Not sure what to think

[John Winn]

Also am not sure if this is the correct forum but here goes.

Find A Grave has recently changed some things regarding memorials, one of which is that there is now a tag one can use to show that someone was a veteran. Well, on their forum a person asked if a Confederate could receive such a tag as he fought against the United States. Several pointed out that the designation didn't have any restriction other than the person served in some military. I pointed out that Confederate veterans were eligible for government-provided stones and that the official policy of the U.S. government was that the rebelling states never actually left the Union and that their citizens remained U.S. citizens even though they were in rebellion. Thus, said I, Confederates were indeed veterans even if their cause continues to be subject to moral debate and their 'country' was never recognized officially by anybody.

Well, guess what ? The thread was immediately locked after my post. So I guess Find A Grave has gone a bit edited (although to be fair they didn't delete my post). No talkie about Confederate ancestors on Find A Grave forums.

 

[lupaglupa]

I'm not sure having the thread lock means anything more than the company wants to figure out an answer without the community getting up in arms taking sides.

 

[John Hartwell]

My grandfather served in the Canadian army (1917-19). Doesn't he get a "Veteran" tag?

 

[John Winn]

At this point the policy seems to be that one simply had to have served in some military somewhere to get the tag. I guess they maybe just didn't want to get into a debate but it just seemed odd that others were wondering about veterans of nations that fought against the U.S. and nothing happened after their posts but when I posted about Confederates per se (which was the OP question) they closed the thread. My thought is they just found mention of Confederates uncomfortable.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

My thought is they just found mention of Confederates uncomfortable.

Maybe they were just worried where the thread might go from there.

Confederate soldiers are definitely veterans.

 

[Bob Velke]

My thought is they just found mention of Confederates uncomfortable.

Even the National Archives now has a prominent banner that warns that their catalog contains "Potentially Harmful Content" - just in case history offends your sensitivities.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Even the National Archives now has a prominent banner that warns that their catalog contains "Potentially Harmful Content" - just in case history offends your sensitivities.

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.

That's not even counting expressions of racism or other dated attitudes that many today would find abhorrent.

The Confederacy would be a tiny drop in the bucket of what might be considered "harmful" content held in the National Archives.

 

[lupaglupa]

While I do sometimes roll my eyes at what is considered offensive, I'd far rather have people be overly sensitive to shocking material than desensitized to it.

 

[bayonet]

It will only get worse sadly unless we stand up to this nonsense. Trying to erase history from 100 to 1000 years ago when none of us were even a twinkle in the eyes of our ancestors is ridiculous. I posted a thread earlier of how they want names removed from a non-government but privately funded memorial.

 

[lupaglupa]

It will only get worse sadly unless we stand up to this nonsense. Trying to erase history from 100 to 1000 years ago when none of us were even a twinkle in the eyes of our ancestors is ridiculous. I posted a thread earlier of how they want names removed from a non-government but privately funded memorial.

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.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

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.

One of my favorite YouTube history channels complains whenever YT slaps a content warning on their videos. Mind you, the videos so marked are usually about things like war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The videos are professionally and appropriately done, but not something for children or to watch while eating lunch. Appropriate content warnings aren't censorship.

 

[bdtex]

Also am not sure if this is the correct forum but here goes.

Find A Grave has recently changed some things regarding memorials, one of which is that there is now a tag one can use to show that someone was a veteran. Well, on their forum a person asked if a Confederate could receive such a tag as he fought against the United States. Several pointed out that the designation didn't have any restriction other than the person served in some military. I pointed out that Confederate veterans were eligible for government-provided stones and that the official policy of the U.S. government was that the rebelling states never actually left the Union and that their citizens remained U.S. citizens even though they were in rebellion. Thus, said I, Confederates were indeed veterans even if their cause continues to be subject to moral debate and their 'country' was never recognized officially by anybody.

Well, guess what ? The thread was immediately locked after my post. So I guess Find A Grave has gone a bit edited (although to be fair they didn't delete my post). No talkie about Confederate ancestors on Find A Grave forums.

I very seldom log in to the FindAGrave message board anymore. That's about all I have to say about it too.

