Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Man CAN NOT have ownership in man. Any attempt to do so is contemptible. It’s man’s highest crime.
Moreover, it’s one thing to have a slave. It’s another to mistreat him or her, beat them to the edge of their lives, work them like pack animals without proper food or nutrition, rape the women with caprice, sell away their children or the children’s parents to get out of a debt or just because you feel like it. These are all aggravating circumstances above and beyond just slavery itself.
No, sorry. I will not prevaricate or engage in moral equivalency based on the era in which such men lived. These were enlightened, educated men of action who attended West Point or other prestigious academies. They took LOTS of liberal arts courses in that time such as philosophy and other humanities. They were Christians who twisted their beliefs into a pretzel to justify slavery as God ordained...or they twisted their Biblical teachings to make them fit the institution of slavery. Either way, it’s the same personal failing as men.
Sorry, but you cannot rape a woman, beat her whimsically, work her damn near to death, keep her nutrition barely above hunger levels, and THEN sell her child away and tell me that “well, it’s more complicated than you’re presenting here.” No effin way.
Now if you’re willing to tell me that Hood and Bragg were complete idiots who couldn’t have known better because they either had brain defects or twisted sense of morality, then we can have a point upon which to agree. I’ll accept that.
But if on the other hand, you’re telling me that these were perfectly sentient human beings who were capable of reasoned, rational thought, then their veneration MUST come down and be relegated to the world of museums. Not used as the namesakes for our national Forts.
Over the last couple days I've been thinking a lot about this post.
The way I see things...pretty much everyone would be best described as "complete idiots who couldn't have known better because they either had brain defects or a twisted sense of morality."
Ideally, I think in 200 years from now our descendants will see almost all of us as impulse-driven barbarians, mindlessly destroying whatever's closest. If they do so, I don't think it'll be because they'll be better people. I think it'll be because they'll be taught to be better by society, because on the inside, they'll be pretty much the same as us.
Slavery was inevitably a sickness of humanity more than any individuals, I'd say. Whatever resulted in that illness is still within us, although dormant, and it could come out again at some point in the right circumstances.
I agreed that those particularly cruel slave owners knew they were doing something wrong. I'd be surprised if there were any totally innocent slave owners who simply thought "I want to do what's best for these poor black folks who aren't capable of independence." I think every single slave owner, or family member of a slave owner, had a very strong motivation of "I don't like doing back-breaking labor...so I'd rather have other people do it."
I think it's important to understand that there was probably something in slave owners that's still within us. I think that not only are most of us capable of that lack of empathy...many to most of us are actively, currently, participating in that near-exact same lack of empathy, just in different ways...and I think these behaviors of ours are inevitable because of our cultures.
I don't necessarily agree that owning a person is the greatest crime of humanity. I think the majority of us may be, right now, engaging in behaviors that are far worse than some of the milder brands of slavery, and our behavior is inevitable. Our cultures have made it so we can't stop it. I won't describe exactly the sorts of behaviors I'm talking about, because I don't think there's a need to depress anyone, and I'm pretty certain nothing I say about that will change anyone's behaviors anyway, including my own. Those sorts of changes, I'm thinking, depend on massive cultural changes regarding what is considered normal...and I'm very doubtful that sort of thing can be changed through conversation.
If the most brutal slave-owner were brought back from the past to today, I'd insist that they'd be treated as completely innocent of any crime, partly because they were raised in a different time that I don't think I'm capable of understanding...but primarily because they will no longer be a danger because the paths they once had to cause harm are illegal now, and also because, at root, I'd say even people like Hitler were just confused.
I'm sure that lots of these more destructive types of people knew full well they're doing something greedy and pointlessly destructive, but there are different types of ethical knowledge. It's one thing to know oneself is doing something wrong. It's another thing entirely to think to oneself, "Hmmm...perhaps I should act on that knowledge?"
