Confederate Grave, Part II. (Warning: dubious moral behavior mentioned)

[Pam in CT]

[Love the discussion about how symbolism of the Cross registers/resonates differently to different people, in ways that are not at all obvious to many Christians of good will living "inside the circle" of their faith.

I move to move the discussion to its own thread so as not to derail this one...]

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

You do know that cemetery caretakers, paid or not, take this stuff and throw it away, right?  

Random person walking through cemetery ≠ cemetery caretaker

[Ceilingfan]

You cannot choose to believe a dead hypothesis; I cannot choose belief in Jesus anymore than I can choose to believe Zeus impregnated a swan. Both sets of belief (that atheists are condemned to hell, for Christians who do believe that - certainly not a tiny number of them; and that nonwhites are inherently inferior), separate of action, are equally incorrect, equally harmful (that is, they're thoughts, which are free), and equally damaging (as thoughts!) to the disavowed party (the atheist or the person of color).

Either racism or religious belief can of course lead to damaging action, see the civil war and the crusades, etc. But as thoughts, I fail to see the moral distinction. My instinct that there is a distinction, separate of logic, alarms me.

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

You cannot choose to believe a dead hypothesis; I cannot choose belief in Jesus anymore than I can choose to believe Zeus impregnated a swan. Both sets of belief (that atheists are condemned to hell, for Christians who do believe that - certainly not a tiny number of them; and that nonwhites are inherently inferior), separate of action, are equally incorrect, equally harmful (that is, they're thoughts, which are free), and equally damaging (as thoughts!) to the disavowed party (the atheist or the person of color).

Either racism or religious belief can of course lead to damaging action, see the civil war and the crusades, etc. But as thoughts, I fail to see the moral distinction. My instinct that there is a distinction, separate of logic, alarms me.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

[Murphy101]

15 minutes ago, katilac said:

Random person walking through cemetery ≠ cemetery caretaker

Sure it does. Everyone does it for the same reasons. Many cemeteries are cleaned up by the community and don’t even have a regular paid caretaker. Thank goodness or it’d be nasty.  My parents cemetery is only about 1/2 an acre in podunk boonies off an interstate highway.  They don’t have daily grounds keepers. In the slow grass seasons, they don’t have any groundskeeper at all!

[Corraleno]

17 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

You cannot choose to believe a dead hypothesis; I cannot choose belief in Jesus anymore than I can choose to believe Zeus impregnated a swan. Both sets of belief (that atheists are condemned to hell, for Christians who do believe that - certainly not a tiny number of them; and that nonwhites are inherently inferior), separate of action, are equally incorrect, equally harmful (that is, they're thoughts, which are free), and equally damaging (as thoughts!) to the disavowed party (the atheist or the person of color).

Either racism or religious belief can of course lead to damaging action, see the civil war and the crusades, etc. But as thoughts, I fail to see the moral distinction. My instinct that there is a distinction, separate of logic, alarms me.

The distinction is that one is justifying the idea that people of different religions should be treated differently in an afterlife, and the other is justifying the idea people of different skin colors should be treated differently right now in real life. That is a critical distinction, and it is not trivial.

[katilac]

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Sure it does. Everyone does it for the same reasons. Many cemeteries are cleaned up by the community and don’t even have a regular paid caretaker. Thank goodness or it’d be nasty.  My parents cemetery is only about 1/2 an acre in podunk boonies off an interstate highway.  They don’t have daily grounds keepers. In the slow grass seasons, they don’t have any groundskeeper at all!

I don't know of anyone who would 'clean up' a grave they had no connection to by removing a card or letter from it. A more official caretaker might be within rights to remove it because it violates a rule of the cemetery.

Regardless, Quill is in no way claiming she was there cleaning up the cemetery. Community members cleaning up cemeteries and graves obviously have nothing to do with this scenario. 

[Scarlett]

31 minutes ago, katilac said:

I don't know of anyone who would 'clean up' a grave they had no connection to by removing a card or letter from it. A more official caretaker might be within rights to remove it because it violates a rule of the cemetery.

Regardless, Quill is in no way claiming she was there cleaning up the cemetery. Community members cleaning up cemeteries and graves obviously have nothing to do with this scenario. 

I think the point is the end result is the same.

[Ceilingfan]

50 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The distinction is that one is justifying the idea that people of different religions should be treated differently in an afterlife, and the other is justifying the idea people of different skin colors should be treated differently right now in real life. That is a critical distinction, and it is not trivial.

