Let's begin with the post itself
The flag in Ocala still represents the racist confederacy and is actually tangential to the point you were originally trying to make about individuals flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage, not hate". Shifting goal posts and whatnot.
However, that is not the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption of your argument is that one can use a symbol entirely divorced from it's historical, and current, context. It's clear that you understand that is an underlying assumption, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, because you've been trying to justify it by rewriting history. Specifically, your thesis of the Confederate flag can represent "heritage, not hate" seems to rest on your contention that the pre-Civil War North was morally equivalent, in terms of slavery, to the pre-Civil War South.
So, here is the root question of critical thinking: Why do you think that?
Are you intellectually honest enough to answer?
I wanted to post it in its entirety just to collect all of the incorrect elements in one place, just in case anyone was unclear on the context. Now, though, I will dissect it.
The flag in Ocala still represents the racist confederacy and is actually tangential to the point you were originally trying to make about individuals flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage, not hate".
My original point was made in post 399 and had absolutely nothing to do with "Heritage, not hate." I don't remember when that slogan came up, or anything related to that slogan, but it was some time after that. In other words, "Heritage, not hate" was the tangent.
When it comes to that subject, though, I am fairly confident that you missed the point that I was making about it. My point was that those saying it were denouncing racism. They were calling it "hate". "Hate" is bad. They certainly acknowledged the existence of hate. They denounced the use of the flag by the KKK or by any group that espoused white supremacist views. My point was that there were a bunch of Confederate flag wavers denouncing racism, and that is a positive sign. I wasn't addressing the actual meaning of the flag, or whether their position that it represents heritage is something that could stand up to critical examination. That's a different topic. My point was that those people were waving the flag, and denouncing racism. They might be a little bit unclear on their history, but their hearts, or at least their words, are in the right place. Any denunciation of racism is a good thing.
Shifting goal posts and whatnot.
As noted above, the original goalposts had nothing to do with "heritage, not hate", so any move away from that topic was an attempt to move the goal posts back where they belong. Of course, your comment above is really just an attempt to engage in the time honored JREF tradition of fallacy Bingo. Drop names of fallacies as a way of seeming erudite and educated. I do it myself, sometimes. I, too, can be pretentious.
However, if you would care to reopen the tangent of "Heritage, not hate", I have no objection. I would ask, though, that if you do so, you actually read the words that I write, instead of, as you did in your previous contributions related to that topic, reacting to a bunch of other things that you have heard other people say on the topic, and attributing them to me.
However, that is not the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption of your argument is that one can use a symbol entirely divorced from it's historical, and current, context.
Here we see a good example of the thing that has irritated me to no end about your participation. You consistently inform me what my underlying assumptions are, and other things I am thinking. It's a bad idea, and you frequently get it wrong. I think it much better to limit statements to what I think, instead of telling others what they think.
I disagree with the quote above. However, I would grant that it is close to something I could agree with. (It's still wrong, but it's close.) The Confederate flag has a whole lot of history and context associated with it through 150 years of use. I would say that it is possible to use a symbol, even one laden with so much history as the Confederate flag, in such a way as to make it clear that you are using it for only a portion of its context. In other words, it could be used as at Ocala as just a statement of "This place has a long history, including the four years of the Civil War". It can be used by reenactors simply as a prop in a demonstration.
Its use on beer glasses or coasters by wargamers is a greatly simplified aspect of the re-enactor use, and signifies no more racism than it does when used by the re-enactors. In that case, it's a prop for military history buffs. Nothing more.
Of course, there are some people who, regardless of context, would see all use of the flag, anywhere, and regardless of context they would have a negative reaction. I can't help that. I think they are overly sensitive, and I think that people who pander to those sensitivities are sanctimonious.
To conclude this portion, you have shown a glimmering of comprehension in this sentence, but missed the main point. If you were interested in comprehension, you probably could have gotten there, but the fact that it is wrapped up in an assertion about what I'm thinking suggests that comprehension isn't really your goal.
It's clear that you understand that is an underlying assumption, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, because you've been trying to justify it by rewriting history.
In "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense", the author details a variety of verbal attack patterns. She then describes how to respond, and common mistakes in responding. Yours follows the “It’s obvious” pattern. It takes the form of “It’s obvious that X, because Y”. X is generally a personal attack, followed by Y, which is unrelated to the personal attack. The common mistake is to defend yourself against the accusation Y, while letting the attack X stand.
Recognizing the form, I won’t fall for the trick by defending against “rewriting history”, at least not yet. You are asserting that I have an underlying assumption that I refuse to acknowledge. No, as detailed above, you are in error about my underlying assumption. Moreover, I am glad to acknowledge all of my underlying assumptions, and they can easily be justified, without rewriting history.
