Not sure what to think

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

But sticking to the CW subject matter- the study of the Civil War will be far different in 25 years. Unrecognizable, I believe.

I imagine it will be much more about the experience of the common soldiers and civilians, will very little attention paid to leaders.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

And all the controllers need to do is suggest that "some find this/ that offensive". So the seed is planted- to be nourished by the media, schools, etc. All we need do is look around.

Doesn't she look tired?

 

[R. Porter]

As I started reading this thread, I wondered about the status of loyalists from the American Revolution. Would they be allowed to be remembered as veterans? They weren't the rebels; they weren't the ones in revolt. And what about Bacon's Rebellion? They were rebels. And what about Native Americans? If anyone has a right to be offended it would be them. Are we going to rename everything named after a U.S. military officer? Are we going to stop waving the stars and stripes? If not, what makes us cater to some minorities and not to others?



As far as sensitivity, the 18th century had the war of Jenkins Ear, which seems to be due to an overreaction.

 

[Bob Velke]

Should be noted the National Archives includes records related to certain atrocities in the 1940s.

Presumbly also investigations into war crimes, serial killers, lynching, assassinations, and countless other disturbing topics.

It would be one thing if you were prompted with the header warning after typing a search term like "holocaust" (or "Confederate" for that matter) although I'm trying to imagine the person who would look for such info who doesn't already have a sense for the kinds of things that the search might turn up.

But you get the warning by merely going to the front page of the National Archives catalog. I imagine a bunch of executives sitting around a table and someone says, "You know, we should really warn people that history in general might be offensive." That's a remarkable thing for an historian to say - even as they may feel pressure to pander to the "I have a right to not be offended" crowd.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Recently, a woman who saw naked bodies in abstract paintings hanging in our city hall raised a howl of outrage amongst people who obviously had not seen the paintings.

A chaperone on a local school
Trip to Germany went ballistic because the tour bus transited public parks where all over Germany people routinely sunbath naked.

Having volunteered at Stones River & local Civil War history events for over twenty years, a lot of total strangers know who I am. For years, a local woman never missed an opportunity to express her outrage that no Confederate veterans were buried in Stones River National Cemetery. The absence of "THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG" flying over the battlefield was another sin I was associated with. Noting that there aren't any Nazi's or North Koreans buried there either did not sit well. Nor did the fact that the Joe Johnston style battle flag was not one of at least six flown during the battle make any impression.

I have quit speculating on what offends other people. Trying to do so, whatever the motivation, is a sure fire way to become an object of ridicule. Attempting to do others' thinking for them is a terrible waste of time.

Note: The outrage over the explicit abstract paintings did have one obvious effect. An unusual number of teenage boys were seen exiting the city hall shaking their heads with deeply disappointed expressions on their faces.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I wondered about the status of loyalists from the American Revolution. Would they be allowed to be remembered as veterans?

That's a dichotomy I've pointed out several times here over the years. If we honor both sides of our second civil war why not our first?

The usual response is some version of "not my ancestors, not problem."

It would be one thing if you were prompted with the header warning after typing a search term like "holocaust" (or "Confederate" for that matter) although I'm trying to imagine the person who would look for such info who doesn't already have a sense for the kinds of things that the search might turn up.

But you get the warning by merely going to the front page of the National Archives catalog. I imagine a bunch of executives sitting around a table and someone says, "You know, we should really warn people that history in general might be offensive." That's a remarkable thing for an historian to say - even as they may feel pressure to pander to the "I have a right to not be offended" crowd.

If the NARA only puts the warning on what they think is disturbing someone will complain that something else didn't have a warning. So they just put a blanket warning on everything. Less useful, but it's a CYA, especially against someone suing them.

 

[Mike Serpa]

From Find A Grave's website:
"... If the person was a veteran, then the veteran designation is appropriate and should be added. This applies across all countries and periods of time. This allows veterans to be easily searched for in Memorial Search, easily identified in cemetery memorial lists, and easily identified on their memorial. If a manager declines the veteran designation, then they would provide evidence that this person was not a veteran in the decline reason. We encourage members to refer to local customs or relevant military guidelines for specific guidance on veteran status. ..." Emphasis added.

Find a Grave

support.findagrave.com

 

[bayonet]

One sure way to provoke an over-reaction is to over-react. So when someone says something to the effect of "there should be a warning that this material might offend some people" and you call that "trying to erase history" it just makes the situation worse.

Your comparing apples to oranges. Your talking about warning labels and I'm talking about the total erasure of history. Problem is today everyone is over sensitive and simply can't handle tough situations that arise in life because their too soft and have been cuddled.

 

[Bob Velke]

Problem is today everyone is over sensitive and simply can't handle tough situations that arise in life because their too soft and have been cuddled.

LOL. My motto: "less coddling, more cuddling."

 

[archieclement]

That's a dichotomy I've pointed out several times here over the years. If we honor both sides of our second civil war why not our first?

The usual response is some version of "not my ancestors, not problem."

I don't really see any parallel there. Are you aware of ancestors of loyalists being prohibited from commemorating or honoring their ancestors?

