The Civil War vs. modern dialogue ... Have we lost anything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
When comparing the Civil War (and the Revolutionary War) with peaceful dialogue about disagreements in modern times (e.g. between Republicans in Democrats), I think it’s pretty obvious that we are, overall, better off nowadays … that is not what this thread is about. Rather I want to ask the flip side: Have we lost anything? In other words, are there any ways in which the old (even violent) methods of resolving disagreements were better than our modern-day method (peaceful dialogue)?
 
I think you are mixing up dialogue with physical conflict.

Even back then resorting to such levels of violence was rare, two conflicts in over 100 years.

Hopefully to your point, I think our modern PC mentality has reduced dialogue that can be very constructive. We seem to be ruled by group think and people are hesitant to question things publicly.
 
Unfortunately we are in the early stages of our next civil war.
 
I don’t think we’re less violent than those who lived at the time of the Civil War.

And I do think Church Soldier is right. We’re headed for a very violent time.
 
Have we lost anything? Yes.

The time to reflect on the issues of the day. Response time to the latest “tweet” (for good or ill, true or false) is almost instantaneous and can be worldwide. In the time of the American Civil War, news traveled only as fast as telegraph and the next day’s newspaper could carry it.

The family evening meal, where important issues could be discussed and where relationships were reinforced constantly. The younger generation learned from their parents.

The understanding that death came to all men (and women), to some faster than others. This present generation sees itself as indestructible in a way previous generations did not.
 
May be wrong but as I watched the Ken Burns documentary I was impressed by how well spoken even the common soldier was. Our oral and written skills, the art of letter writing, I think, have diminished.
 
venite_adoremus said:
Have we lost anything? Yes.

The time to reflect on the issues of the day. Response time to the latest “tweet” (for good or ill, true or false) is almost instantaneous and can be worldwide. In the time of the American Civil War, news traveled only as fast as telegraph and the next day’s newspaper could carry it.

The family evening meal, where important issues could be discussed and where relationships were reinforced constantly. The younger generation learned from their parents.

The understanding that death came to all men (and women), to some faster than others. This present generation sees itself as indestructible in a way previous generations did not.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that we have lost something (even though, overall, I would absolutely not wish for the old violenter ways to return).

I hadn’t thought of everything that people have suggested here, but for example, during the Civil War people made sacrifices – for some the ultimate sacrifice – to fight against the other side. I think we have lost the sense of that nowadays.
 
Peter_J said:
I hadn’t thought of everything that people have suggested here, but for example, during the Civil War people made sacrifices – for some the ultimate sacrifice – to fight against the other side. I think we have lost the sense of that nowadays.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I agree with this, even back in WW2, lots of people sacrificed and put up with a lot of inconvenience for the sake of the war effort, there were campaigns encouraging people not to buy certain products/ materials, so they could be used by the military, many of these made life very inconvenient, but lots of people did it anyway.

I do not think many people would be willing to sacrifice or be inconvenienced in the slightest way today for such things, I even think a majority would be offended they were even being asked to give something up.

One HUGE difference today though, is we have a very powerful military industrial complex, that in itself changes everything.
 
Bishop Barron discusses the “vanishing of the argument” which is in the sphere of moral equivalency and post-modernism.

youtube.com/watch?v=gX-dM-dokXc&t=65s

Also, the crux of the culture war today is not between right and left--------it’s between the regressive left/radical Islam/SJWs and everyone else mostly along the lines of free speech.
 
mikekle said:
Oh yes, I agree with this, even back in WW2, lots of people sacrificed and put up with a lot of inconvenience for the sake of the war effort, there were campaigns encouraging people not to buy certain products/ materials, so they could be used by the military, many of these made life very inconvenient, but lots of people did it anyway.

I do not think many people would be willing to sacrifice or be inconvenienced in the slightest way today for such things, I even think a majority would be offended they were even being asked to give something up.

One HUGE difference today though, is we have a very powerful military industrial complex, that in itself changes everything.
Click to expand...
People gave stuff up during WWII because they knew the stakes were very high------and they were. If we are talking about America, defense by the military is pretty explicitly stated in the constitution, so it’s not the same argument as using the force of government to force a productive to give to a less productive person.

Even self-proclaimed communists and socialists in America think that such philosophies means they get more “free” stuff.

