On National Pride and Shame

[carpedm9587]

I guess it would depend on which side you associate with. While certain parts of our country allowed slavery, other parts of our country were against it and even went to war to end it. If we identify with the Union against the Confederates, then why shouldn't we feel pride in our defeat of slavery instead?

He didn't ask about a hypothetical person, Sparko. He asked about YOU - right here - right now. Do YOU believe slavery is a moral ill? It's pretty much a yes or no question. I am baffled as to why you cannot answer the question, "Does Sparko, today, believe slavery is a moral ill?"

Or you can even generalize the question: Does Sparko believe that the U.S. has ever acted in a way that is morally wrong?" This is also a yes, no question. If the U.S., as a country, has never done something Sparko believes to be morally wrong, then your answer is "no." If the U.S. has done at least one thing that Sparko considers a moral ill, than your answer is "yes." We don't even have to talk about what thing was bad, or how you arrived at that conclusion.

Yes or no. Do you have an answer?

[seer]

If so, do you think we should feel national shame over your countries last wrong doings? If not, then you're at the impasse that Carpe mentioned and there's little point in discussing further. Though obviously if you don't think the slavery as practiced by America back then was bad I'd be fascinated to know why.

But it wasn't the whole country, many Founders, and Americans were against slavery an never own slaves. My state abolished slavery in 1784. It is impossible to believe in a national shame when the problem was not national.

By 1789, five of the Northern states had policies that started to gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, while it was still independent. When it joined the United States as the 14th state in 1791, it was the first state to join that had no slavery. By 1804 all of the northern states had abolished slavery or had plans in place to gradually reduce it.^[3] There were 11 free states and 11 slave states. Later came the civil war.

[CivilDiscourse]

A military budget has no moral component. Why would you feel shame over a military budget? You could add a moral componenet if you wanted, but then it would be subject to the same objective moral question I asked earlier. If you say "It was morally wrong for the USA to spend money developing the Atom Bomb during WW2 and we should feel shame for it" then I would be asking the same questions.

1. Are morals objective? If so, then if spending money on the bomb is objectively immoral then we can agree on that and might feel shame for spending money on it. Or not.
2. Are morals subjective? If so, then what we think today about spending money on the bomb has no bearing on what they thought about it back in WW2. Even if we think it is immoral now, they did not back then, and if morals are subjective then neither of us has any claim to which standard is "real" - so why would I have any shame over it?

I didn't say there was a moral component. I did say that deciding that it needs to be cut can be subjective, and does not need an objective standard to reach agreement that it needs to be cut.

You can claim that any budget over $x is too much. I can believe that it just "feels too high". So long as we both agree that it needs to be cut, we can move forward with the discussion...whether that is objective (>$x) or subjective (Feels too high).

[Sparko]

He didn't ask about a hypothetical person, Sparko. He asked about YOU - right here - right now. Do YOU believe slavery is a moral ill? It's pretty much a yes or no question. I am baffled as to why you cannot answer the question, "Does Sparko, today, believe slavery is a moral ill?"

Or you can even generalize the question: Does Sparko believe that the U.S. has ever acted in a way that is morally wrong?" This is also a yes, no question. If the U.S., as a country, has never done something Sparko believes to be morally wrong, then your answer is "no." If the U.S. has done at least one thing that Sparko considers a moral ill, than your answer is "yes." We don't even have to talk about what thing was bad, or how you arrived at that conclusion.

Yes or no. Do you have an answer?

Reread my answer to EvoUK. Especially the very sentence you quoted in your reply to me.

[carpedm9587]

But it wasn't the whole country, many Founders, and Americans were against slavery an never own slaves. My state abolished slavery in 1784. It is impossible to believe in a national shame when the problem was not national.

Seer - Our Constitution placed the value of a black man or slave at 3/5. National and state laws were written and passed to require returning slaves to their owners, to eliminate the legal rights of slaves. Beyond slavery, national lending agencies engaged in red lining and denied black people the vote, and the list goes on and on. These are actions by a government, and so are national. If I were a citizen of Alabama, I would feel "state shame" for many of the practices engaged in by that state. It does not require every single member of a group to engage.

I go back to the picnic scenario that I painted for MM. If your church had a picnic in a public venue, and 2/3 of the members trashed the place, would you say, "well, it wasn't my church that did it, because 1/3 of the people there didn't trash the place." Or would you say, "common guys, we're a church group for pete's sake. Let's act a bit more responsibly as a group and get this place picked up!" Or would you sit back and say, "I didn't throw any trash - not my problem!"