The afterlife lasts a lot longer than this life, presumably, and I'd choose even Jim Crow over a lake of fire.

I don't see religious difference as crucially different from racial difference; both are unchangeable (often) and protected characteristics.

[Drama Llama]

7 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

The afterlife lasts a lot longer than this life, presumably, and I'd choose even Jim Crow over a lake of fire.

I don't see religious difference as crucially different from racial difference; both are unchangeable (often) and protected characteristics.

But the difference is that no believes that Christians are the ones who have the power to condemn you to that lake of fire.  Some people, including some Christians, don't believe that the lake of fire exists.  Some Christians believe that it does, but they believe that the decision is in God's hand.  No one thinks that the person putting the cross on the grave has the power to send you there. 

People are the ones who created slavery, and Jim Crow, and issues that continue to this day in our country.  People continue to support an implement policies that hurt people of color in this country.  

So, while a cross might communicate that someone thinks you will go to hell, it doesn't communicate that someone is taking steps to send you to hell.  It is not a threat in the same way.  

If you said, it bothers me to see a cross, because it reminds me of atrocities committed on Earth in the name of Christ, and makes me fear that they could happen again? I would absolutely understand that.

I'll also say that if someone came into a secular graveyard, or a graveyard of a non-Christian faith in my community, and placed crosses on graves that they did not own, of people they had never met and were not related to, in order to make a religious statement, and people in the community around the cemetery removed them?  I would think that was the right thing to do.  

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, Ceilingfan said:

Mercy can vouch that I at least am not at all new, fwiw

Ok, am I the only one who is now trying to figure out your old username? 😉 

[mommyoffive]

22 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Ok, am I the only one who is now trying to figure out your old username? 😉 

Me too.  

I was wondering if a lot of the "new" people are not really new.  And I think I am seeing some people who changed their screen names. 

[Corraleno]

19 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Me too.  

I was wondering if a lot of the "new" people are not really new.  And I think I am seeing some people who changed their screen names. 

There have been a number of FB groups (and other online entities) created by groups who split off from WTM for various reasons, and I suspect that when there's a particularly controversial thread here it gets discussed in some of those those groups, prompting a few former posters to come back to express their outrage while hiding behind a new screen name. 

[Ceilingfan]

 

I disagree that only racists have potential political power to make their chosen targets disempowered. That's a very currently oriented view. We still haven't had an atheist president (outwardly); religious protections are strong now, relatively speaking, but again that's just a generation or two of data. Historically, anti-atheist thought is as potentially related to discrimination as racist thought, so I don't see how the thought itself, or the written expression of it, should be treated differently.

And yet, my instinctive (or trained, I guess) reaction is to privilege religious thought over political thought, however discriminatory the idea itself is. This gives me pause; it's illogical. So either I say religious people's thought and expression should rightfully be suppressed, or racist thought or expression should rightfully be allowed. I can't hold the double standard.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Ceilingfan

[Ceilingfan]

..

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Ceilingfan

[Drama Llama]

4 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

I abandoned for reasons unrelated to politics or ingroup ism and related directly to real life consequences of being doxxed; I will delete tomorrow. As a community you all were a solid ground in a difficult time, but I cannot be who I was before for the aforementioned reasons. I was pretty unremarkable; you won't remember me, no worries.

I disagree that only racists have potential political power to make their chosen targets disempowered. That's a very currently oriented view. We still haven't had an atheist president (outwardly); religious protections are strong now, relatively speaking, but again that's just a generation or two of data. Historically, anti-atheist thought is as potentially related to discrimination as racist thought, so I don't see how the thought itself, or the written expression of it, should be treated differently.

And yet, my instinctive (or trained, I guess) reaction is to privilege religious thought over political thought, however discriminatory the idea itself is. This gives me pause; it's illogical. So either I say religious people's thought and expression should rightfully be suppressed, or racist thought or expression should rightfully be allowed. I can't hold the double standard.

I said that people don't have the power to make the thing you mentioned happen.  Christians can not send you to hell.

I also said that if this was the same thing but religious, someone coming in and adding crosses to graves of people they did not know in a secular or non-Christian cemetery, I'd support removing those too.  

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I would assume one would mention the connection in the letter if writing to their own ancestor?  
 

not necessarily.  She's not writing for an audience, the person she is writing to - is dead.  she doesn't have to explain the relationship to another party.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

But do you see that she was relating to the Confederate part of her ancestor? 

