The Statue Wars Begin

I didn't know about Sanger's behavior, and had never heard of the Sims guy. Egads..

Thanks for providing this bit of American history, jcboy. I hadn't heard of this monster J. Marion Sims before. He reminds me of Josef Mengele. The two of them must have had a lot in common. Both were practitioners of institutionalized racism. Their "rationale" for performing hideous experimental surgeries on human beings was the same. It really was the same. Extremely evil men -- neither of whom should be honored with a statue.

By the way, I just came across another article about the Sims controversy:

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/is_that_a_statue_of_a_saint_or.html

Some of the comments (apparently posted by conservatives) dismiss objections to the Sims statue as "political correctness." (Good grief! We're not talking about Robert E. Lee. We're talking about the Josef Mengele of his generation. There is a difference.) I didn't read all of these comments because I became so disgusted with them that I couldn't read any more. What I found quite disturbing was that these conservative posters didn't deny that Sim's heinous atrocities had taken place. Apparently, they believe that since the prevailing culture at the time was cruelly pro-slavery, the atrocities were no big deal! Sounds like cultural relativity as opposed to absolute standards of morality. Think about it: These posters have no problem with historical hideous medical experiments being performed upon unwilling human beings who happened to be members of an oppressed minority. It's no big deal to them. This is utterly sickening!

I assume the majority of white conservatives would share my revulsion to the sentiments expressed by these posters, but sometimes I wonder.

Sure, some objections are trivial or at least relatively so; for example, replacing the word "history" with "herstory." But sometimes -- quite frequently, as I believe -- the cries of "Political correctness! Political correctness!" are used as an attempt to silence those who object to the use of racist epithets or other language employed to demean others for unjustifiable reasons.

Can you imagine what an outrage there would be if Germans today defended a statue of Josef Mengele? If such a statue had been erected during the Nazi era, it was surely torn down immediately after the war. I may make some people mad, but I believe the Germans have done a far better job of coming to terms with their Nazi past than we Americans have with our own racist past. For example, unless I'm mistaken, I've heard that the Republican-dominated Texas Board of Education instructs junior high and high schools to use history textbooks that barely even mention Jim Crow, certainly not to the point of moral condemnation -- despite the fact that it has very much been a part of our history. That's called whitewashing history. In other words, it's a rotten, stinking lie.

Don't forget, "political correctness" is a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh.

Bullshit Edgar!

A more balanced account of Sims doesn't exonerate him from what should be considered crimes, but at the very least was utterly unethical practices, however, it does put some of the allegations about him in context.

WIKIPEDIA

I agree that he doesn't deserve to be honored no matter his considerably important contributions to the field of women's health. He didn't simply own slaves during a time when it was legal, he experimented on them. Regardless of what the law of the time may have perversely decreed, these women were human beings and there was no excuse for anyone to think otherwise, let alone a physician who had taken the Hippocratic Oath.

It's quite clear that he would never have conducted his experiments on white women, and if we as a society find unwilling human experimentation to be unacceptable we shouldn't honor anyone practicing it simply because it successfully led to an important treatment.

I don't think though that the comparison between Sims and Mengele is apt. Clearly both were guilty of human experimentation with little to no regard for the suffering of the subjects (Sims didn't use anesthesia during surgery but he gave the women opium afterwards), and neither deserve to have statues erected in their honor, however Mengele was a sadistic monster who conducted experiments that served no purpose other than to satisfy his perverse curiosity and sexual appetite for the pain of others. Sims experiments, on the other hand, led to the perfection of a procedure that had a remarkably positive impact on the lives of millions of women. There are none but sick perverts who defend Mengele, while (agree with them or not), Sims has his defenders among scholars and medical professionals



Lest anyone assume that Walls is a white supremacist quack:



I'm not sure how Walls was able to determine that slaves willingly performed any of the commands of their masters, but if this is true it does make a difference. Without seeing the evidence though, my assumption is that they were not willing subjects. Sims claims alone are not sufficient and because they didn't attempt to fight, flee or kill themselves rather than endure the experiments isn't an indication of willingness.

While it might be helpful in the effort to remove a statue of a figure undeserving of one, it's not intellectually honest to distort facts and ignore context. Sims was not the American equivalent of Josef Mengele.

Sources:

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/dr-marion-sims-statue-where-should-it-stand.php<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/health/scholars-argue-over-legacy-of-surgeon-who-was-lionized-then-vilified.html?mcubz=0

I read quite a few of the comments made in the article you linked and I have to say I didn't find any that expressed the belief that the experiments were "no big deal," and accompanied by anything that identified the writer as white or conservative.

I did, however, find the following comment which does a much better job explaining the position that seemed to be expressed by the others:



The term "Political Correctness" can and has been misused but the same can be said of every term used in political debates and discussions. It's not been overused and it isn't a false concept.

What makes you wonder about the humanity of the majority of white conservatives? A handful of comments in an article that don't actually say what you claim they say? A handful of comments that might be found elsewhere that do reveal an ugly mentality? And why the need to use the describer "white?" Do you think that black conservatives are uniquely more humane than their white colleagues, or do you not even consider that they exist (which would make "white conservatives" redundant)

It is good that you are not a racist and find racism and racists repugnant, but that doesn't give you license to practice your own brand of bigotry.