[Sparko]

Seer - Our Constitution placed the value of a black man or slave at 3/5. National and state laws were written and passed to require returning slaves to their owners, to eliminate the legal rights of slaves. Beyond slavery, national lending agencies engaged in red lining and denied black people the vote, and the list goes on and on. These are actions by a government, and so are national. If I were a citizen of Alabama, I would feel "state shame" for many of the practices engaged in by that state. It does not require every single member of a group to engage.

I go back to the picnic scenario that I painted for MM. If your church had a picnic in a public venue, and 2/3 of the members trashed the place, would you say, "well, it wasn't my church that did it, because 1/3 of the people there didn't trash the place." Or would you say, "common guys, we're a church group for pete's sake. Let's act a bit more responsibly as a group and get this place picked up!" Or would you sit back and say, "I didn't throw any trash - not my problem!"

Or maybe since we are talking about the past, his church did clean up it's act and MM feels pride at his church's turnaround instead of shame?

That was my point to EvoUK. Since our country actually went to war to end slavery, why shouldn't we feel pride over that instead of shame over slavery? We ended it. It all depends on which side you identify with.

[carpedm9587]

Reread my answer to EvoUK. Especially the very sentence you quoted in your reply to me.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing an answer to the question. So let me just ask it simply:

Do you, Sparko, believe that enslaving another human being is a moral ill? Yes or no?

Do you, Sparko, believe that the U.S. has ever taken an action that you consider to be an immoral one? Yes or no?

[Sparko]

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing an answer to the question. So let me just ask it simply:

Do you, Sparko, believe that enslaving another human being is a moral ill? Yes or no?

Yes.

Do you, Sparko, believe that the U.S. has ever taken an action that you consider to be an immoral one? Yes or no?

Yes.

[carpedm9587]

Or maybe since we are talking about the past, his church did clean up it's act and MM feels pride at his church's turnaround instead of shame?

Why is this either or?

That was my point to EvoUK. Since our country actually went to war to end slavery, why shouldn't we feel pride over that instead of shame over slavery? We ended it. It all depends on which side you identify with.

Again, why does this have to be either or? One can feel ashamed of the choices made, and proud of the reparations made. One can feel ashamed of the choices made, proud of the reparations made, and feel there is still more to do.

Or are you suggesting that, whatever moral ills the U.S. has done, they have all been corrected and all subsequent consequences have been rendered just?

[seer]

Seer - Our Constitution placed the value of a black man or slave at 3/5. National and state laws were written and passed to require returning slaves to their owners, to eliminate the legal rights of slaves. Beyond slavery, national lending agencies engaged in red lining and denied black people the vote, and the list goes on and on. These are actions by a government, and so are national. If I were a citizen of Alabama, I would feel "state shame" for many of the practices engaged in by that state. It does not require every single member of a group to engage.

Sorry, still not feeling the shame. Nor will I, I'll just remain grateful that I was born in this land. I'll leave the self-indulgent navel gazing to others.

I go back to the picnic scenario that I painted for MM. If your church had a picnic in a public venue, and 2/3 of the members trashed the place, would you say, "well, it wasn't my church that did it, because 1/3 of the people there didn't trash the place." Or would you say, "common guys, we're a church group for pete's sake. Let's act a bit more responsibly as a group and get this place picked up!" Or would you sit back and say, "I didn't throw any trash - not my problem!"

I might in that situation have the ability to change something for the good. I can not change what went on in the past - national shame is a useless concept.

[carpedm9587]

Yes.

Yes.

Excellent. We agree! Now, since we both take this position, the next question becomes, "is it reasonable to feel shame/pride about the present/past actions of a group we have voluntarily joined?"

We can use the church picnic as a great example, since it seems less fraught. If you were at a church picnic in a state park, and you realized as you were all getting ready to leave, that the place was trashed. Would you feel a sense of communal shame that your church did that, even though you didn't throw a single piece of trash on the ground, or would you take the position, "I didn't do it, so no problem!" If the former, would you rally the group to pick up after itself and rectify things, or would you say, "I didn't do it, so I'm going home?"

[CivilDiscourse]

Seer - Our Constitution placed the value of a black man or slave at 3/5.

You've hit a pet peeve of mine Carpe. You are misusing the 3/5 compromise, and in fact, create a false impression.