We don't have to approve her of sentiments.  She has a right to her own opinions, just as the OP does, just as you do.  She's not hurting anyone by writing a letter to a dead soldier.  Except as a stranger comes along, picks it up, and posts it to the internet.  I doubt she was even thinking about that possibility.

 

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

We don't have to approve her of sentiments.  She has a right to her own opinions, just as the OP does, just as you do.  She's not hurting anyone by writing a letter to a dead soldier.  Except as a stranger comes along, picks it up, and posts it to the internet.  I doubt she was even thinking about that possibility.

 

That simply isn't true.  For many people, African Americans, people who care about African Americans, descendent of people who died fighting for the Union, seeing a symbol of hatred, like the flag she mentioned, like the stickers on the outside of the card in plain view, in a place they come to mourn their loved ones is hurtful, and intimidating.  I would assume that was part of the intent here.  

 

 

 

[SKL]

9 hours ago, Quill said:

Well, admittedly, if he had met me like 12 years earlier, he would have been more in the ballpark. 

Its just interesting to me that he pinned the “liberal” label on me minutes after I objected to his racial stereotyping of his “black clients” who apparently all behave as one mass and not, you know, actual individual people. 🙄 Why am I liberal because I call out that 💩? 

 

And now, ladies, I have to go make food, shower and go to sleep. And shut my chicken cop. So dont take my sudden silence to mean anything. 

Well you paint all white men as one mass so ....

Honestly your disinterest in actually knowing the history that led to a war you are so outspoken about doesn't impress.  And many of your posts suggest you have a fair amount of subconscious racism and other isms yourself.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I gave my kid a biblical name.

Combined with homeschooling, a lot of ppl dropped us, but only after the first playdate 😂

Relate. My son’s middle name is Christian.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, kiwik said:

Sorry I meant the War of Independence not the civil war.  I had it on my brain.  From where I am the War of Independence looks like a act of treason (and also like a civil war which is why we always have to think a bit when asked the date).

Ftr, yes, I do think Americas revolutionary War was treasonous, but I’m not mad about it. I’m glad we gained indépendance. 
 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

@Quill

You know this would make a good story, right? The whole recruitment-by-grave thing, and then a band of rebels, led by an author like character, taking down the ring? 

You could even have a character ( in the main character's bookclub, maybe?) who wouldn't read the letter and either gets recruited by letter after she gets kicked out of book club, or undergoes some crisis that makes her understand she should have read it. 

Not a bad framework for a novel. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Well you paint all white men as one mass so ....

Honestly your disinterest in actually knowing the history that led to a war you are so outspoken about doesn't impress.  And many of your posts suggest you have a fair amount of subconscious racism and other isms yourself.

What “disinterest in actually knowing the history” are you actually talking about? 

[Eos]

13 hours ago, SKL said:

We're talking about soldiers here.  Is there some assumption that all the soldiers of the side that won were angelic?  Isn't it more likely that the soldiers on both sides had more in common than not?  But it's OK to honor the Union soldiers' graves (and US soldiers in other wars that the US government entered), but not the Confederate soldiers' graves?  Just based on which current rhetoric we believe regarding the war / leaders of the time?

The South had a number of grievances, most of them economic issues other than slavery.  Most Southerners were not slave owners, and many wouldn't want to be slave owners even if they could have been.  Some of them were actively fighting against slavery.

As for racism, hopefully it's common knowledge that racism always has existed in the North as well ... and the North wasn't always free of slavery either.

The black and white way that this topic has been handled here is kind of disappointing.

This is The Argument that is its own trope. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/12/9132561/civil-war-slavery-video  To me, there are no shades of gray here.  Black and white thinking is often derided at WTM, but to me, morality is occasionally absolute.  I say this as a descendent of Quakers, some of whom were jailed for not fighting when conscripted, some of whom were kicked out of Meeting for signing up to fight in the Civil War.

13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

In the case of unjust wars, we should always make a distinction between those put on the front line, and those behind the lines, directing movement on the chessboard.

I disagree, and the Nuremburg Trials did also.  Soldiers are humans who can make moral decisions just as well as anyone else, class oppression and all.