One leader of Antifa even said he was going to fight capitalism with his i-phone and laptop. :rotfl:

I can’t even…😃
 
SuperLuigi said:
Bishop Barron discusses the “vanishing of the argument” which is in the sphere of moral equivalency and post-modernism.

youtube.com/watch?v=gX-dM-dokXc&t=65s

Also, the crux of the culture war today is not between right and left--------it’s between the regressive left/radical Islam/SJWs and everyone else mostly along the lines of free speech.
Click to expand...
Bishop Barron speaks of the lack of recognition and agreement on objective truth and instead of that agreement we see individuals and group basing morality on their own will to power. But then one has to ask, how do we possibly identify and agree on what is “objective truth”? Is it just the Catholics who have the clearest understanding? Of course we think so. But that just takes us back to a subjective interpretation. Unless we can get atheists, Muslims, Jews and evangelical…actually everyone regardless of religion…to agree on “Objective truth” it might as well not exist at all for purposes of dialogue.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Bishop Barron speaks of the lack of recognition and agreement on objective truth and instead of that agreement we see individuals and group basing morality on their own will to power. But then one has to ask, how do we possibly identify and agree on what is “objective truth”? Is it just the Catholics who have the clearest understanding? Of course we think so. But that just takes us back to a subjective interpretation. Unless we can get atheists, Muslims, Jews and evangelical…actually everyone regardless of religion…to agree on “Objective truth” it might as well not exist at all for purposes of dialogue.
Click to expand...
No, I think it’s better to just admit that our brains, our logic, and especially our languages are not perfect.
 
Peter_J said:
No, I think it’s better to just admit that our brains, our logic, and especially our languages are not perfect.
Click to expand...
I Think so also. Instead of trying to get everyone agree on what the “objective truth” is, we need to work on civility and constructive communication to discuss our different views without, snark, insult, rage and violence.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Bishop Barron speaks of the lack of recognition and agreement on objective truth and instead of that agreement we see individuals and group basing morality on their own will to power. But then one has to ask, how do we possibly identify and agree on what is “objective truth”? Is it just the Catholics who have the clearest understanding? Of course we think so. But that just takes us back to a subjective interpretation. Unless we can get atheists, Muslims, Jews and evangelical…actually everyone regardless of religion…to agree on “Objective truth” it might as well not exist at all for purposes of dialogue.
Click to expand...
Objective Truth is more obvious than is realized in the prior comment. If it weren’t, it’s opponents would not have to try so hard to bury it and attack it with the irrational tactics of disruption, violence and stampeding on free speech.

Catholics do have the clearest understanding because our Faith is founded by the Truth manifested as Jesus Christ without any strings attached.

I have and will defend religious freedom, but at the end of the day for someone who really understands the arguments and natural law, there are no counters, only excuses that can only result in selfish totalitarian views.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I Think so also. Instead of trying to get everyone agree on what the “objective truth” is, we need to work on civility and constructive communication to discuss our different views without, snark, insult, rage and violence.
Click to expand...
Catholics who understand their Faith and natural law do not need snark, rage or violence…or logical fallacies for that matter.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Catholics who understand their Faith and natural law do not need snark, rage or violence…or logical fallacies for that matter.
Click to expand...
And yet snark, rage and (verbal) violence are ubiquitous on this very forum.🤷
 
Michael_Mayo said:
And yet snark, rage and (verbal) violence are ubiquitous on this very forum.🤷
Click to expand...
More like on every forum.

Or at least if there is a forum on the Internet without those things it’s pretty well hidden. I sometimes wonder if our lives would be better without the net.
 
I think Peter’s on to something.

My background is philosophy and it seems to me that, with the internet discourse, people are simply trying to score points and do emotions thumping.

This may have to do with people generally believing that ideals either don’t exist or are not shared or are not legitimate things to defend or live by. Instead, it’s emotion and displays of power.
 
Theo520 said:
I think you are mixing up dialogue with physical conflict.

Even back then resorting to such levels of violence was rare, two conflicts in over 100 years.
Click to expand...
Two? War of 1812, many wars against Native Americans, Mexican-American war. And those are just the ones I can remember. There was also the Spanish-American war, but IIRC that was in the 1890s, so after the 100 year mark.
Hopefully to your point, I think our modern PC mentality has reduced dialogue that can be very constructive. We seem to be ruled by group think and people are hesitant to question things publicly.
Click to expand...
There is also the point that today, war can be a lot more destructive and so entails a higher risk. See North Korea as a case in point.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top