That lack of willingness to act on that knowledge that a person knows they're doing something wrong is its own kind of ignorance...and I don't really see why it's much less of a mental illness than people with schizophrenia have, except in that people who do things they know are wrong are more likely to repeat their harmful behaviors than schizophrenic people who discover they've done something wrong and regret it...and so we'll need to focus more on discouraging their behaviors, which can mean longer jail times/harsher negative feedback/etc.
However, I think there is no reason to lift people up as heroes who engaged in harmful behavior.
There's a cognitive scientist and philosopher I like a lot named Daniel Dennett who pretty strongly advocates the existence of free will...in the sense that humans are one of the few, if only, species able to roll around different concepts in their minds and weigh the pros and cons, and he seems to see the prospect of people just saying, "humans have no free will," as destructive, because it might discourage people from taking their fates into their own hands.
So...I'd say, we're simultaneously damned to follow the path our culture and instincts have set before us, and we have free will.
Hitler was a broken machine that needed some more oil, and with some more oil, he might have worked correctly. That said, his actions require negative feedback to prevent the occurrence of future similar actions...and that could mean a firing squad, or graphic fantasies about him being in hell, etc. I think someone could argue that could even mean actually torturing him as another form of negative feedback - a reminder to society of what not to do.
I would love nothing more than to dive into the mind of Hitler and Osama bin Laden and Stalin and some of the milder slave owners, and some of the most cruel, and I'd like to empathize with them and understand them...because whatever was wrong with those people is probably still within plenty of us, and it could come out again in the right circumstances.
That said, while I used to be uncaring about the fate of Confederate statues and these sorts of Issues...I now don't think there's any reason to glorify the behaviors of people like that unless we're very specific about the sort of point we're trying to get across. What I mean by that is the following:
I think I would like some kind of monument to Confederate soldiers that emphasizes that these were people with families of their own, brainwashed by their culture...and I think they'd all inevitably have been brainwashed by their culture...even the wealthiest and most educated...but that they also did something wrong.
The problem I now see with most Confederate statues and Confederate-named military bases and such, is that, while a person might look at these things as the reminders of the failures of humanity I'd like them to be perceived as, a person could easily also look at these monuments as glorifying their behaviors in ways beyond bravery...and a lot of these people would have been mind-bogglingly brave...it's just that this particular brand of bravery would be better described as fool-hardiness. A lot of people will, probably, look at Confederate statues as not only giving the message that these were our fellow human beings, but that their behaviors were ideal.
I figure our society will hopefully change as time goes on I don't really see a problem with, once a century or so just uprooting many of the more easily removable monuments our society now condemns...especially if it would put people in better moods. I could see some people complaining forever if certain Confederate statues and Confederate military bases are allowed to remain unchanged. However, once they're changed I'm thinking the complaints of the people complaining about that are only going to be temporary...and that's what matters the most to me: what ticks people off the most. I don't care much about symbolism, but what other people consider as important is definitely important...and what's probably going to tick people off the least over the long run, I think, will be the sorts of changes you're advocating.
It’s hard to go 3 or so miles anywhere in the US without coming across a place name (city, county, state, lake) that isn’t Native American. A bit painfully ironic for some. I don’t know of any bases with such names.
I am not keen on US bases named for Confederates and I wholly support revisions. I absolutely think it matters. Confederate names - why? That makes no sense and it hurts people. Imagine. Many/most confederate statues and monuments were far removed from the civil war, erected much later for certain reasons. I wonder if some of these bases were named in the same era or with similar sentiment - fear of the growth of non-white processes for equality.
Off topic: the new Mississippi state flag is a vast improvement. I don’t know what the yellow bars signify, but I think its a good redesign.
Maybe nothing should be named after people anymore. Who knows, 40 years from now, the new name might be controversial. How 'bout name them for flowers, geographical features, animals, etc.
I was in the Army at a post called Redstone Arsenal, named for the red rocks commonly found in the area. Another base named after a geographical feature, was White Sands Proving Ground. There wouldn't be any post that wouldn't have some landmark nearby that was not named for a person, that might be suitable for using to give it a name change.