I've taken down confederate flags and erased swastikas.  Hate speech is not free speech, hate symbols should not be left in peace.  A loving, emphatic note left for a dead soldier and his Great Cause in a church graveyard may seem sacrosanct and romantic but I think it's foul and would have done the same, though probably not posted about it here.  Don't do your righteous deeds in public, and all that, though I have no issue with Quill posting about it.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Eos

[Guest]

9 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

My impression was it was her own ancestor.  People do know their ancestors - I've traced several lines back to 17th century Connecticut.  (and earlier in Europe.) I've cried over my great-grandmother's grave (even though she died long before I was born), I've visited graves of ancestors a couple more generations back.  I have a real desire to go visit a 3ggm's grave.  So - just because it's been 160 years doesn't mean the card placer didn't know if it was her ancestor or not.

I do not think it was the letter-leaver’s own ancestor. I would bet money on my expectations, were there any point. Did you see @Farrar’s video about Daughters of the Confederacy/ Lost Cause? That rings much more true to me. 
 

Also, there is apparently a company called “Olde South,” based out of South Carolina (not surprising) that sells cards with Confederate soldiers depicted proud upon their horses. Maybe that’s where you get the stickers too. 

[Ausmumof3]

I have seen other groups recruit by leaving random notes/flyers on buses/trains etc.  not a mass pamphleting just one note left somewhere to try to catch interest.  And being the kind of person who can’t help but read whatever bit of random text is laying around it would work on me potentially. So I don’t think it’s impossible that that’s what’s going on.  I do have a weird feeling about hanging out in graveyards.  

[Guest]

Don't do your righteous deeds in public, and all that, though I have no issue with Quill posting about it.
 

That’s actually an excellant point I wish I had considered. 

[Drama Llama]

14 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

[Love the discussion about how symbolism of the Cross registers/resonates differently to different people, in ways that are not at all obvious to many Christians of good will living "inside the circle" of their faith.

I move to move the discussion to its own thread so as not to derail this one...]

I think that would be great!

[Pam in CT]

Last thread through all this, I was on Team Don't Just Take the Confederate Flag off the Gravesite.

But.

A thought experiment, by Pam in CT:

By Jewish law and custom, which were both driven & reinforced by exclusionary law and custom in the many countries in which Jews lived for centuries as fragile and often-persecuted minorities, Jewish cemeteries are *separate.*

If I went into a Jewish cemetery, whether to visit the specific grave of a loved one, or out of historical interest in the historical Jewish community when visiting a new city, or for that matter to have a scenic picnic...

... and found swastikas plastered on the Jewish graves,

... or found Confederate flags planted on the Jewish graves,

... or found Iron Crosses (a symbol which, fun fact: originated with Nazis, now popularized and disseminated by American white supremacists, including some of the 1/6 insurrectionists in the Capitol) planted on the Jewish graves,

... or (even) found plain standard Christian crosses planted on the Jewish graves...

I would not hesitate, for one moment, before removing each and every one of them. 

Or in thereafter turning over the items and reporting the act to cemetery authorities and law enforcement and ADL.  For them to treat as they saw fit, from harmless infraction of cemetery rules, to the-cruelty-is-the-point intimidation, to legally defined hate crime, to good faith outreach by a Good Person to save souls that might otherwise be Left Behind.

The "intent" inside the "hearts" of the planter of the swastikas / Iron Crosses / flags would not matter to me. My sole focus would be the effect on the overwhelmingly-Jewish visitors to the (in this case) exclusively-Jewish cemetery.

Maybe the exclusively-Jewish aspect of Jewish cemeteries clarifies the issue for me -- there are no Nazis buried there; there are no Nazi descendants of the dead; there are no living Nazis mourning the dead. There is no ambiguity about what the symbols could, possibly, "mean."

 

But. Yeah. If it walks like a hate symbol, and quacks like a hate symbol...

...and is placed in a public space...

....it's ok to treat the public space like a public space. To be a mensch, and pick up the trash.

For the sake of the next visitors to come in.

 

[KidsHappen]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:24 AM, Spryte said:

Time to call Sam and Dean!

Salt & Burn!

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

Last thread through all this, I was on Team Don't Just Take the Confederate Flag off the Gravesite.

But.

A thought experiment, by Pam in CT:

By Jewish law and custom, which were both driven & reinforced by exclusionary law and custom in the many countries in which Jews lived for centuries as fragile and often-persecuted minorities, Jewish cemeteries are *separate.*

If I went into a Jewish cemetery, whether to visit the specific grave of a loved one, or out of historical interest in the historical Jewish community when visiting a new city, or for that matter to have a scenic picnic...

