slavery evil? Most people would include things like overwork, beatings, family break ups, and so forth, but none of these things are inherent to slavery.

I'd include a bit more including the need to dehumanize both slave and master in order to make the system work, at least as it was implemented in the South. I'd add stripping away of self determination, removal the ability to plan for children and to provide for their future, the interference in marital relationships, rape, and the denial of fundamental freedom and liberty. Slaves generally had no right to any form of justice. How about the fact that it was applied involuntarily simply based on race. Quite frankly, you've barely started on a list.

Aren't we actually discussing slavery as it existed in the South? Why are you insisting that the debate here is about a judgment of some idealization or civilizing of slavery that did not actually exist. I'm not sure you think is worth saving regarding the institution of slavery, but I'm fairly satisfied with the approach to the issue taken in the 15th amendment which eliminated both slavery and indentured servitude. Nothing particularly modern about that. Strictly a 19th century judgment by peers of those Southern slave owners.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 05-23-2016 10:44 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-24-2016 12:24 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 40 of 61 (784824)
05-24-2016 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
05-23-2016 11:56 PM


NoNukes writes:

I appreciate the opportunity to understand how you think. You and I will never agree on this issue.

It doesn't feel to me like the position you're disagreeing with is the one I'm expressing.

I don't think a more civilized version of slavery prevents a judgment of the chattel slavery as it existed in the South even if we are requiring conclusions to be supported by facts. If worker-employer relation ships are civilized now, that does not mean that they were correct in the past. Just what 'facts' are you using to justify your conclusion.

This reply seems to a different argument than the one I made. Very briefly this time, I believe moral judgments don't derive from facts. I also believe that North/South attitudes about slavery formed first, and the search for supposed supporting "facts" came later in a process that included confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Seriously. Why should I care what the average person thought about slavery in 1861? I don't care how many people thought slavery was a great idea.

The average person was part of my introduction of this subtopic. From my Message 5:

me in Message 5 writes:

But given the power of "confirmation bias" or "motivated reasoning" or whatever we want to call it, I wonder how well it could be argued that being right is almost accidental, at least for your average person.
...
This reminds of the discussion in the PC Gone Too Far thread about military memorials where we discussed how much blame could be cast at people for conforming to and taking up the mores of their time and place in human history.

I've always been thinking about this in terms of individuals, the average people of the North and South. When you used the term "evil," that's who I assumed you were referring to.

AbE: Whoa! Your message way changed. I shouldn't watch tennis while trying to reply, takes too long.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 11:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2016 1:41 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 61 (784827)
05-24-2016 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-24-2016 12:24 AM


I also believe that North/South attitudes about slavery formed first, and the search for supposed supporting "facts" came later in a process that included confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Again, one of the things you've disagreed with is present day attempts to judge antebellum slavery. I agree that present day judgments should be based on the facts and that they my own opinion is based on facts and not the fantasizing about how it could have been different I've seen in your proposals. You have claimed that I am not using facts and that a factual judgment would not conclude that slavery as practiced by the South was evil. I simply do not understand your reasoning.

In my view what you call preserving history appears to be preserving a falsification of history adopted by Southerns trying to deny that they fought a war to preserve slavery despite having written extensively that slavery was the most important issue in their differences with the North. I understand why those Southerners felt the need to do that and also why their Northern brothers by and large accommodated that need. I don't see that same need to lie today.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-24-2016 12:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 05-24-2016 7:54 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5328
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 42 of 61 (784828)
05-24-2016 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
05-23-2016 4:03 PM


Re: How To Test For God
Phat writes:

What i dont as easily see is the ability to apply any facts to the existence (or nah) of God.

Well yes, that's rather the point - nobody has ever been able to point to any testable facts about god/s. Yet people believe anyway. They then use their belief to deflect any real facts that come to light that might intefere.

Faith believes in a literal bible so you see her fighting off any facts that prove it's in error which is pretty much the entire body of natural science. A better example of motivated reasoning is hard to find.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 05-23-2016 4:03 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 43 of 61 (784834)
05-24-2016 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
05-24-2016 1:41 AM


NoNukes writes:

Again, one of the things you've disagreed with is present day attempts to judge antebellum slavery.

I have no problem with each generation forming its own opinions of the past. What I've actually disagreed with is judgments of the people of that period who accepted and argued in favor of slavery as evil. People in general are pretty much the same the world over. They form their opinions based on where and when they live, and then they seek facts and rationalizations for them. Take a stauch pro-slavery Southerner, then go back in time and instead raise him in the North surrounded by anti-slavery Northerners and with economic opportunities that don't involve slavery and it will yield a person of diametrically opposite beliefs. What you call evil Pro-slavery views were not inherent in this person, they were added later, and he proved equally able to adopt anti-slavery views if raised in the Northern context. So how could he be evil?

In my view what you call preserving history appears to be preserving a falsification of history adopted by Southerns trying to deny that they fought a war to preserve slavery despite having written extensively that slavery was the most important issue in their differences with the North.

What Southern "falsification of history" are you referring to? Whatever it is, isn't it now a part of the historical record? Isn't it worth its weight in gold as a record of Southern thought?

I understand why those Southerners felt the need to do that and also why their Northern brothers by and large accommodated that need. I don't see that same need to lie today.

There's no lying. Aged memorials and battlefields and writings and homes and cemeteries from another time don't speak for us. What preserving them does say is that we value history.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2016 1:41 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2016 9:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2016 9:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2016 9:42 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 61 (784867)
05-24-2016 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
05-24-2016 7:54 AM


Never mind. I got your message.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 05-24-2016 7:54 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 45 of 61 (784868)
05-24-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
05-24-2016 7:54 AM


There's no lying. Aged memorials and battlefields and writings and homes and cemeteries from another time don't speak for us.

Cemeteries and battlefields are pretty neutral I don't recall those particular things being touched upon in our discussions. Some memorials are celebrations and statements about heroes that do not reflect reality. They were intended to serve messages and celebrations. The do not speak for us, they lie to us. In some cases they are actually state supported speech lying to us. If there is some historical content, then why isn't a museum a great place for providing that function.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 05-24-2016 7:54 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018