We have lost the eloquence of our ancestors. Were someone to speak so distinguishably today, they would be viewed as either pompous or elitist. We have so devalued education in our country that someone like Donald J. Trump still received almost half of the popular vote for his first term performance.
Quote:
The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them.
Great. Then no one can say that we’re destroying history seeing as how you’re openly admitting that they’ll be well remembered regardless.
So then, there’s no need for any recognition by the officialdom. Thanks.
Of course they'll be remembered. Unless somebody burns all the history books and deletes the Internet. Heck, there's Confederate flags flying in rural Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and more states where it would seem unlikely. Admittedly, I find it a little curious myself since these states fought against the Confederacy.
Of course they'll be remembered. Unless somebody burns all the history books and deletes the Internet. Heck, there's Confederate flags flying in rural Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and more states where it would seem unlikely. Admittedly, I find it a little curious myself since these states fought against the Confederacy.
So do I, but I think we both know the agenda in those cases.
Go look what the British name their capital ships. Aside from Royalty, they all call ships names like:
Courageous, Eagle, Hermes, Illustrious, Implacable, Colossus, Majestic, Audacious, Invincible.
I like that.
Myself, I don't think ships should be named after living people.
If the ship is to be named after someone alive, then the said person should be sacrificed on the ways as the vessel proceeds into the sea.
Man CAN NOT have ownership in man. Any attempt to do so is contemptible. It’s man’s highest crime.
I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of slavery. I'm just stating my opinion regarding this black and white judgement of historical figures in modern terms is very short-sighted. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin all owned slaves. They also committed "man's highest crime", should they therefore be condemned? Genocide used to be the old #1 if we are now rethinking the crime rankings.
Should everything named Washington or Jefferson be renamed? Washington certainly took an oath to serve his country (Great Britain) and broke it as well in order to fight with rebels. A traitor is one of the founders of our country.
Again, I have no issue with the renaming of Ft. Hood, I don't care one way or the other. I don't think anyone even thinks of John Bell Hood when you say Ft. Hood, and I certainly don't think anyone is admiring the man or being inspired by him. Renaming it doesn't do a single thing to advance us into a more equitable future.
I say if you are going to move forward with renaming Ft. Hood, stop putting the focus on a critique of John Bell Hood, and focus on Benavidez instead.
I can read about historical figures and put myself into their time period and take away the judgements. You almost have to do this otherwise you will be disgusted by everything you read in history. Our modern morality is not the same as 100, 200, or 300 years ago. To think that you would be any different if you were transported 160 years into the past is just plain ignorance.
Hitler was a broken machine that needed some more oil, and with some more oil, he might have worked correctly. That said, his actions require negative feedback to prevent the occurrence of future similar actions...and that could mean a firing squad, or graphic fantasies about him being in hell, etc. I think someone could argue that could even mean actually torturing him as another form of negative feedback - a reminder to society of what not to do.
I would love nothing more than to dive into the mind of Hitler and Osama bin Laden and Stalin and some of the milder slave owners, and some of the most cruel, and I'd like to empathize with them and understand them...because whatever was wrong with those people is probably still within plenty of us, and it could come out again in the right circumstances.
Humans are humans. If we were transported to the past, we would have been the same as humans from back then. In order to understand those historical figures, you really have to delve into the world and the ideas that were floating around during that time period.
Hitler was a product of what was going on in Germany during that time period. I don't agree with him working correctly with more oil though. Hitler's intentions were largely based on evil thoughts, such as racial supremacy. The core of his actions were based on this. It wasn't just a little tweak to change Hitler into a force for good. Unfortunately, the whole series of events that occurred in Europe leading up to WWII allowed someone like a Hitler to take power. If it wasn't him, it could have easily been someone else.
Now it could be asked that if Hitler had been raised in a different time or place, would he have turned out the same? From everything I've read, it'd be hard to tell really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