... and found swastikas plastered on the Jewish graves,

... or found Confederate flags planted on the Jewish graves,

... or found Iron Crosses (a symbol which, fun fact: originated with Nazis, now popularized and disseminated by American white supremacists, including some of the 1/6 insurrectionists in the Capitol) planted on the Jewish graves,

... or (even) found plain standard Christian crosses planted on the Jewish graves...

I would not hesitate, for one moment, before removing each and every one of them. 

Or in thereafter turning over the items and reporting the act to cemetery authorities and law enforcement and ADL.  For them to treat as they saw fit, from harmless infraction of cemetery rules, to the-cruelty-is-the-point intimidation, to legally defined hate crime, to good faith outreach by a Good Person to save souls that might otherwise be Left Behind.

The "intent" inside the "hearts" of the planter of the swastikas / Iron Crosses / flags would not matter to me. My sole focus would be the effect on the overwhelmingly-Jewish visitors to the (in this case) exclusively-Jewish cemetery.

Maybe the exclusively-Jewish aspect of Jewish cemeteries clarifies the issue for me -- there are no Nazis buried there; there are no Nazi descendants of the dead; there are no living Nazis mourning the dead. There is no ambiguity about what the symbols could, possibly, "mean."

 

But. Yeah. If it walks like a hate symbol, and quacks like a hate symbol...

...and is placed in a public space...

....it's ok to treat the public space like a public space. To be a mensch, and pick up the trash.

For the sake of the next visitors to come in.

 

I'm curious why you feel that it makes a difference if it is the grave of a Jewish person in a Jewish cemetery, vs. a Jewish person in a secular cemetery?  There are graves marked with Stars of David at Arlington.  If someone went and placed crosses on those graves, I'd find it wildly inappropriate and remove those, and I'm someone who will likely end up in a grave marked with a cross.  

 

[gardenmom5]

12 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

That simply isn't true.  For many people, African Americans, people who care about African Americans, descendent of people who died fighting for the Union, seeing a symbol of hatred, like the flag she mentioned, like the stickers on the outside of the card in plain view, in a place they come to mourn their loved ones is hurtful, and intimidating.  I would assume that was part of the intent here.  

 

 

 

 what was your point of POSTING a picture of this card?  you're giving it a much wider audience than it originally had.  Did you want to publicly shame/mock the author?  It's certainly not going to teach her anything about loving her fellow man.  

why didn't you just throw it away?

Did you know there are a lot of people who object to Daryl Davis because he makes friends of KKK members?  However, he's been very successful at changing hearts, because he listens (and politely disagrees and reasons.).   He has had friendships with dozens of klan members who had their hearts changed, and gave up the klan.  They even send him their robes as a symbol of them giving it up.   btw: he's black.    

[gardenmom5]

30 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I'm curious why you feel that it makes a difference if it is the grave of a Jewish person in a Jewish cemetery, vs. a Jewish person in a secular cemetery?  There are graves marked with Stars of David at Arlington.  If someone went and placed crosses on those graves, I'd find it wildly inappropriate and remove those, and I'm someone who will likely end up in a grave marked with a cross.  

 

Me too - and I would find it inappropriate as in "highly disrespectful" to the deceased and their living family members.

 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

 what was your point of POSTING a picture of this card?  you're giving it a much wider audience than it originally had.  Did you want to publicly shame/mock the author?  It's certainly not going to teach her anything about loving her fellow man.  

why didn't you just throw it away?

Did you know there are a lot of people who object to Daryl Davis because he makes friends of KKK members?  However, he's been very successful at changing hearts, because he listens (and politely disagrees and reasons.).   He has had friendships with dozens of klan members who had their hearts changed, and gave up the klan.  They even send him their robes as a symbol of them giving it up.   btw: he's black.    

You probably intended to quote @Quill, but at any rate I don't know that she has to explain herself.  She found something shocking/interesting and she showed it to us.  She did not post the woman's name and address even though said woman had left it in a public place for anyone to find.

[Drama Llama]

3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

 what was your point of POSTING a picture of this card?  you're giving it a much wider audience than it originally had.  Did you want to publicly shame/mock the author?  It's certainly not going to teach her anything about loving her fellow man.  

why didn't you just throw it away?

I didn't throw it away or post it because I am not Quill.  

I assume that if her intention was to shame or mock the author she wouldn't have deleted the name, and that her intention was to share an experience and get advice, which is what we do here.  