Slavery was bad. The fact that we had slaves, was bad. The 3/5 compromise helped prolong that badness. However, given the reality of what was going on, that 3/5 compromise was bad because it counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, when (under the existing circumstances when the compromise was made) it should have treated them as 0/5 of a person, not 5/5 of a person.

The point of the compromise was representation in congress of the states.

The people on the right side of history were saying "Hey, if you are treating those people as property with absolutely no rights, then you shouldn't be allowed to count them as people for the purposes of representation."

The evil people who were enslaving people were saying "Hey, these people that we beat, and give no rights to, should be counted as part of our population to give the small majority of people who will be able to exercise our rights outsized influence in pushing our pro-slavery agenda. Count them one for one. Give us the power of populations twice our voting size!"

When people say that the constitution "placed the value of a black man or slave at 3/5." It is precisely backwards and impinges the motives of those who were trying to keep the slave states in check.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, still not feeling the shame. Nor will I, I'll just remain grateful that I was born in this land. I'll leave the self-indulgentnavel gazing to others.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are capable of reading the constitution and the 3/5 clause, and you don't experience any sense of "oh my - my country did that!" You can read the entire history of the "Trail of Tears" and never experience, "oh my, the country I love did that!" You can look at the legal decisions requiring slaves to be returned to their masters and all of the Jim Crow laws and not think, "oh my, the country I love did that."

Do you also walk by the Washington monument and not feel any sense of pride that "my country did that!" Do you walk by the WWII memorial and read the stories of the U.S. being instrumental in freeing Europe and not feel the pride of "my country did that!" Do you watch the first landing on the moon and feel no sense of pride that "my country did that!"

I might in that situation have the ability to change something for the good. I can not change what went on in the past - national shame is a useless concept.

OK, so make the picnic a month ago. You weren't even there. You just went to the same state park the church went to, and the ranger gives you an earful about the church group that was there a month ago ands trashed the place. They don't know you're a member - they're just frustrated that they had to clean it all up. There's nothing left for you to do. You're telling me you would not feel one iota of dismay that "oh my, that was MY church that did that!" You would simply feel, "I didn't do it, and it's clean now - so 'nuff said."

[Sparko]

Excellent. We agree! Now, since we both take this position, the next question becomes, "is it reasonable to feel shame/pride about the present/past actions of a group we have voluntarily joined?"

This is where my earlier comment comes in. It depends on which side you identify with. In MM's case, suppose he identifies with the 1/3 that did not trash the church and in fact cleaned up the mess and told the others to stop it. Why would he feel shame for the trashers instead of pride for the cleaners? If someone identifies with the abolitionists instead of the slavers why would they feel shame for the slavers instead of pride for the abolitionists?

We can use the church picnic as a great example, since it seems less fraught. If you were at a church picnic in a state park, and you realized as you were all getting ready to leave, that the place was trashed. Would you feel a sense of communal shame that your church did that, even though you didn't throw a single piece of trash on the ground, or would you take the position, "I didn't do it, so no problem!" If the former, would you rally the group to pick up after itself and rectify things, or would you say, "I didn't do it, so I'm going home?"

Answered above. In order to be equivalent to the slavery question, the church would have also had to clean up the mess and punished the trashers.

[carpedm9587]

This is where my earlier comment comes in. It depends on which side you identify with.

I don't see how this is relevant. The ones on "the other side" are not going to agree with "this is immoral" so the discussion is moot. We're explicitly talking about the side that believes the action is immoral.

In MM's case, suppose he identifies with the 1/3 that did not trash the church and in fact cleaned up the mess and told the others to stop it. Why would he feel shame for the trashers instead of pride for the cleaners?

You're jumping ahead and trying to make this binary. FIRST I would think that one would feel the group shame, which motivates one to take action and fix the problem, and THEN one feels personal pride at taking action and group pride at making the situation right. AFTER the event, if all has been set to rights, there is little/no benefit to dwelling on the shame and every reason to take pride in the repairs.

If someone identifies with the abolitionists instead of the slavers why would they feel shame for the slavers instead of pride for the abolitionists?

You are, again, conflating a sense of personal shame with a sense of national/group shame. Our nation took several immoral steps (I think we agree on that) to defend slavery at both the national and state levels. That is the source of national shame. That same nation has reversed many of those laws, which is a source of national pride. But then comes that all important piece, if all has been set to rights.

Answered above. In order to be equivalent to the slavery question, the church would have also had to clean up the mess and punished the trashers.

I wasn't asking for equivalence with slavery. I was asking how you would respond in that situation. What you would feel and what you would do.