Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[IronBrig4]

Of course the source is vitally important. But getting back to the matter at hand (the Confederate statues) historians are in agreement that they represent a sanitized view of the Confederacy. Historians have their personal biases like everyone else but they've put in the hard research to arrive at that conclusion. It also supports my findings knowing what I do about the Jim Crow South.

If an airline pilot tells me we're going to arrive at our destination in about four hours, I'll believe them regardless of their politics. If the vast majority of scientists tell me that climate change is real and that humans are making it worse, then I'll believe them because they've put in the research. I could get a good look at a t-bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it. It's the same thing with historians. I trust in expertise.

[Cope]

Of course the source is vitally important. But getting back to the matter at hand (the Confederate statues) historians are in agreement that they represent a sanitized view of the Confederacy. Historians have their personal biases like everyone else but they've put in the hard research to arrive at that conclusion. It also supports my findings knowing what I do about the Jim Crow South.

If an airline pilot tells me we're going to arrive at our destination in about four hours, I'll believe them regardless of their politics. If the vast majority of scientists tell me that climate change is real and that humans are making it worse, then I'll believe them because they've put in the research. I could get a good look at a t-bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it. It's the same thing with historians.

You're evading the issue of trust and conflating areas of competency. First with respect to competency: one would only believe an airline pilot if he had no reason to distrust his piloting ability. The pilot's political perspective (unless its suicidally extreme) has no bearing on his competence to pilot the aircraft safely and is therefore irrelevant. Likewise with the butcher: his political perspective has no bearing on his ability to cut meat or advise you on cattle. Ergo, this comparison is also irrelevant. Notwithstanding, this is simply not the case in the field of historical research. Our political views necessarily affect our reading of political events and vice-versa. It is a therefore a statement of the obvious to argue that the historian's political perspectives and interpretations influence his/her area of competency and should therefore be a matter for consideration.

Second with respect to trust: human beings are naturally more sceptical of information when it is filtered through a lens they disagree with or distrust on a basic level. It is, for instance, highly likely that you'd be sceptical of, and apply considerable scrutiny to, any historical research complied by a known neo-Nazi or an ardent supporter of the Soviet Union. You may even dismiss its findings off hand - after all what of value is there to be learned from a fascist? This same logic is being applied by certain conservatives to the Confederate monument debate. They aren't disbelieving or rejecting historians because they're impervious to the "truth" (if such a thing even exists), they're simply dismissing the conclusions of people they don't trust. And the reason they don't trust them is, as we've discussed, because the faculties to which they belong are overwhelmingly staffed by individuals with whom the disagree with politically - which as we've also discussed is relevant to the historian's area of competency. Remember, we aren't discussing a minor disparity here which can be reasonably explained by personal choice, chance or even intelligence: we're talking about a field which is virtually and unjustifiably saturated (>95%+) by people who broadly exist on one end of the political spectrum.

And this brings us full circle: if historical departments were more intellectually diverse on a political level then this sort of denialism and distrust would be much less common. This is why your contention that the political disparity within historical faculties isn't even a matter of concern is so ridiculously naive and poorly considered.

[RubiconDecision]

We have gone full circle, extremely biased nearly total leftist historians are telling us why these Confederate statues were put in place.

So crazy.

If all historians were conservatives and made a bold claim, immediately the Left wouldn't take their advice but call them institutional Nazis not academics.

Crap. There something like 9xmore Marxist historians than conservative ones in America. Do you think that little nugget might create bias?

[Cope]

We have gone full circle, extremely biased nearly total leftist historians are telling us why these Confederate statues were put in place.

But they aren't actually lying or really distorting the truth in this case. Even factoring in the difficulties inherent in attempting to assign motives to certain behaviors, the historical community's conclusions are fairly consistent with the prevailing attitudes of white southerners during the Crow era. It's simply untrue to argue that the intentions behind the raising of these statues (which occurred 40 or 50 years after the Civil War) weren't, in many cases, racially malicious. Sure, you can contend that there were other motives too, but that doesn't negate the rather unambiguous racial components attached to their symbolism.