3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

Did you know there are a lot of people who object to Daryl Davis because he makes friends of KKK members?  However, he's been very successful at changing hearts, because he listens (and politely disagrees and reasons.).   He has had friendships with dozens of klan members who had their hearts changed, and gave up the klan.  They even send him their robes as a symbol of them giving it up.   btw: he's black.    

I don't see the connection you are trying to make.  I think that someone giving away their KKK robes is very different than what the author of the letter did.  

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, SKL said:

Well you paint all white men as one mass so ....

Honestly your disinterest in actually knowing the history that led to a war you are so outspoken about doesn't impress.  And many of your posts suggest you have a fair amount of subconscious racism and other isms yourself.

What in the world? How can you possibly know any of Quill's inner motivations, let alone her subconscious ones? 

She's explained herself well here and I don't see any evidence of disinterest in history, racism, or "paint[ing] all white men as one mass."

[gardenmom5]

40 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

 

I don't see the connection you are trying to make.  I think that someone giving away their KKK robes is very different than what the author of the letter did.  

The "connection" - is Daryl Davis *making friends* of the KKK members.  instead of attacking them, which is what most people do.

[Scarlett]

17 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

The "connection" - is Daryl Davis *making friends* of the KKK members.  instead of attacking them, which is what most people do.

I don't know who Daryl Davis is but I am not sure where the honor is in 'making friends' with such people.  But maybe our definition of friendship is different?

[Guest]

Just now, Scarlett said:

I don't know who Daryl Davis is but I am not sure where the honor is in 'making friends' with such people.  But maybe our definition of friendship is different?

I know who Daryl Davis is and I think it’s great he has done this. I’m very familiar with the story. He has converted (or deconverted) white supremicists. But frankly, it is a difficult skill which few people possess. I have been trying to learn more about collapsing harmful belief systems in conversation but it’s hard, and doing it with someone with hard-core ugly beliefs is extraordinarily difficult. 
 

I haven’t even succeeded in getting the man I sleep with to take the vaccine. So…maybe I’m not up to the task of converting confederate flag wavers. 

[Guest]

Sorry @Scarlett; now I’m the one quoting the wrong poster. It sounds like I am disagreeing with YOU, which is not my intention. I meant to quote @gardenmom5

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

Sorry @Scarlett; now I’m the one quoting the wrong poster. It sounds like I am disagreeing with YOU, which is not my intention. I meant to quote @gardenmom5

I understood.  LOL

[Pam in CT]

re context informing my response to particular actions I find reprehensible

1 hour ago, Baseballandhockey said:

I'm curious why you feel that it makes a difference if it is the grave of a Jewish person in a Jewish cemetery, vs. a Jewish person in a secular cemetery?  There are graves marked with Stars of David at Arlington.  If someone went and placed crosses on those graves, I'd find it wildly inappropriate and remove those, and I'm someone who will likely end up in a grave marked with a cross. 

It's a good question, and (perhaps like Quill) my response is still emergent, not yet fully baked.

The Iron Crosses planted onto graves in a Jewish-only cemetery scenario is clarifying to me -- helps me define an endpoint, a scenario where I know I WOULD remove artifacts someone left on a gravesite. 

When, several months ago when Quill started the other thread, I came out in a different place: uncomfortable with the Confederate flag planted on the same grave... but ultimately, between

• my grave-specific taboos, and
• my theoretical principles about free speech (which are easier for me to hold when I mostly-agree with particular speech, than when I find it abominable), and
• the possibility -- though it seemed to me a dim one -- that Quill held that the flag-planter might be a descendant of the soldier who associated the Confederate flag with mint juleps and peach cobbler rather than white supremacy.

So as I was turning Round 2 over in my mind, I was searching for a scenario that seemed *easy* to me.  Where the balance between respect for the dead, respect for the living descendants, the interests of other individuals including the particular person planting a specific symbol, and the interests of other visitors to a cemetery felt OBVIOUS to  me. 

(Hard cases make hard law; but not all cases are hard.  And in any event we're talking custom and practice and judgment here -- manners, if you will -- not law.)  I was searching for an easy case, so as to tease out how and why an easy balance felt easy.

So swastikas, or Iron Crosses, or Confederate flags, in a Jewish-only cemetery is an easy case.   I would not hesitate before acting, and I would not feel remorse having acted. 