Certainly not all choose to, that's as much a choice as choosing to. Certainly the further back one goes, generally less interest in one's ancestors. On memorial days, as generations increase, graves being memorialized often drop off as new ones are added. Some cemeteries here have even fell into disrepair, because their ancestors don't support them, sadly that is their choice.

Certainly if not my ancestors, not my problem or interest........but that does not equate into me wishing to prohibit you from doing so if your ancestors or interest.

 

[Bob Velke]

So they just put a blanket warning on everything. Less useful, but it's a CYA, especially against someone suing

The only thing more pathetic than an adult thinking that he/she can sue for being offended is a professional historian who is so afraid of that risk that he/she validates it with a useless warning, even at the risk of offending everyone else.

 

[John Winn]

The only thing more pathetic than an adult thinking that he/she can sue for being offended is a professional historian who is so afraid of that risk that he/she validates it with a useless warning, even at the risk of offending everyone else.

Absolutely. And that's how extremists win: they make one at risk of losing one's job or of being sued (even if unsuccessfully) and such and so people just knuckle under out of fear. Can't really say much more or I'll get zapped (again).

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The only thing more pathetic than an adult thinking that he/she can sue for being offended is a professional historian who is so afraid of that risk that he/she validates it with a useless warning, even at the risk of offending everyone else.

You're assuming the decision was made by the archivists as opposed to the legal department.

 

[archieclement]

Absolutely. And that's how extremists win: they make one at risk of losing one's job or of being sued (even if unsuccessfully) and such and so people just knuckle under out of fear. Can't really say much more or I'll get zapped (again).

It seems nothing more then a lame attempt to try to force one view on others.

If you watch or view something you don't see offensive at all, what was the purpose of the "warning" but someone else trying to say you should......... in their view?

It's the thought elitists at work. Certainly without any warning at all, the viewers would be capable of forming their own opinions.

 

[lupaglupa]

Or it's a genuine attempt to inform people that they might be troubled by what they come across.

Standards have changed as to how much we expect people to tolerate. When I was a child we were expected to deal with our bullies and swallow any fear or hurt we experienced. Nowadays we teach children to report this behavior. Ha the pendulum perhaps swung a bit too far in the opposite direction? Maybe. But I see my son and his friends and how careful they are not to hurt others and I think it's a wonderful change.

 

[archieclement]

Or it's a genuine attempt to inform people that they might be troubled by what they come across.

Standards have changed as to how much we expect people to tolerate. When I was a child we were expected to deal with our bullies and swallow any fear or hurt we experienced. Nowadays we teach children to report this behavior. Ha the pendulum perhaps swung a bit too far in the opposite direction? Maybe. But I see my son and his friends and how careful they are not to hurt others and I think it's a wonderful change.

Then everything would require a warning....

Using the classic TV shows as an example, most new TV shows would certainly qualify as "may be offensive"......think most would note they are less wholesome, frequently resort to potty humor or sexual innuendo, and language some will find offensive.....as well often portray societal issues that not all would find moral.

I can see a limited case for images perhaps, such as depicting nudity, brutality, gore, ect...

But to ideas, cultural norms, or idealogy? Ideas, norms or ideologies millions found acceptable and supported? Seems excessive as history actually is recognizing those ideas, cultural norms, or ideologies existed and were supported.

 

[Scott1967]

Confederates are Veterans regardless of the cause they fought for not all were pro slavery some genuinely fought for their state and homes we tend to tar everyone with the same brush nowadays.

And regardless of what some may think I am which is very pro Union I am not a woke activist of left loony I would like to see Confederate graves protected and people prosecuted for defacing them on the issue of monuments and flags well that's another story.

 

[Quantrill's Missouri]

JMO, but almost everything is stupid now.

 

[Bob Velke]

You're assuming the decision was made by the archivists as opposed to the legal department.

Good point. But that's even more sad.

 

[Bob Velke]

Or it's a genuine attempt to inform people that they might be troubled by what they come across.

Do you suppose that there are people searching the catalog at the National Archives who aren't aware that some things in our history may be "troubling"? Or that advising such people to gird their loins is going to soften the blow? Or perhaps we expect that upon receiving such a warning some people will leave the site rather than be exposed to anything troubling?

Standards have changed as to how much we expect people to tolerate.

I guess that's the point, isn't it? I think we're not doing anyone a favor by teaching them to be so fragile that they will not and should not be expected to tolerate anything uncomfortable.

I think that's the genesis behind the growing movement on college campuses, for instance, to protest and disrupt any visiting speaker who dares to express an opinion that is the least bit controversial. Similarly: micro-agressions, "safe spaces", and anything that I don't happen to agree with is "hate speech."

But it starts much earlier than college, e.g., don't keep score in sports, everyone gets a trophy, etc. How about preparing them to live in the real world?

Teaching kids to not be a bully is great - but it is equally important to teach them not to make a puddle when confronted with one.

One might say that we're getting far afield but I think that kids who are utterly unprepared to be uncomfortable become adults who think that they have to warn everyone else that history might be troubling.