The only meaningful (and I say that cautiously) counter-arguments that proponents of the statues can use are these:

1. The meaning and relevance of these icons are much changed from their original intentions.
2. Almost all historical monuments reflect, to use IronBrig's turn of phrase, a "sanitized" version of historical reality.
3. Those who "attack" Confederate monuments are opening Pandora's Box with respect to historical acceptability and are paving the way for the air brushing of history which offends modern sensibilities.

[Alastor]

3. Those who "attack" Confederate monuments are opening Pandora's Box with respect to historical acceptability and are paving the way for the air brushing of history which offends modern sensibilities.

This. But the response I've gotten using this argument from the "opposition" is that it is a slippery slope fallacy. Then again, I suppose any such argument we don't want to take into account because it is inconvenient can be called that.

[Cope]

This. But the response I've gotten using this argument from the "opposition" is that it is a slippery slope fallacy. Then again, I suppose any such argument we don't want to take into account because it is inconvenient can be called that.

You are correct: the "slippery slope fallacy" is itself often used fallaciously. It has been generally observable over the past fifty years that when concessions are made to satisfy progressive demands, further demands inevitably follow. This is a partial explanation as to why conservatives are typically more resistant to constitutional change than liberals: they might, for instance, agree that certain improvements could be made to improve the 2nd. Amendment, but they're keenly aware that conceding any ground on the issue would provide a platform for those who want further change.

[RubiconDecision]

Just as Native American statues are propaganda when they are erected.

Ditto that for practically all statues put up by politicians. This is right out of my first Art History class...basic textbook stuff about perpetuating a political idea by the permanence of sculpture and paintings.

Hell you can say that even about Frederick Remington statues at the St. Louis Arch and Manifest Destiny.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lHwN7kiW-9I

I know...I know...the Native Americans or First People will tear these down because they are offended.

See the problem with that is saying say a Confederate flag equals slavery and racial oppression when it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's a flag...that's all.

You could claim every American flag is about white patriarchy and imperialism and be offended by the genocide...or grow up and see it is only cloth.

Art resonnates in some manner with the viewer. It doesn't matter what the artist was doing when they created it...it is what it invokes in you...which is different ie subjective because of our experiences and the sum of experiences.

[Cope]

Just as Native American statues are propaganda when they are erected.

Ditto that for practically all statues put up by politicians. This is right out of my first Art History class...basic textbook stuff about perpetuating a political idea by the permanence of sculpture and paintings.

Hell you can say that even about Frederick Remington statues at the St. Louis Arch and Manifest Destiny.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lHwN7kiW-9I

I know...I know...the Native Americans or First People will tear these down because they are offended.

Well you're arguing on the basis of points 1. and 3. as I outlined above - namely that the meaning of these icons has changed over time and the reasoning behind the desire to remove them is applied inconsistently.

[RubiconDecision]

Which is as ridiculous as all white male academics making the excuse that they alone knew what was best for their students.

Those academics may be the most currently qualified but why would their diverse students respect such insular behavior as being superior?

[Cope]

Those academics may be the most currently qualified but why would their diverse students respect such insular behavior as being superior?

The majority of college and university students in the US (~80% by 2012 figures) fell into the 18-24 age bracket. At that age, and because on average the human brain doesn't fully mature until it is 25 years old, most people tend not to recognize the ways in which they are being politically influenced. This is why it is vital that students are exposed to a range of social and political viewpoints. Without having opposing perspectives to compare and contrast their ability to think critically is diminished.

[RubiconDecision]

The majority of college and university students in the US (~80% by 2012 figures) fell into the 18-24 age bracket. At that age, and because on average the human brain doesn't fully mature until it is 25 years old, most people tend not to recognize the ways in which they are being politically influenced. This is why it is vital that students are exposed to a range of social and political viewpoints. Without having opposing perspectives to compare and contrast their ability to think critically is diminished.

I quite agree except we are molly coddling young people because for ten thousand years 16 year olds married, worked on a farm, hunted, and raised children. They also worked tribally which demands a surpression of selfishness.

