Upon Rosa Parks' death, all of the adulation and historical perspective got me to thinking.
We can look back upon her defiance in the face of oppression, and view her fairly universally as a hero and a symbol for righteous protest. I don't know if this is a polite acceptance of the winning argument, or a generational shift. Either way, there is a generally accepted right side and wrong side and most people consider it progress.
The question is, at the time of the civil rights movement, this wasn't the case. Both sides thought they were right, and at the time it was a heated debate framed not only in moral terms but also in political terms. Without getting too inflammatory, there was obviously a "conservative" side and a "liberal" side. Evidently the liberal side won.
But the question is, at what point does any argument segue from a political discussion, which tends to frame both sides as equally legitimate, to a fundamental moral question, where one side is right and one side is wrong? Is it only the passing of time? Is it just having history written by the winners? Is it the act of persuasion?
Put another way - do we countenance unacceptable arguments in the hopes of maintaining a civil dialogue, even when the argument doesn't deserve to be dignified in that way? One example - doesn't it strike people as slightly ridiculous that as a country we think its worthwhile to parse the definition of "torture"? Obviously in many arguments both sides try to take the moral high ground, but its often murky at best. Maybe it's just me, but its inconceivable how somebody could construct an argument whereby slavery had some "moral" basis. But many did. Is there a point where we can draw a principled line that can be universally agreed upon and then apply it in a careful, but nuanced way? I'm not trying to oversimplify the complex - I can let politicians do that, but at least recognize all nuances while at the same time recognizing the moral component in arguments towards which we can point our compass.
Obviously this can be abused. Everybody wants to claim the high ground, or worse yet, Godliness, on his side, so I'm not so naive as to suggest that it wouldn't just make things worse. And political discourse in this day and age has terribly uncivil, so I'm not sure my query makes things better.
I'm just fascinated that Parks can be recognized as a hero today, but then as an apostate, Communist, rabble-rouser, etc. Can only time create that lense for us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"
We can look back upon her defiance in the face of oppression, and view her fairly universally as a hero and a symbol for righteous protest. I don't know if this is a polite acceptance of the winning argument, or a generational shift. Either way, there is a generally accepted right side and wrong side and most people consider it progress.
The question is, at the time of the civil rights movement, this wasn't the case. Both sides thought they were right, and at the time it was a heated debate framed not only in moral terms but also in political terms. Without getting too inflammatory, there was obviously a "conservative" side and a "liberal" side. Evidently the liberal side won.
But the question is, at what point does any argument segue from a political discussion, which tends to frame both sides as equally legitimate, to a fundamental moral question, where one side is right and one side is wrong? Is it only the passing of time? Is it just having history written by the winners? Is it the act of persuasion?
Put another way - do we countenance unacceptable arguments in the hopes of maintaining a civil dialogue, even when the argument doesn't deserve to be dignified in that way? One example - doesn't it strike people as slightly ridiculous that as a country we think its worthwhile to parse the definition of "torture"? Obviously in many arguments both sides try to take the moral high ground, but its often murky at best. Maybe it's just me, but its inconceivable how somebody could construct an argument whereby slavery had some "moral" basis. But many did. Is there a point where we can draw a principled line that can be universally agreed upon and then apply it in a careful, but nuanced way? I'm not trying to oversimplify the complex - I can let politicians do that, but at least recognize all nuances while at the same time recognizing the moral component in arguments towards which we can point our compass.
Obviously this can be abused. Everybody wants to claim the high ground, or worse yet, Godliness, on his side, so I'm not so naive as to suggest that it wouldn't just make things worse. And political discourse in this day and age has terribly uncivil, so I'm not sure my query makes things better.
I'm just fascinated that Parks can be recognized as a hero today, but then as an apostate, Communist, rabble-rouser, etc. Can only time create that lense for us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"