Now, about that rewriting history.
Specifically, your thesis of the Confederate flag can represent "heritage, not hate" seems to rest on your contention that the pre-Civil War North was morally equivalent, in terms of slavery, to the pre-Civil War South.
See above for my discussion of “heritage, not hate”. I will however, acknowledge something related. I will say that any symbol, including the Confederate flag, can represent different things to different people. That doesn’t “rest” on anything in particular though. It’s just the nature of symbols.
So that particular thesis, that the flag means different things to different people, has nothing to do with moral equivalency of anything to anything else. They are unrelated, which makes your sentence meaningless.
Nevertheless, there is something worth refuting in the sentence. You have attributed a contention to me. You really ought to stop telling people what they think. It’s poor form even when you get it right, and in this case, as in so many other cases before it, you haven’t.
There are times in the course of a discussion when people express themselves poorly and are misunderstood through no fault of the listener. This is one of those times, or at least it began as such. When Travis posted:
If you are from the south there are only two ways to respectability: lie and never let anyone know you are from there or kill yourself.
(Aside: Travis seems to be channeling the ghost of Dr. Adequate there.)
It struck me how easy it was to sit back and judge those who have gone before us, to smugly assert our own superiority. That led me into discussion judging the different sides of the Civil War. In my first post, I said that I didn’t see much difference between them. That was very poor wording, and it is easy to see how people could think it was asserting some sort of moral equivalence.
My intention was simply to note that, by our standards, neither side was very good. It was meant as a commentary about changing standards, and a related idea that people of all civilizations, including some that created great evil, could be good people. The comparison was made to emphasize that if we used our own standards, none of them would measure up. I thought that by calling one side bad and the other side worse, there shouldn’t be any mistake of thinking that they were equivalent, but that was insufficiently clear to many readers.
I tried to clarify that in subsequent posts, simply noting the racism that was common in the north as well as the south. This is where things got weird. Incredibly, you asked for evidence of that. (This post: Is it worth asking you to support this claim about how the side that got rid of slavery was rotten to the core? )The mind boggles. Evidence that 19th century America was a racist culture? That Ohio was racist? Or New York? Or Illinois? Where would one begin? I had repeated by then that the South was much worse, but that the North was still bad. To anyone paying attention, there could not be, by that time, any question of equivalency, and yet, there you were asking for evidence?
It couldn’t be part of any sort of serious exchange of information or opinion. It was just another time-honored JREF tactic. Demand evidence for even the most obvious statements, and then try to score rhetorical points when someone won’t go along with the game. Providing citations for racism in the north would be futile. Everyone already knows it.
A closely related branch of the discussion was more specific, and that was the prevalence of abolitionist sentiment in the north. That one is not quite so obvious, and probably depends on the definition of “abolitionist”. I was using it in the sense of someone actively demanding an end to slavery and working toward that goal by electing people who supported it. If, by “abolitionist” you also include people who were opposed to slavery, but didn’t see a practical way to oppose it for various reasons, those people may have been a majority. I really don’t know, and I said that in the thread, but that didn’t stop you from trying to score rhetorical points or misrepresenting the actual assertions. At any rate, it was an aside, just in response to Travis’ comments, so not of much significance.
You, of course, tried to overstate its significance, as you did in the quote above, saying that my arguments “rest” on that assertion. No, they don’t. I have called the South “evil”. I have called the South “worse” than the North. I have talked about slavery as “an atrocity”. All of my actual positions are perfectly consistent with those views. Any attempt to tie my opinions to moral equivalency is just a misrepresentation, for two reasons. 1) I don’t think there is a moral equivalency and 2) none of my arguments rest on the existence or non-existence of a moral equivalency.
So, here is the root question of critical thinking: Why do you think that?
As noted, I don’t think that. As for the prelude to the question, it’s just another time honored JREF pretension. Try and grab the intellectual high ground by dropping terms, whether or not they are applicable.
Are you intellectually honest enough to answer?
And you conclude with more pretension. Such questions are not part of civil discourse.
Neither are answers like this one, by the way, but sometimes, response in kind seems the only response available. To anyone reading this, I can only say that it was easy to avoid by not opening the spoiler. You have only yourself to blame. For the remainder of the thread, if Upchurch asks a question that is based on a misrepresentation, I will simply ignore it.
Finally, it might be your intention to say that that isn’t really what you are doing, and quibble over this and that above and blah, blah, blah. Save it. Look through your posts and see how often you say
“You are saying…”
“You are doing….”
“This is just…..”
“Your assumption is….”
Or, to other posters
“Meadmaker is desperately trying….”
“Meadmaker is…………fill in the blank”
Give it up, dude. Do you have anything to contribute about what you think, or do you just need to talk about me? I’m flattered by the attention, but it gets old.