Even if this were true, it would be foolish to assert that it rendered the concept meaningless or false. You're not doing that though...right?

Was that before or after he popularized "Barack the Magic Negro"?

So liberals are publicly defending political correctness now? At least they are doing it out in the open.

Political correctness often helps White Women at the expense of African-Americans and other minorities. When you censor speech, the people with privilege have the upper hand at defining which ideas are acceptable and which are not. This is the reason that Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) is still honored.

When Black Women talk about "White Feminism", this is what they are talking about.

I am not a bigot. When I first became interested in national politics in 1969, I was a freshman at a college where I met two other freshmen who happened to be conservative Republicans. They immediately became close friends of mine because they were nice guys. At another institution of higher education, I became acquainted with one of the American history professors. I enjoyed talking to him because he was highly intelligent and had a great sense of humor. I did not shut him out when I saw that he was a conservative. To the contrary, I chose his class for my American history requirement over the other professors. The father of a high-school friend of mine was a conservative who subscribed to National Review. I didn't always agree with his political views; but it didn't matter because he was a very nice guy. Not long after I first met the young woman who would become my wife, one of her sisters told me she was a Republican. She was afraid I'd be disappointed; but I wasn't. In fact, she would turn out to be my first and only girlfriend who would bless my life in so many ways. (Incidentally, when we got married in 1979, I was a Democrat; and she was a Republican. I'd joke about having a mixed marriage. Both of us ended up leaving our respective parties. Interestingly enough, our political views were always roughly the same.) Finally, there's the friendship I have with you. I have said that you are one of the nicest members here at A2K. (I feel the same way about edgarblythe, of course, as well as other members.) You're highly intelligent and write better than I do. I certainly don't deny your humanity.

If I were an ideological bigot, I never would have had the relationships I've described above. As far as ideological bigots are concerned, I dare say they are to be found on both sides of the divide.

I don't deny anyone's humanity. For example, I consider David Duke to be an evil man; but I would not chortle if he came down with a terminal illness such as cancer. I would react with horror over the suffering he was experiencing -- suffering that I personally witnessed when my mother came down with terminal liver cancer. When people rejoice over the death of someone they despised, they are showing to the world just how brutal and savage they are.

I appreciate all the information you posted about Sims. Again, you're a very intelligent poster. You actually make more of a contribution to A2K discussions than I do.

Finally, on the issue of racism (regardless of the particular kind under consideration), my emotions frequently run ahead of my intellect. That's because at the tender age of 10 in 1960, I was all but an eyewitness to a particularly vicious form of racial discrimination. At the time I didn't understand why it had happened; but it had a profound effect on my political views.

While your observation about "White Feminism" has the ring of truth to it, that's not what snood was talking about in the post of his that you've just responded to. He was talking about something Limbaugh did, which is not what you have responded to. Snood happens to be right in his observation about Limbaugh. You brought up another issue -- which, granted, as I said, has the ring of truth about it.

Edgar made the claim that Limbaugh first popularized the term "political correctness". This was proved false by the fact that George Carlin was railing against "political correctness" long before Limbaugh did. Of course even if Edgar was factually correct, his argument would still be bogus.

Edgar wasn't factually correct, and Snood piled on anyway.

Unless someone comes up with evidence regarding the timing, I agree with you that Carlin was railing against political correctness before Limbaugh. But I don't believe snood was "piling on." He was simply continuing the mini-thread regarding Limbaugh.

While I generally agree with Carlin on this issue, I also believe that some people make accusations of being "politically correct" in order to discourage or intimidate those who disagree with them. I've personally seen it happen.

Now I can't stay around and post some more. I've got to finish getting ready for Hurricane Harvey.

Can you give an example of this? It seems to me the opposite is true

Able2Know discussions are mostly dominated by a liberal point of view, and there is a core group of people who bully any opinions outside of their ideological bubble. If you look at where the personal insults and name-calling are coming from, almost all of them are in support of political correctness. This very thread is an example of this. Go back and look at where the personal attacks are coming from.

Are you in the projected storm path?

Also, if I remember correctly, all EdgarB said was that Limbaugh popularized Political Correctness - not that he was the one who started it.

<wishing you and yours to be well during this gigantic flooding business..>

Joan of Arc? Really?

What's the problem with Joan? She was a Catholic?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/17/new-orleans-joan-arc-statue-vandalized-take/?utm_source=PJMFacebook&amp;utm_medium=post

She was a statue. These frenzies are apt to get out of control. A few years ago there was an anti-paedophile (that's how we spell it) hysteria whipped up by a tabloid newspaper and a mob attacked the house of a paediatrician because they thought she must be some kind of pervert because she was a "paedo-something". It probably involved bored or drunk people who didn't much care what she was but just fancied a bit of mayhem, and maybe that applied to Joan?

Yes, and Edgar's point was bogus. Why do you think that Edgar even brought up Limbaugh?

It is a failed attempt at "guilt by association"; a logical fallacy even if it was factual correct. And it wasn't even factually correct. Edgar was making a bogus argument based on a factual error. There is no reason to be talking about Limbaugh here.

So let's stop talking about Limbaugh now... and if anyone wants to attack someone for their popularizing Political Correctness, the person you should be attacking is George Carlin. George Carlin was famous, he talked quite a bit about "political correctness" including writing a book on the topic.