We are enforcing immaturity AND despite embracing the idea of diversity then removing any dissenting academics who create a diverse political belief system. As such we are fostering childish intolerance and students are indoctrinized by propaganda instead of critical thinking.They are told what is acceptable and how they should think and even to remove any antiquated ideas that their parents or mentors or priest/pastors tried to inculcate.

Critical thinking is about considering diverse ideas and then determining validity.

And then a young person might conclude that perhaps an all white or all black or all Marxist group of academics is currently the best but it need not stay that way.

You don't want diversity for diversity sake, but the best people for a team who should probably be different based upon competition.

If I want a good education of the Humanities and Sciences, then I want professors of every political system, spirituality, nation, ethnicity, sexuality, and ethos. Why? Because only then can valid critical thinking occur.

You challenge your beliefs, wrestle with the Angel, and by contending validate beliefs. This is why travel to diverse places facilitates education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaco...with_the_angel

This solidifies belief but never fixes it statically, and generates tolerance. It then follows that others need not be precisely like you.

Never forget the sordid history of American public education which was a leftist idea by the Progressives to churn out worker bees for the industrialists.

Bertrand Russell infamously stated that a teacher should crush the ideas of their student and replace them.

[RubiconDecision]

You do realize the bulk of academic books are never purchased by the general public because most are terrible. Just because one can teach does not mean they can write in a compelling persuasive manner. And the reverse is also true as brilliant people like historians can be wretched at giving presentations and communicating effectively.

Yet that publish or perish concept and tenure enforces this. Some professors are insufferable jerks in the classroom. Several actively loathe their students and they know it. Then leftists snob professors have publically mocked, failed, kicked out students who disagreed with them politically.

[RubiconDecision]

You really don't want to discuss the political beliefs of government workers, particularly in Washington and other federal workers domestically and worldwide like our diplomatic corps. They are almost exclusively Democrats and largely leftist.

It has an enormous effect on inefficiency, leaks, and even sabotage of Republic administrations.

[IronBrig4]

@ Rubicon - I agree about the "publish or perish" feature. I myself am very much a "teaching" professor. I research because I have to, but my passion and inspiration lie in the classroom. When I'm in my office, my door is always open. You could put me in a small liberal arts college and have me teach survey-level history courses for the next 40 years, and I'd be perfectly happy acting out Mr. Chips. I know the type who just see their students as a nuisance to endure until the next grant or article comes along. They arrive at the start of class time, leave right afterwards, and hold the bare minimum of office hours. They'll write award-winning books but won't ever be invited to the cocktail party afterwards. I don't have that much of a publication record but I make donors laugh at department mixers (even got a professor to crack up on stage this one time) and my students want to drink with me.

Academic publications are mostly specialized and meant for a similarly specialized audience. General readership won't pick them up for the same reason they won't subscribe to engineering journals.

@ epic - I see what you're saying and I agree with you for the most part. But what I'm saying is if there's prejudice against conservative history books, it's not because of inherent bias by liberal faculty. It's because those same liberal faculty are continually exposed to conservative non-academic books masquerading as academic publications. So if a historian sees a new book written by, say, Bill O'Reilly, their initial response is going to be "oh great, another one of those" because they know of his reputation along with the evangelical hand-wringing and shoddy research. Being conditioned to seeing books like that, it's not much a stretch to lump in other conservative publications including legitimate academic works written by conservative historians.

And before you say it, there are many respectable conservative academics who do good research and their works are accepted.

[RubiconDecision]

No one should have to teach survey courses for more than five years. The students in history in those courses are generally putting in seat time only. It would stink to teach them. I had a great survey teacher who had taught it for more than a decade and he was so engaging, told juicy stories, made history come alive, and therefore got people to take more history classes.

There is a special place in Hell for bad history teachers who bore students because what could be more thrilling? Some incredible even astounding events happened.

[IronBrig4]

No one should have to teach survey courses for more than five years. The students in history in those courses are generally putting in seat time only. It would stink to teach them. I had a great survey teacher who had taught it for more than a decade and he was so engaging, told juicy stories, made history come alive, and therefore got people to take more history classes.

There is a special place in Hell for bad history teachers who bore students because what could be more thrilling? Some incredible even astounding events happened.