 

[John Winn]

I have no problem with a warning notice although I admit I find the apparent necessity for such to reflect a certain frailty that seems to have infected us. I mean, I remember when we had to watch films about driving that showed actual dead people at crash scenes and nobody got upset over that. And we all had to read Anne Frank's diary and see photos of the concentration camps. But now it's so traumatic one has to have a warning (and maybe a safe place).

Anyway, warning away I suppose. No real harm (other than making people perhaps too sensitive). But not to be able to say certain words - e.g. Confederate - is a form of censorship even if it doesn't actually erase history.

 

[lupaglupa]

I do see a clear line between warnings and censorship. Telling people that certain content may be problematic doesn't trouble me. Barring people from that content does.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I have no problem with a warning notice although I admit I find the apparent necessity for such to reflect a certain frailty that seems to have infected us. I mean, I remember when we had to watch films about driving that showed actual dead people at crash scenes and nobody got upset over that. And we all had to read Anne Frank's diary and see photos of the concentration camps. But now it's so traumatic one has to have a warning (and maybe a safe place).

There's probably some over-correction, but we've also gone through a long history of blowing off most real trauma, major or minor. Of making people, especially men, cold and distant under the guise of making then tough.

Trauma is a strange animal. The safer you feel the greater the shock when something breaks through. But constantly being guarded and on the defensive, never feeling safe, is its own cumulative trauma. What's the safe level of safety?

 

[John Winn]

There's probably some over-correction, but we've also gone through a long history of blowing off most real trauma, major or minor. Of making people, especially men, cold and distant under the guise of making then tough.

Trauma is a strange animal. The safer you feel the greater the shock when something breaks through. But constantly being guarded and on the defensive, never feeling safe, is its own cumulative trauma. What's the safe level of safety?

I agree. But I'd say that safety can't be measured and people's tolerance for all sorts of things varies greatly so what is a "safe level of safety" just can't be defined in any sort of general sense. I suppose I'd say that a healthy attitude about safety is just to try and realize what the reality is and what one does and doesn't have control over; i.e. accurately ***** the reality of the situation and do what you can do while simply accepting that there's some things you simply can't control. To be constantly traumatized by ordinary daily exposures is, as you note, a cumulative trauma. So I think it's something of a disservice to cowtow to those who insist that it is our duty to protect them from exposure to things about which they are upset. We're creating people who can't really deal with reality.

Now, we don't have to be Spartan but we do - methinks - need to just accept the reality of our world and realize that it's not the responsibility of others to protect us from upsetting things and learn to just accept that some trauma is going to enter our lives and we should just learn to deal with it. Perpetual childhood isn't healthy in my opinion.

 

[John Winn]

And one may not say a s s e s s as it contains a s s and that might traumatize someone. Eggshells.

 

[Sheltowee]

I have no problem with a warning notice although I admit I find the apparent necessity for such to reflect a certain frailty that seems to have infected us. I mean, I remember when we had to watch films about driving that showed actual dead people at crash scenes and nobody got upset over that. And we all had to read Anne Frank's diary and see photos of the concentration camps. But now it's so traumatic one has to have a warning (and maybe a safe place).

Anyway, warning away I suppose. No real harm (other than making people perhaps too sensitive). But not to be able to say certain words - e.g. Confederate - is a form of censorship even if it doesn't actually erase history.

Well, I suspect there is real eventual harm.

Without going too astray (WARNING, SOME MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS OFFENSIVE AND DANGEROUS), I am convinced we are being conditioned.

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.

Enough said…….. before I break protocol.

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

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

In the last decade I've had different people tell me:

1. renaming a place called "[n-word] Cove" was stupid and overly sensitive because that placename is not offensive.

2. calling an archeological site "ruins" is offensive to the tribe that used to live there, even if the structure has been abandoned for centuries, even before Europeans arrived in the area.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[archieclement]

I do see a clear line between warnings and censorship. Telling people that certain conten may be problematic doesn't trouble me. Barring people from that content does.

It seems silly when it's "may be problematic".......whose deciding it may be and why?

I find it odd especially with classic TV shows, as the majority for decades enjoyed them, recognized they were entertainment, and didn't find them problematic........so it's odd they suddenly need "warnings".