(The plain-vanilla Christian crosses are a slightly different case, which I'm willing to try to discuss in a different thread (and which actually does inform  my halting emerging thoughts, but because that symbol functions in a somewhat different way I'll put it aside for the moment.)

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

Me too - and I would find it inappropriate as in "highly disrespectful" to the deceased and their living family members.

Sure.

The reduction of "it" to mere respect and appropriatenesss seems to me to be missing another fundamental element, though.  Truly -- I'm all for respect and appropriateness and manners and civility.  Also -- for vigorous and contrary speech.  Also -- that the only long run antidote to bad ideas is better ideas.  I fully agree that Daryl Davis is doing God's work.

There are easy cases, and there are hard ones. There's a difference between a substantive civil debate moderated by the League of Women Voters about, say, how to improve health care outcomes in America, versus 20 guys in combat gear slowly circling a Texas mosque with their long guns.  The former is easy, and I'm all about such civil exchange of competing viewpoints. The effect of the latter is to intimidate and suppress the rights of some, by the acts of others. That context *matters.* 

So if I visualize those two different "exchanges" of competing viewpoints as a spectrum, from easy to hard: the swastikas in the all-Jewish cemetery lands much closer to the white Christian militia circling the mosque.

But it gets harder as I move to harder cases.

 

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

21 hours ago, kiwik said:

In general I would agree.  But if you suddenly saw a swastika flag on a Jewish persons grave or a WW2 soldiers grave, pictures on naked kids on Alan's grave, would you remove them? What about graffiti? I think the answer is probably to report concerns to the appropriate authorities but that can take time.  You shouldn't read mail not intended for you though if only so you don't read something awful.

To me the difference here is that the people buried in those graves could very likely have loved ones still alive who knew them. A soldier from the US Civil War won't. They might have descendants but not anyone who actually knew and loved them. 

[Drama Llama]

12 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

To me the difference here is that the people buried in those graves could very likely have loved ones still alive who knew them. A soldier from the US Civil War won't. They might have descendants but not anyone who actually knew and loved them. 

Which way does that sway you?

 

[BronzeTurtle]

seeing a letter on a grave makes me think of forrest gump, where the kid writes a letter to his deceased mother and i think tells his dad (forrest) not to read it. the grave is out in the open and the letter is out in the open but the sentiment inside could still be private. I see envelopes of what I would think are letters or cards on graves whenever we drive by a cemetary. i would be extremely uncomfortable looking inside the envelopes to find people's private sentiments to a dead person. curiosity is one thing and i am pretty nosy if i'm honest....but that seems like a pretty private thing even if the grave is public.

I guess it's fine since you know the person obviously doesn't have living close relatives, but it would never occur to me to pick up a letter or card on someone's grave whom I don't know and then read it. it's a public space but it seems like a private thing written inside. or in this case, even, better that the sentiment remeained unknown to really anyone but the author.

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

Which way does that sway you?

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Quill did. In fact, I think she did the right thing. I read her previous thread and I think anyone who does even the smallest thing to stomp on white supremacy - and both the Confederate flag and that note are screaming racism - is a good thing. 

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

seeing a letter on a grave makes me think of forrest gump, where the kid writes a letter to his deceased mother and i think tells his dad (forrest) not to read it. the grave is out in the open and the letter is out in the open but the sentiment inside could still be private. I see envelopes of what I would think are letters or cards on graves whenever we drive by a cemetary. i would be extremely uncomfortable looking inside the envelopes to find people's private sentiments to a dead person. curiosity is one thing and i am pretty nosy if i'm honest....but that seems like a pretty private thing even if the grave is public.

I guess it's fine since you know the person obviously doesn't have living close relatives, but it would never occur to me to pick up a letter or card on someone's grave whom I don't know and then read it. it's a public space but it seems like a private thing written inside. or in this case, even, better that the sentiment remeained unknown to really anyone but the author.

But , but, but…….it is not reasonable or logical to think a letter you leave in a public place is going to remain private.  It just isn’t.  Sure a child believes that is possible….but that is childlike.  
 

[MercyA]

If you all have a problem with Quill taking a letter off a grave, I wonder what you think of this (apologies for the language). A truck is not so sacred, but this is more clearly theft:

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by MercyA

[Scarlett]

Just now, MercyA said:

If you all have a problem with Quill taking a letter off a grave, I wonder what you think of this:

 

 

LOL…..that is probably illegal…but very funny.