Kevin made a good point yesterday and I should have been more clear. When I see the word “traitor,” my problem is with the way that it is used within a body of work – the context in which it is used. If it is a part of discussing things within historical context, then I have no problem. Rather, it is when the word is used to invoke anger (or when it is used as a knee-jerk response as a result of anger) that bothers me. In regard to the use of such words, it would probably be interesting to write about words taken from different perspectives. From the die-hard Confederate heritage perspective, I suppose the use of the word “treason” in reference to a Confederate ancestor or hero would be taken offensively, no matter the context. Then again, I suppose people with sympathies for all-things Union should be offended by the most recent line of discussion about the Union and its efforts to “exterminate Southern culture.” Curiously, I wonder if die-hard neo-Confederates (hmm, I wonder if I am being somewhat redundant) consider their talk of such things as within the context of professional discussion about history.
The need to lay aside animosities for dead men – a clarification
Posted in: Re-inventing CW memory