You get a lot of freshmen who are there for general ed, and many of them don't particularly care for the subject. But there are some survey courses that are required only for history and geography majors. Those are a lot of fun because we're all interested, otherwise none of us would be there.

I tutored student-athletes a few years back. I'll admit I'd been wrong because I'd subscribed to the stereotype of the knucklehead football player who skated by on his athletic prowess. The student-athletes I had were eager and engaged. They also had a lot to lose because their family could not afford university without a scholarship. The two football players especially were fun and they enjoyed their time with me. I tutored them in US government and made it relevant by tying it into their daily lives. Last I checked one of them was playing in the Canadian football league and the other had given up football upon graduation for a regular job. Good on them.

And then one of my friends taught Johnny Manziel (aka Johnny Football). He gave Manziel a D but then the athletics department stepped in. Never underestimate an athletic department's creativity and persistence in changing a grade.

[RubiconDecision]

You get a lot of freshmen who are there for general ed, and many of them don't particularly care for the subject. But there are some survey courses that are required only for history and geography majors. Those are a lot of fun because we're all interested, otherwise none of us would be there.

I tutored student-athletes a few years back. I'll admit I'd been wrong because I'd subscribed to the stereotype of the knucklehead football player who skated by on his athletic prowess. The student-athletes I had were eager and engaged. They also had a lot to lose because their family could not afford university without a scholarship. The two football players especially were fun and they enjoyed their time with me. I tutored them in US government and made it relevant by tying it into their daily lives. Last I checked one of them was playing in the Canadian football league and the other had given up football upon graduation for a regular job. Good on them.

And then one of my friends taught Johnny Manziel (aka Johnny Football). He gave Manziel a D but then the athletics department stepped in. Never underestimate an athletic department's creativity and persistence in changing a grade.

In my region there used to be a lot of athletes and veterans in the history program who planned on teaching middle and high school. There were lots of humanities students naturally taking history courses. There were rarely engineering and science majors outside of survey courses. Obviously the scheduled courses of study limit what they can take as electives. And already four years stretches into five.

You can't be an educated person and skip taking several history courses. But then you can't skip languages other than English either. And I cannot imagine skipping basic chemistry and biology. You see the problem...the list gets longer because once attending university was rare versus now. They are so dumbed down so badly because high school standards are abysmal. Therefore remedial courses are taught in the first year at universities.

And all of this lack of education is why we have the bigotry inherent in the extreme left and extreme right. That is partially why there is polarization. Sadly it's my belief it is inculcated by leftist teachers.

I was appalled when I found out that Antifa and BAMN had university educators who recruited university students AND had actively committed violent acts. What a horrifying thing to do to the very plastic minds of gullible students. The mantra of fostering critical thinking has been squelched.
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-bra...ticity-2794886
Brain plasticity and experience

See myelin formation in young adults and decision making. Of which as an educator you are well aware of in their development.
http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html
So these links are for others.

[Gaidin]

Ya and you get some really fun stats for my STEM degrees that are not really arguable based on the numbers of who bothers to complete the programs. You could do your song and dance there as well after you look up the numbers or you can accept that people in the career know more than you.

[NorseThing]

Well the President wants to spend other peoples money (no politician wants to spend their own money):

President Donald Trump on Monday signed a new memorandum aimed at making science, technology, engineering and math education a bigger priority for America's schools.
Speaking from the Oval Office and joined by Education Secretary Betsy Devos, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta and students and teachers from across the country, Trump said the directive was designed to create "new pathways for all of our citizens to get the best jobs."

"My administration will do everything possible to provide our children, especially kids in underserved areas, with access to high-quality education in science, technology, engineering and math," Trump said.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...tem-in-schools

A drop in a very leaky bucket.

[IronBrig4]

I can assure you my statement did not refer to their IQ at all. As for desire, you've gotta wonder how many conservatives take their cues from the likes of Rick Santorum, who famously called Obama a snob for wanting more Americans to go to college.

Actually, it may be a vicious cycle of conservative anti-intellectualism that sparks discrimination from liberal academics, which leads to more anti-intellectualism and so on.